AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! In our next segment, we’re going to be talking about the organic food standard proposals that have been made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Before we go to our guests — a columnist for Mother Jones who deals with the environment and an organic farmer in California — we wanted to play some of the many comments — and that’s putting it mildly — that we got after our March 19th show, which was a debate on the standards. We had a member of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a spokesperson named Tom O’Brien, who was associate administrator at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And we were also joined by Katherine DiMatteo, the executive director of the Organic Trade Association, which is a business group representing the organic industry in the United States and Canada. Well, we were inundated with calls of people all over the country who had something to say about it. So take a listen to what some of your fellow and sister listeners had to say, and then we’re going to turn to our guests to talk about the latest on the issue.

RICK MARTINEZ: Yes, my name is Rick Martinez. I inspect organic crops for certification in many different parts of the world. And I was calling to comment on the program that you did on the U.S. organic proposed rules for the Organic Food Production Act. One of the main concerns I had, the gentleman from the USDA stated that they were only seeking comment on these issues such as sludge and irradiation. Well, they’ve been seeking comments for seven years, as Mr. Mario mentioned, and the comment has been overwhelmingly against these issues. The NOSB has come out against these issues. And so, now the USDA is establishing a pattern of ignoring our comment. I don’t know if they’re looking for a particular answer, and they’re going to keep ignoring comment until they get it. So that’s of grave concern, that they have gotten comments, it may not have been the comment they were looking for, so they are again seeking comment. So, I think we should all be concerned when they ignore such overwhelming comment and are seeking maybe a different comment than they’ve already received. I think it’s real important for the consumer to really stand up now and put their feet down and say that we will not accept this type of behavior. And I appreciate the time that you all put into the subject. Thank you.

ALYCE ORTUZAR: Yes, my name is Alyce Ortuzar, and I’m calling from Montgomery County, Maryland. People should know that the USDA calls chickens frozen at zero degrees fresh. Isn’t it time to make the USDA conform to the correct definitions of words and not be able to redefine words, as they are trying to do by wanting to label bioengineered products organic, which is an oxymoron. Thank you.

WILLIAM LAFFERMAN: My name is William Lafferman. I’ve been involved in the promotion, production and distribution of organically grown foods for the past 20 years. During our early days of promotion and development of organic agriculture, which was in the late ’70s, we were in desperate need of a national standard. At that time, the U.S. government was opposed to entertaining the notion of national standards. In fact, the lack of national standards was probably the leading piece of negative propaganda used against the organic food industry. Commercial growers, distributors and retailers resisted organic agriculture and its products primarily because there was no sure way of certifying or identifying them as organically grown.

In response to the lack of federal attention to this matter, the organic and natural food industry developed their own programs, standards, and essentially self-regulated themselves. The National Organic Standards Board, which is the group that was appointed by the USDA to outline the proposed national standards, are primarily businesspeople, farmers and citizens who are actively participating in the national organic food industry. Their proposals to the USDA are based on current strict standards. The organic and natural food industry, as well as the consumers here in the U.S., are in favor of these strict standards.

So, one has to ask: Why the sudden turnaround by the USDA? Well, Amy, as you know, and I think I’ve heard you say before, follow the money. The organic and natural food industry has been growing in leaps and bounds. Stocks, gross sales and gross profit margins within the industry has attracted agribusiness. Conventional agriculture is based on proprietary chemicals. Organic agriculture is based on a combination of commonsense farming and alternative safe products. Commonsense farming and organic farming, for the large part, are nonproprietary.

CHARLES MARGULIS: Hi. This is Charles Margulis from the Westchester People’s Action Coalition calling about the debate around organic food standards. WESPAC has materials available for people in Westchester to take to their local natural food stores and enlist their help in fighting for stricter organic standards. We’ve been working with the Westchester Green Party. The Green Party has done some great organizing in the area around this issue. And anyone who wants to join us can call us at WESPAC. It’s 914-682-0488. And I want to say, when the gentleman from the biotech industry association asked why genetically engineered foods should be excluded, he was asking the wrong question. The question should be: Can the biotech industry prove that genetically engineered agriculture is safe for consumers and for the environment? If they can’t — and they can’t. They have no long-term studies. They have no large field studies. And yet they still want to use our planet and our food supply as their laboratory. This is unacceptable, and we should work together to stop this, not only in organic foods, but in our entire food supply. We should work to keep genetically engineered foods out of the food supply until they can prove that it’s safe. And if they can’t prove so, then it should be stopped. Thanks very much.

AMY GOODMAN: And just some of the many calls we’ve gotten on Democracy Now! from people around the country responding to the whole issue of organic food standards that are being proposed by the Department of Agriculture. And we’d like to hear from you, as well. You can call us at 212-564-7702, as we continue to follow this issue. And when we come back, we’ll be joined by an organic farmer and environmental columnist. Stay with us here on Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!, the program that dares to ask the questions the corporate media won’t. I’m Amy Goodman.

This past December, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman announced a proposed new set of national standards for the burgeoning organic food industry. Simply put, the new rules aim to set a uniform national standard about what is and what is not organic. One area that’s generated the most attention has been whether genetically engineered organisms and biotech food products should be included as organic.

