City officials, urban planners, architects and a variety of advocacy groups gathered in Portland, Ore., over the weekend for the National League of Cities’ first conference devoted entirely to sustainability.
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
Monday, July 6, 2009
Spam and Global Warming?
Last week, “The Carbon Footprint of E-mail Spam Report” made the rounds on the Internet thanks in part to write-ups at various news Web sites.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
THE rush to go on a carbon diet,even by proxy is in overdrive.In addition to the celebrities — Leo, Brad, George — politicians like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are now running, at least part of the time, carbon-neutral campaigns. A lengthening list of big businesses — international banks, London’s taxi fleet, luxury airlines — also claim “carbon neutrality.” Silverjet, a plush new trans-Atlantic carrier, bills itself as the first fully carbon-neutral airline. It puts about $28 of each round-trip ticket into a fund for global projects that, in theory, squelch as much carbon dioxide as the airline generates — about 1.2 tons per passenger, the airline says.
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.y proxy, is in overdrive
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.y proxy, is in overdrive
Global Warming
On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
NASA Expert Criticizes Bush on Global Warming Policy
top NASA climate expert who twice briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming plans to criticize the administration's approach to the issue in a lecture at the University of Iowa tonight and say that a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperaturesThe expert, Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, expects to say that the Bush administration has ignored growing evidence that sea levels could rise significantly unless prompt action is taken to reduce heat-trapping emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes.
Many academic scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have been criticizing the administration over its handling of climate change and other complex scientific issues. But Dr. Hansen, first in an interview with The New York Times a week ago and again in his planned lecture today, is the only leading scientist to speak out so publicly while still in the employ of the government.
In the talk, Dr. Hansen, who describes himself as "moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road" and registered in Pennsylvania as an independent, plans to say that he will vote for Senator John Kerry, while also criticizing some of Mr. Kerry's positions, particularly his pledge to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada.
He will acknowledge that one of the accolades he has received for his work on climate change is a $250,000 Heinz Award, given in 2001 by a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, Mr. Kerry's wife. The awards are given to people who advance causes promoted by Senator John Heinz, the Pennsylvania Republican who was Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband.
But in an interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen said he was confident that the award had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."
In a draft of the talk, a copy of which Dr. Hansen provided to The Times yesterday, he wrote that President Bush's climate policy, which puts off consideration of binding cuts in such emissions until 2012, was likely to be too little too late.
Actions to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions "are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security," Dr. Hansen wrote. "Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."
In the speech, Dr. Hansen also says that last year, after he gave a presentation on the dangers of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate shifts to Sean O'Keefe, the NASA administrator, "the administrator interrupted me; he told me that I should not talk about dangerous anthropogenic interference, because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."
After conferring with Mr. O'Keefe, Glenn Mahone, the administrator's spokesman, said Mr. O'Keefe had a completely different recollection of the meeting. "To say the least, Sean is certain that he did not admonish or even suggest that there be a throttling back of research efforts" by Dr. Hansen or his team, Mr. Mahone said.
Dr. Franco Einaudi, director of the NASA Earth Sciences Directorate at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Dr. Hansen's supervisor, said he was at the meeting between Dr. Hansen and Mr. O'Keefe. Dr. Einaudi confirmed that Mr. O'Keefe had interrupted the presentation to say that these were "delicate issues" and there was a lot of uncertainty about them. But, he added: "Whether it is obvious to take that as an order or not is a question of judgment. Personally, I did not take it as an order."
Dr. John H. Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, said he was not privy to any exchanges between Dr. Hansen and the administrator of NASA. But he denied that the White House was playing down the risks posed by climate change.
"President Bush has long recognized the serious implications of climate change, the role of human activity, and our responsibility to reduce emissions,'' Dr. Marburger said in an e-mailed statement. "He has put forward a series of policy initiatives including a commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy.''
In the interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings.
Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign. He said he decided to speak out after months of deliberation because he was convinced the country needed to change course on climate policy.
Many academic scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have been criticizing the administration over its handling of climate change and other complex scientific issues. But Dr. Hansen, first in an interview with The New York Times a week ago and again in his planned lecture today, is the only leading scientist to speak out so publicly while still in the employ of the government.
In the talk, Dr. Hansen, who describes himself as "moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road" and registered in Pennsylvania as an independent, plans to say that he will vote for Senator John Kerry, while also criticizing some of Mr. Kerry's positions, particularly his pledge to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada.
He will acknowledge that one of the accolades he has received for his work on climate change is a $250,000 Heinz Award, given in 2001 by a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, Mr. Kerry's wife. The awards are given to people who advance causes promoted by Senator John Heinz, the Pennsylvania Republican who was Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband.
But in an interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen said he was confident that the award had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."
In a draft of the talk, a copy of which Dr. Hansen provided to The Times yesterday, he wrote that President Bush's climate policy, which puts off consideration of binding cuts in such emissions until 2012, was likely to be too little too late.
Actions to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions "are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security," Dr. Hansen wrote. "Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."
