Organic grocery shoppers accuse Silk of pulling the wool over their eyes by surreptitiously switching from "organic" to "natural."

As someone that avoids dairy, my milk musings tend to be about one of two things:  almond milk or soy milk.  Both have their nutritional benefits, and both have a great, smooth taste I enjoy.  But after a recent report appearing in the pages of the Dallas Star-Telegram, I can’t help but wonder:  Was I the victim of a Silk bilk?

For the past year, thousands of Silk fans have been drinking from that familiar Silk blue carton, thinking that nothing’s changed.  But boy, how things have changed.  Because if you actually take a look at the labeling on those cartons, it no longer says “Organic.”  It now says “Natural.”

This re-labeling is what has so many fans of Silk—or former fans of Silk—up in arms.  Because as many of you know, “natural” is not the same thing as “organic.”  It’s sad to say, but “natural” has become so broadly defined, virtually anything can be labeled as being “natural” (remember the “Natural” bottles of 7-UP?).  So long as it doesn’t contain artificial ingredients, the natural label can be plastered on to just about any box, carton, bottle, or jug, as there are no hardened-fast guidelines as to what does and does not qualify as being “natural.”  For example, contrary to popular belief, it’s perfectly fine to label a product “natural” even though it’s been sprayed with chemical fertilizers or chemical pesticides.  A much stricter standard is applied to the organic seal, which comes under federal guidelines.

Now, in Dean Food’s defense—the company that markets and produces the Silk line of milk—they do have an organic option.  Their new organic Silk product comes in a green carton and is indeed certified organic.  In an email sent to the Star-Telegram, they apologize to their consumers for the confusion the switch may have caused, but defend the switch by saying that “offering both natural and organic products is the right thing to do for our customers.”

But the “rightness” of their decision is marred by the fact that there was no significant price change when going from the organic to the all-natural variety.  And there ought to have been, because according to The Organic & Non-GMO Report, Dean cut their costs in half by going to natural soybeans (non-genetically modified) over organic soybeans ($11 per bushel versus $19 per bushel).

Dean Food’s clearly didn’t break any laws by instituting these changes, but their re-branding without anyone noticing certainly has all the hallmarks of a “bait-and-switch,” as former fans of Silk are calling it.

What do you think?  Was Silk in the wrong?  Will you continue drinking Silk, or is this an egregious enough action to swear off Silk?  Then again, perhaps you think the difference between “natural” and “organic” is negligible?

Sources:
featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com
star-telegram.com
naturalnews.com

Organic farming relies on natural ways to maintain soil productivity.

On the heels of my writing about the Environmental Working Group’s analysis of the most pesticide-riddled foods, this little news bulletin crossed my computer monitor:  “Organics no healthier than other foods.”

Talk about timing, huh?

Of course, many of us are used to this dog and pony show by now, but it’s really unfortunate that the organic deniers are still out there, doing all they can to deride the sustainability of our soil and our long term health.

Before I start defending, yet again, the organic industry, here’s the latest “study” to debunk the health benefits of organic vegetables.

It comes out of Britain, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to be specific.  In their analysis of over 150 different studies, they claim to have found no statistically significant differences in the nutrient levels of organic foods and conventionally produced foods.  Whether they were vegetables, fruits, dairy or meat products, nutrients like vitamin C, iron and calcium were all the same.

Most people who buy organic produce know that it’s better for them both nutritionally and taste-wise. They’re not going to dignify some study’s findings by not buying organic produce.

However, there are a number of people out there who are right on the edge, unsure of whether it’s worth the extra money to buy organic.  It’s these people I wish to speak to.

So is it worth it?  Three words:  Yes, yes and yes.

One of the main reasons why it’s worth it is the sustainability factor of our soils.  Pesticide is poison; no study will say otherwise.

Farmers find pesticide useful because it kills stubborn insects and garden pests, while at the same time helping their fruits and vegetables to grow quicker and larger.

Sounds great, right?

Well, no, actually.  Because there’s a trade off.

While garden pests will stay away, the toxic concoction has to go somewhere.  And the stuff that isn’t consumed by us when we bite into an apple (one of the more pesticide-laden fruits) poisoning soils, (making it less fertile), flows into river waters (harming wildlife), and reduces the number of species that help plants germinate and produce fruits and vegetables.

Speaking of species, bees are crucial to crops’ survival and rate of production.  Yet bees are in short supply on conventionally grown farm lands.  In fact, according to Molly Conisbee of the Soil Association, organic farmlands have 50 percent more species, like bees, than conventional farmlands that use pesticides.

So by buying organic, you’re guaranteeing a better environment and greater crop yield for the future.

As far as nutrition goes, there’s no question organic is better than conventional – I don’t care what the British study says.  And the reason I don’t care is because the study was extremely subjective in its analysis.

For example, the researchers said there wasn’t any real difference in vitamin C, iron and calcium.  OK.  But what about other nutrients, like beta-carotene and the number of flavonoids?

Surprise!  There was a difference – and the organic produce had higher levels!

Further, as noted by Paula Crossfield at The Huffington Post, there is a difference in vitamin C content among organically grown and conventionally grown produce.  And according to the 2008 study commissioned by The Organic Center, organic produce had 25 percent more vitamin C than the conventionally grown produce in the Organic Center’s analysis.