We’ve had several discussions on this issue, and today we continue them with two new guests. We’re joined by Leora Broydo, who is an environmental columnist for Mother Jones magazine. And we’re also joined by Leonard Diggs, an organic farmer in Sonoma County, California, and owner of Leonard Diggs Organic Farms.

How’s the weather today, Leonard?

LEONARD DIGGS: So far, so good.

AMY GOODMAN: What will you be doing today on your farm?

LEONARD DIGGS: Well, because it isn’t raining yet, and it might rain tomorrow, I will actually try to go out in some areas, where it’s possible, and a specific part of the soil where I farm that isn’t possible, but there are some parts where it’s possible to go out and plant and get ready to do so.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you grow?

LEONARD DIGGS: Mixed vegetables, especially crops such as heirloom tomatoes and salad greens.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your comment on the debate right now that is raging around these new USDA organic food standards? What’s your synopsis of what they’re proposing, and what is your objection?

LEONARD DIGGS: Well, my overview of it is that the genetic-engineered aspects and the biosolids are somewhat distracting, that there’s a lot that’s being proposed, besides those issues that have reached the public ear and attention, that are really not appropriate. There’s a lot of incidental products that are being asked to be included, which have never been part of the organic production system. And I think it’s a poor attempt at trying to regulate an industry. It’s really watering down what we’ve currently come to understand is what’s organic. And unfortunately, it’s being presented in a way that the public is being confused.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the issue of biotechnology? And in what way does — what can you tell us, from your experience as an organic farmer, about what you think about bioengineered products being included under the organic food standards?

LEONARD DIGGS: Well, I think I’d approach it in maybe a slightly different tract, in that I would question the pace of progress. We seem to think that — and when I say “we,” I use the plural for people in this country and, I think, a lot of people in the Western world — that biotech is the future for us. And I would question that we’re willing to take this willy-nilly pace at approaching this future without really taking the proper precautions to take a good look at what’s being offered with it and and what the effects are.

I mean, we did a similar thing when we started and established what we call the Green Revolution. And depending on who you ask, there seems to have been a belief that there was success with that Green Revolution. So it’s a matter of perception. I mean, most of the government, most of the universities, the agricultural aspects of the university, believe that the Green Revolution was a success. But if you ask a lot of environmentalists or people who looked at the social impact of the Green Revolution, there was a lot of failure. And I think we have the potential with genetic engineering to create a lot of failures also if we rush into this. And I think we need to really watch the pace.

AMY GOODMAN: As I said, we’re also joined by Leora Broydo, who is environmental columnist for Mother Jones magazine. This is an issue that you have been continuing to cover in the magazine and on the MoJo Wire, on the internet version of Mother Jones. Can you tell us, Leora, about some of your pieces? You wrote one called ”USDA Inc.: When the USDA research goes corporate, the results can be visionary, disturbing or just goofy.” Why the biotechnology products are being included in these organic food standards?

LEORA BROYDO: Well, I think that the fact that USDA was facing an uphill battle of the biotech industry, in general, with respect to genetically engineered foods in Europe is, in my mind, the main reason they included these. And one of the stories I wrote outlines a memo, a USDA internal memo, which clearly states that including genetically — or, not including genetically engineered foods in the organic standards would look like the department was questioning the safety of them. Organic food has the highest standard, and they wanted that for genetically engineered foods, and they were willing to, you know, ignore the recommendations of the organic industry to have that.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s interesting. It reminds me of the whole battle between corporations like Monsanto suing companies like Ben & Jerry’s, who wanted to put on their ice cream “bovine growth hormone-free,” ”BGH-free,” and Monsanto sued them, saying — well, I mean, it was true that their products were BGH-free — that they couldn’t say that, because it suggested that that was dangerous, then.

LEORA BROYDO: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why is the USDA beholden to the biogenetics industry?

LEORA BROYDO: Well, I think that USDA has a tremendous — I mean, there’s the “follow the money” issue, as I heard one caller say. But there is also the issue that the USDA has invested tremendous resources in genetic engineering and biotech, in general. I mean, when you think about it, USDA’s biotech research budget is more money, close to $4 billion, which is bigger than the entire organic industry in America, you know, as far income goes.

AMY GOODMAN: Wow.

LEORA BROYDO: So, they have — right now there are millions of acres of fields planted with this stuff in the United States. We’re pushing it overseas. And I think that they find themselves in a position where they need to do anything to, you know, increase the credibility of those crops.

AMY GOODMAN: Leora, you did a more recent piece called “A Seedy Business: How a New Terminator Technology Will Make Crops Sterile and Force Farmers to Buy Seeds More Often.” And you say it’s the USDA that invented it. Can you explain?

LEORA BROYDO: Yes, the USDA, in a cooperative effort with Delta Pine Land Company — Delta & Pine Land Company, came up with a technology, and it’s actually patented to the USDA. This was a surprise to me. The USDA actually holds many patents. And what the technology does, what they use taxpayer money to develop, is a technology that will prevent seeds from germinating — the progeny of seeds from germinating, so that farmers have to buy each and every year. Genetically engineered — companies that produce genetically engineered seeds have had a tough time getting farmers, especially in Third World countries and developing countries, to come back to them year after year, which is part of the requirement if you buy those seeds. And this technology could take care of that problem for them.

