Who’s paying for GMO-labeling initiative campaigns?

Groups opposed to labeling genetically modified food outspent those in favor 5 to 1 last year when Californians voted on a labeling ballot measure. But the tables are turned in the run-up to an initiative vote in Washington state. So far, pro-labeling groups have spent more than $4 for every $1 spent by those opposed, according to an analysis by MapLight.

Contributions in support of Washington Ballot Initiative 522 (“The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”) add up to nearly $4 million $3.5 million, while the opposition has raised about $950,000. The big money comes from the same interests that ponied during the California campaign, as you can see in this chart.

That chart only shows the biggest contributors. Pro-labeling contributions come from a broader base; the money supporting the initiative comes from 5,698 supporters, compared to just 12 contributors in opposition.

The relative weight of contributions, however, is likely to shift rapidly as the Washington initiative approaches its Nov. 5 moment of truth at the ballot box. Last year, the campaign against the California proposition spent $42 million in the six weeks before the vote. That proposition failed, with 6.4 million “no” votes, and 6.1 million votes in favor.

After that vote, both sides promised to fight just as vigorously in future campaigns. There are dozens of bills currently making their way through statehouses that would require the labeling of GM foods.

Editor’s Note and Correction: This story includes a chart from MapLight showing supporters of 1-522 had given $3,869,078. The correct number is $3,489,078.13, according to a MapLight correction.

MapLight has issued this update: “A previous version of MapLight’s analysis cited the total amount raised in support of I-522 as $3,869,078, including two contributions that were disclosed by the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as having been made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND’ when in fact they were made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE.’ As a committee that is supporting I-522, contributions from ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE to other committees supporting I-522 should be excluded from the total amount raised in support of this measure, making the correct total $3,489,078.13.”

[via grist]

25 Unhealthiest Conventional Foods [Infographic]

If the danger of toxic chemicals in your food isn't enough, take some of these stats into consideration when expounding the virtues of organic, especially in the case of the 25 unhealthiest conventional foods, listed below.

[via New Hope 360]

Why GMO Labeling Won't Cost Consumers a Dime

By Zack Kaldveer and Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, April 9, 2013

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, will soon descend on the state of Washington to try their best to defeat I-522, a citizens’ ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Voters should prepare themselves for an onslaught of discredited talking points, nonsensical red herrings, and outright lies designed to convince voters that they shouldn’t have the right to know what’s in the food they eat.

Topping the biotech industry’s propaganda playlist will no doubt be this old familiar tune: that requiring retailers to verify non-GMO ingredients in order to label them will be burdensome and costly, and the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling to feed their families.

Playing to consumers’ fears of higher food costs makes good strategic sense, especially in tough economic times. But the argument doesn’t hold water, say food manufacturers and retailers who already have systems in place for verifying non-GMO, as well as rBGH-free, trans fat-free, country of origin and fair trade. The system involves using chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavits, not expensive testing.

“We have used the affidavit system repeatedly, without undue burden or cost,” said Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets. PCC, the largest consumer-owned natural food retail co-operative in the United States, uses the affidavit system to ensure their chocolate isn't made using child slave labor, their dairy products don't come from animals subjected to rBGH hormones, and that all seafood was harvested using sustainable sources and practices.

Trader Joe’s, a privately held chain of nearly 400 U.S. stores, confirmed that the company’s private label products, under the names Trader Joe’s, Jose’s and Ming’s, are GMO-free, though the company doesn’t label them as such. In an email, a company spokesperson said:

" When developing products containing ingredients likely to come from genetically modified sources, we have the supplier of the product in question perform the necessary research to provide documentation that the suspect ingredients are from non-GMO sources.

This documentation is in the form of affidavits, identity-preserved certification of seed stock, and third-party lab results from testing of the ingredients in question."

Trader Joe’s performs random audits of items with suspect ingredients, using an outside, third-party lab to perform the testing, the company said. Trader Joe’s system is not unlike that of the USDA, which requires sworn statements from food producers to certify organic foods. The agency requires test samples from approximately 5 percent of products, all of which must be GMO-free in order to be certified organic. For the other 95 percent, the agency relies solely on sworn statements.

Clif Bar & Co. also requires affidavits from ingredient suppliers demonstrating they can meet the company's stringent non-GMO requirements.

Monsanto would have you believe that verifying and labeling for non-GMO ingredients is a costly and burdensome affair, but the fact that Trader Joe’s, known for its discount prices, can provide GMO-free private label products, which reportedly account for over two-thirds of the company’s estimated annual $9 billion in sales, takes the wind out of the “burdensome” argument. That leaves the cost of adding another line of ink to a label. Trader Joe’s doesn’t yet label its private label products as GMO- free, but the company cites a lack of clear labeling guidelines from U.S. governmental agencies as the reason it doesn’t label, not cost.

Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project confirmed what retailers who use the affidavit system said: "An affidavit system like what's proposed in I-522 is a powerful way to have a significant impact on the food supply with minimal cost."

How does the affidavit system work?

Companies selling non-GMO foods provide a sworn statement (i.e. an affidavit) to the retailer that the ingredients used are sourced from crops that aren’t intentionally genetically engineered. The affidavit, unless deliberately dishonest, protects the manufacturer and the retailer from liability in the case of unintentional GMO contamination.

Retailers are responsible only for labeling a few raw commodities that may contain GE ingredients, such as sweet corn, papaya, or squash. In these cases, the retailer can either stick a simple label on the bin or ask their supplier for an affidavit stating that the crop is GMO free.

Under this system, no costly testing for GE ingredients is required. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers, at no additional cost to the customer or taxpayer.

The beauty of the affidavit system is that it offers retailers and manufacturers a simple, easy way to comply with a regulatory model that provides consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs. Even for manufacturers who might otherwise seek to pass on the trivial expense of relabeling to consumers, empirical studies show that the fear of losing customers in the competitive food industry will be a deterrent to raising prices. Did food costs change when we labeled calorie content?

Is the system reliable? Retailers say yes. Why would manufacturers intentionally deceive retailers only to open themselves up to a lawsuit and public relations nightmare? And the system has a proven track record. PCC Natural Markets, Trader Joe’s and Clif Bar all use affidavits, as do other manufacturers who use them for country-of-origin and no-trans fat labeling. And nearly two-thirds of the nation’s largest dairy processors use sworn affidavits from producers in order to label rBGH-free. (rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a synthetic, genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production).

Contrary to claims made by companies like Monsanto, states do have a constitutional right to label food. In fact, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act explicitly allows states to add language to labels so long as the federal government doesn’t require language on the same subject – a right that has consistently held up in federal court.

A chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavit labeling system empowers consumers to make more informed choices about what we eat, without increasing the costs of groceries or burdening retailers and manufacturers. One simple label to identify foods that have been genetically engineered, often using the genes of foreign bacteria and viruses, would lead more consumers to seek out sustainable, organic, non-GMO alternatives. And that – not some phony line about increased food costs – is why Monsanto is fighting labeling.

Zack Kaldveer is assistant media director at the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004). 

[via: Organic Consumers Association]

Another Reason to Eat Organic

Just when you thought science was saying organic food has no nutritional value, another study from the University of Granada has found a direct correlation between exposure to pesticides and the risk of type 2 diabetes in adults.

Published in the Journal of Environmental Research, researchers found that people who had higher concentrations of DDE (which is the main metabolite in pesticide DDT) also were more likely to develop diabetes - four times as likely, in fact.

Furthermore, higher exposure to a compound in the pesticide Lindano (beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane) was also linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes.

Results took into consideration the age, gender, and body mass index of 386 adults surveyed. The findings, however, could help explain body fat's link with type 2 diabetes. Researcher Juan Pedro Arrebola notes that "human adipose tissue (commonly known as 'fat')... can store potentially harmful substances, such as persistent organic pollutants (COPs)."

The direct effect of pesticides on type 2 diabetes is still unknown, although researchers suggest that these compounds can affect the metabolism of sugars. Still, it might be another reason to splurge on organic food. A study from Stanford University found that 38 percent of non-organic food had pesticide residue, compared to 7 percent of organic produce.

[source: The Daily Meal]

Whole Foods and GMO Labeling

A couple weeks ago, we reported on Whole Foods' new program that ensures any "organic" personal care products sold in their stores live up to the claims made by manufacturers. The positive sentiment following this news did not last long however, as Whole Foods has come under scrutiny from the organic community and its customers following what many are viewing as a much delayed and insincere endorsement of Prop 37. 

Whole Foods and GMO Labeling: The Whole Truth
Ronnie Cummings, Director Organic Consumers Association

After months of pressure from the organic community, including thousands of its customers, the leadership of Whole Foods Market on September 11 endorsed Proposition 37, the California Ballot Initiative to require mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. But the endorsement came with “reservations” and inaccuracies. It also included the false claim that company policy precludes Whole Foods and its executives from providing much-needed financial support to Prop 37, a campaign that consumers – the very people who have made WFM and its executives wildly profitable – overwhelmingly support.

Is it possible that Whole Foods wants to ride the GMO labeling popularity wave while it quietly works behind the scenes to prevent Prop 37, or any other GMO labeling law, from passing? Could it be that a GMO labeling law – especially one like Prop 37 that prohibits the use of the word “natural” on any food containing GMOs – would cut too deeply into the company’s $9.8 billion in sales and almost $246 million in profits?