If all that weren’t enough, going back to the Soil Association’s analysis, not only does organic produce have more of what you want, it has less of what you don’t want, like cadmium and nickel.  These two chemical compounds are typically found on industrial sites, cadmium being a carcinogen.

Studies abound, and virtually anybody can find a study that either supports or negates an issue.  But in the argument over organic versus conventional produce, it boils down to common sense:  Is something produced naturally more likely to be healthier, or is something that’s loaded with pesticides and artificial growth hormones more likely to be healthier?

I know which one I’m choosing for my health.  How about you?

Sources:
blogs.usatoday.com
huffingtonpost.com
telegraph.co.uk

Basket of organic apples.

For several years now, the British Nutrition Foundation has doggedly held by the notion that organic produce is no more nutritious than conventional produce.  They hold that the only real reason one ought to pony up the extra two to three bucks for a head of lettuce or a peck of peppers is to preserve farmers’ soil from which vegetables derive, as organic farmers don’t use artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

That, in and of itself, is a reason to go organic.  But there’s an increasing amount of evidence that suggests organic produce is indeed more nutritious than conventional produce.  And it’s not just studies drummed up from several years ago.  These are very recent studies, one of which was done on the f’apple’ous apple.

According to German researchers who published their findings in the most recent issuing of the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, organically-grown apples produce 15 percent more antioxidants than conventionally-grown apples.  They discovered this after a three-year observational study that literally started from the ground up:  comparing how apples produced conventionally to those produced organically measured up in terms of how much polyphenols they produced by harvest time (polyphenols are a type of antioxidant found primarily in the skin of fruits that have loads of anti-cancer properties, not to mention anti-aging properties).  Their results indicated that those grown organically – the golden delicious variety, between 2005 and 2006 – yielded 15 percent more antioxidant capacity than the conventional crop.

A finding like this flies in the face of some scientists who argue that not only do organic foods have no nutritional benefit over conventional produce, but that conventional produce is more nutritious than organic produce, as a Rutgers University scientist asserts!!

He’s entitled to his opinion, but I’m curious if he – unlike the British Nutrition Foundation – is willing to modify his assertion after this study.  Or how about the University of California-Davis study on tomatoes, which found that organically-grown tomatoes had approximately 100 percent more quercetin than conventionally-grown tom-toms (quercetin is a chemical compound known for it’s anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties).  Or how about the finding published in a 2007 issuing of the Nutrition Bulletin, which found “strong and consistent” evidence of more vitamin C found in organically-grown potatoes than conventionally grown spuds.

The great thing about science is that it’s always improving; what wasn’t known at one point becomes known, due to advancements in technology and methodology.  The not-so-great thing about science – or should I say scientists? – are those who are too pigheaded to believe that they could be, in fact, wrong about something.

Eventually, some will change their tune. In the meantime, don’t stop humming this unchained melody:   Organic foods are not only better for the earth, but they’re better for you nutritionally – whether they’re kiwis or apples, tomatoes or potatoes (I’ll talk about the kiwi study in a future article).

Sources:
Foodnavigator.com
Foodnavigator.com
Foodnavigator.com

An investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is moving forward with regard to suspicions that retail giant Wal-Mart has mislabeling certain products as “organic” and in turn misleading consumers.

“We are beginning an investigation that will look into signage and whether it can be considered misleading,” said Jim Rabbitt, director of the department’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The primary focus of the investigation is to determine whether allegations put forth by the watchdog group The Cornucopia Institute including signs and banners that read “Wal-Mart Organics” being placed on or above shelves containing items that are not certified organic.

In March 2006, an announcement from Wal-Mart stated the selection of organic products in its stores would be doubled.  Following the announcement was an ad campaign in parenting and women’s magazines as well as on television. The company stated that one of it’s goals was to make organics more affordable to general consumers.

Typically in supermarkets, organic food costs 30 to 40 percent more in price than for food grown using chemicals and genetic engineering. The result has been a 15% annual growth in the organic industry over the last five years.

According to the Cornucopia Institute, they initially took notice to labeling problems at Wal-Mart’s prototype store in Plano, Texas. Further investigation revealed the same problems in at least four states including Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Cornucopia Institute filed complaints with both the state of Wisconsin as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA has not yet decided whether to investigate.

Joan Schaffer, spokesperson for the agency’s national organic program says “We’re seeking more information to determine what action should be taken.”

Randy Lee, chief financial officer of grocery co-op PCC Natural Markets, had this to say about the USDA’s lack of action regarding Wal-Mart’s practices and the USDA’s lack of action.

“A huge amount of work went into coming up with a standard of quality in the organic industry,” he said. “If these allegations are true, then it very easily erodes those standards and comes with a significant business impact on other retailers that have higher standards.”

“Where is the USDA in all this?” he asked.

Folks, I ask the same thing. It seems rather ironic that government agencies scrutinize every move that certain natural supplement manufacturers make, yet anytime Big Pharma or any powerful company deceives the public, they are nowhere to be found.

The decision of falsely labeling products “organic” in an effort to increase revenue that has become the “organic bandwagon” is pretty disturbing in my opinion.

Hopefully someday, the government will take more action on matters such as this and protect the “healthy” consumer’s interest.