AMY GOODMAN: Leonard Diggs, how does this kind of technology affect a farmer like you?

LEONARD DIGGS: Well, I think most growers need to purchase seed in this day and age. A lot of us don’t grow our own seed. And what happens, I consider this a proprietary issue. And it’s interesting, because it’s the same issue which really faces the organic community in regards to these new proposed rules: Who owns it? We, as organic farmers and the organic consumers in the community, we believe in it. We built it. We buy it. And I think we own it. Ownership gives us this proprietary right, at least at this point, when we have tenure, to decide the fate. Well, I think, in part, what’s going on with GMOs is that if you own it, if you own a particular seed that you’ve created, you have these proprietary rights to decide how that seed is going to be used, who gets access, what type of price you get paid. So, we have to decide, as a community of farmers and consumers, whether or not to give up the heritage of the crops that we grow to people who make seed. And that’s basically what this is about. It’s about who owns this.

AMY GOODMAN: How are organic farmers organizing right now?

LEONARD DIGGS: Well, all over the country, we’re doing different things. It’s a pretty grassroots organization. In my area here in California, where we have anywhere from 50 to 80% of the organic crops being grown and produced, we’re looking at working at local levels, trying to get resolutions from city councils. We’re working with our legislators to try and get our Department of Agriculture to respond to the USDA and let them know what type of programs we have in our state. And I see that happening all over, wherever the USDA had hearings across the country. Agriculturalists and Departments of Agriculture came out in force to respond to the USDA. So, it’s working at the grassroots level, which is what we are, and also trying to get out the word all over the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, what is the timetable right now for the organic food standards that are now just a proposal? When will they issue the final form?

LEONARD DIGGS: It’s a little vague. It’s one of the things that we’re all concerned about. The process is such that after the public comment period, the USDA needs to take consideration of all the comments and then either release a final proposal or resubmit proposals. And we’re really quite unsure, and we’re not quite sure also what would be the process once final proposals are released, whether or not we would have an opportunity at that time to object and try to make corrections. So it’s really still quite vague.

AMY GOODMAN: Leora Broydo, in your pieces that you do for Mother Jones magazine, how easy is it to get information on, for example, the USDA, their patents, what they’re doing?

LEORA BROYDO: It’s very difficult. It’s very difficult to get interviews. It’s very hard to get people to talk about these things. I don’t know what the big secret is. For my “A Seedy Business” story, the one about the new technology, one of — I actually got through to a USDA scientist to talk to who was extremely helpful. And then, when I called back to ask some more questions, he was told he can’t talk to me anymore. So, that’s the kind of thing that one faces when trying to do research on these stories.

AMY GOODMAN: If people want to get a hold of the series of articles that you’ve been doing on the USDA, where can they go on the web?

LEORA BROYDO: It’s www.MotherJones.com. And there’s an archive there where all the stories are. They should be pretty easily accessed. If not, they can always call Mother Jones. If it’s not a long distance call, that’s 415-665-6637,

AMY GOODMAN: One more time?

AMY GOODMAN: And, Leonard Diggs, if people want to get in touch with organic farmers that are organizing around the country around organic food standards, where can they call?

LEONARD DIGGS: Well, I say that it’s difficult to have one number, and what I would suggest to people is to contact the local organizations. And each one — each state has a different network. But either the local certifiers — for instance, in California, it’s the California certifiers, California Certified Organic Farmers — or the local Ag Department, which in many of the states, like California and Texas, already have organic programs. So there’s a fairly extensive network, and I would say start in your health food stores. Most of the health food stores who are members of the Organic Trade Association are putting out literature for the local areas, and you’d be able to find out exactly in your area where to write.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both very much for joining us. Leonard Diggs, an organic farmer from Sonoma County in Northern California, and Leora Broydo, environmental columnist for Mother Jones magazine. Also, have a very happy Earth Day. We’d like to know how you’re organizing around these issues — you can give us a call — and also how you’re celebrating this Earth Day. I noticed that our previous guest, Anna Aurilio, came in her Suburban, in her sport utility vehicle. She brought it up in the elevator. In fact, it was a bicycle. So I hope you get to ride a bicycle today or do something to protect the Earth. And let us know, because each day should be Earth Day. Give us a call at 212-564-7702. We’d love to hear your comments and to play them on the air. If you’d like to get a copy of today’s program, you can call the Pacifica Archives at 1-800-735-0230, and they’ll send you a cassette copy. That’s 1-800-735-0230. And we’d love to hear from you on the world wide web. We can be reached by email at democracy@pacifica.org That’s democracy@pacifica.org. Democracy Now! is produced by Hesu Coue and Jeremy Scahill. Errol Maitland is our technical director; Michelle García, our web technician. Our website is www.pacifica.org. Julie Drizin is our executive producer. From the studios of WBAI in New York, I’m Amy Goodman, for another edition of Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!