In the speech, Dr. Hansen also says that last year, after he gave a presentation on the dangers of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate shifts to Sean O'Keefe, the NASA administrator, "the administrator interrupted me; he told me that I should not talk about dangerous anthropogenic interference, because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."
After conferring with Mr. O'Keefe, Glenn Mahone, the administrator's spokesman, said Mr. O'Keefe had a completely different recollection of the meeting. "To say the least, Sean is certain that he did not admonish or even suggest that there be a throttling back of research efforts" by Dr. Hansen or his team, Mr. Mahone said.
Dr. Franco Einaudi, director of the NASA Earth Sciences Directorate at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Dr. Hansen's supervisor, said he was at the meeting between Dr. Hansen and Mr. O'Keefe. Dr. Einaudi confirmed that Mr. O'Keefe had interrupted the presentation to say that these were "delicate issues" and there was a lot of uncertainty about them. But, he added: "Whether it is obvious to take that as an order or not is a question of judgment. Personally, I did not take it as an order."
Dr. John H. Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, said he was not privy to any exchanges between Dr. Hansen and the administrator of NASA. But he denied that the White House was playing down the risks posed by climate change.
"President Bush has long recognized the serious implications of climate change, the role of human activity, and our responsibility to reduce emissions,'' Dr. Marburger said in an e-mailed statement. "He has put forward a series of policy initiatives including a commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy.''
In the interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings.
Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign. He said he decided to speak out after months of deliberation because he was convinced the country needed to change course on climate policy.
Oxfam Details Economic Impact of Warming
Cities like New Delhi in India could see as much as a 30 percent drop in worker productivity because rising temperatures will make it impossible for people to work at the same rate on hot summer days without serious health impacts, Oxfam, the international aid group, warned on Monday.
Oxfam laid out warnings about the effects of climate change on poorer regions of the world as global leaders prepare to meet at the G8 summit later this week. Oxfam said it was seeking to rally leaders to agree to help developing nations adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. Those effects, groups like Oxfam say, are likely to happen even if a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is reached later this year.
In a report, Suffering the Science - Climate Change, People and Poverty, Oxfam used information gathered from the insurance industry to warn that “mega fires” and storms are on the rise, and it noted that people in poor parts of the world have no access to insurance.
In addition, Oxfam highlighted how trade patterns are likely shift as climate change takes hold, with many richer parts of the world receiving a boost while many poor regions become even more disadvantaged.
The group, which has posted related images and stories here, said American agricultural profits were set to rise by $1.3 billion annually because of climate change, while sub-Saharan Africa would lose $2 billion annually as the viability of one of the region’s staple crops, maize, declined.
Keeping the rise in global temperature to two degrees above pre-industrial levels (a level the United States may agree to at the G8 meeting later this week) was “economically acceptable” for rich countries, said Oxfam — though such a rise in temperature would still mean “a devastating future for 660 million people,” the group warned.
Oxfam laid out warnings about the effects of climate change on poorer regions of the world as global leaders prepare to meet at the G8 summit later this week. Oxfam said it was seeking to rally leaders to agree to help developing nations adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. Those effects, groups like Oxfam say, are likely to happen even if a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is reached later this year.
In a report, Suffering the Science - Climate Change, People and Poverty, Oxfam used information gathered from the insurance industry to warn that “mega fires” and storms are on the rise, and it noted that people in poor parts of the world have no access to insurance.
In addition, Oxfam highlighted how trade patterns are likely shift as climate change takes hold, with many richer parts of the world receiving a boost while many poor regions become even more disadvantaged.
The group, which has posted related images and stories here, said American agricultural profits were set to rise by $1.3 billion annually because of climate change, while sub-Saharan Africa would lose $2 billion annually as the viability of one of the region’s staple crops, maize, declined.
Keeping the rise in global temperature to two degrees above pre-industrial levels (a level the United States may agree to at the G8 meeting later this week) was “economically acceptable” for rich countries, said Oxfam — though such a rise in temperature would still mean “a devastating future for 660 million people,” the group warned.
USDA organic label comes under fire
Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from products carrying the federal organic label. Today those same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90% of organic baby formula.The government's about-face came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped companies secure a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal for their products.
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Relaxed federal standards -- and a surge in consumer demand -- have helped the organics market become a $23-billion-a-year business, the fastest-growing segment of the food industry. Half of the nation's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who oftentimes pay more for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in environmentally friendly ways.
That has fueled debate over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of organic or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to certify more products as organic.In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers hired by farmers and food producers to inspect products and determine whether they can use the label.Some consumer groups and members of Congress worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself."It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. But by then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg Co. owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola Co. owns 40% of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production.Under the original organics law, 5% of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.
The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Relaxed federal standards -- and a surge in consumer demand -- have helped the organics market become a $23-billion-a-year business, the fastest-growing segment of the food industry. Half of the nation's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who oftentimes pay more for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in environmentally friendly ways.
That has fueled debate over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of organic or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to certify more products as organic.In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers hired by farmers and food producers to inspect products and determine whether they can use the label.Some consumer groups and members of Congress worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself."It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. But by then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg Co. owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola Co. owns 40% of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production.Under the original organics law, 5% of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.
The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)