Right up until the company announced its lukewarm endorsement, Vice President of Global Communications and Quality Standards Margaret Wittenberg and other WFM top brass repeatedly stated that they would not endorse Prop 37. CEO John Mackey has reportedly claimed that “the jury is still out” on whether genetically engineered crops and foods are unhealthy for people or the environment. (Mackey also has stated that “no scientific consensus exists” to support global warming or climate change).

And while the company website states that WFM is “committed to foods that are fresh, wholesome and safe to eat”, nowhere on its list of unacceptable ingredients is there any mention of GMOs.

So why come out with a public endorsement of Prop 37? With national polls showing 90% support for GMO labeling, and voter support for Prop 37 running 67% for and 24% against, it was just common-sense marketing strategy to get behind the initiative. But was it really an endorsement?

When it first came out, WFM’s official endorsement contained misleading information that read straight from the opposition’s playbook. It also contained one glaring error.  Initially, the company listed among its “reservations” about Prop 37 this incorrect statement: The use of 0.5% of the total weight as the upper limit for processed foods that contain one or more genetically engineered ingredients to be exempted from labeling is inconsistent with the long-established international labeling standard of 0.9%.

Not true. The OCA contacted the authors of the official press release and offered this correction, taken straight from the ballot initiative itself: The 0.5% exemption is for one ingredient and a food can have up to ten such ingredients, meaning a 5.0% exemption (until 2019).

It took them several days, but WFM public relations team did finally issue a correction. But the correction did little to strengthen the company’s endorsement, which continues to perpetuate the exact same myths that the NO on 37 campaign is now airing in its $35-million TV advertising blitz. The endorsement echoes biotech industry claims that Prop 37 is “too complicated.” That GMO food labeling is best left up to the pro-biotech federal government and the FDA (don’t hold your breath for this), rather than the states. That if passed, Prop 37 will result in greedy trial lawyers suing innocent grocery stores, farmers, and food processors for not labeling or mislabeling GMO foods.

None of this is true – as has been repeatedly outlined by the YES on Prop 37 campaign.

Go to the full article

FTC Issues Revised "Green Guides"

Expect to see fewer products pitched as "environmentally friendly" if the government has its way.

Hoping to limit the number of deceptive claims, the Federal Trade Commission on Monday released an updated version of its green marketing guidelines that hold companies to truthful standards in marketing their products.

The revision to the Green Guides is the first since 1998, when phrases like "carbon offset" and "renewable energy" were not widely used.

The revisions include some changes to the proposed guidelines that the FTC circulated in October 2010 and reflect input from consumers and industry groups. New sections address the use of carbon offsets, "green" certifications and seals, and renewable energy and renewable materials claims.

Among the updates, the guides warn marketers not to make broad, unqualified claims that their products are environmentally friendly or eco-friendly.

The FTC said "very few products, if any" deliver the far-reaching environmental benefits that consumers associate with such claims, which it says are nearly impossible to substantiate anyway.

The guides also:

• Advise marketers not to make an unqualified degradable claim for a solid waste product unless they can prove that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature within a year after customary disposal.
• Caution that items destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities will not degrade within a year, so marketers should not make unqualified degradable claims for these items.
• Clarify guidance on compostable, ozone, recyclable, recycled content, and source reduction claims.

The revised guidelines also outline how marketers can qualify their claims to avoid deceiving consumers.

• They do not address use of the terms "sustainable," "natural" and "organic." The FTC said that's because it may lack a basis to provide meaningful guidance, or it wants to avoid proposing guidance that duplicates or contradicts that of other agencies.

According to study by TerraChoice

The Green Guides are not rules or regulations but general principles that describe the types of environmental claims the agency may find deceptive. The FTC has imposed fines and taken other actions in recent years involving deceptive recyclability, biodegradable and environmental certification claims.

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said the changes will level the field for honest business people.

"The introduction of environmentally friendly products into the marketplace is a win for consumers who want to purchase greener products and for producers who want to sell them," he said. "But this win-win can only occur if marketers' claims are truthful and substantiated."

Consumer advocates hope the revisions will help reduce "greenwashing," in which a company promotes a single green aspect of the product but doesn't give the full picture of other ingredients.

Green Seal Inc., a nonprofit environmental certification organization based in Washington, applauded the changes.

"With this new guidance, we hope that there will be enforcement to help rid the marketplace of the many less-than-credible seals and greenwashing that exists," said Arthur Weissman, the group's president and CEO.

Getting The Dirt On What's Really Organic

With consumption of organic food throughout the United States on the rise and potential legislative measures, such as California's Prop 37 and private retailer Whole Foods instituting a third-party organic certification system, consumers are more interested in what their food and other products contain than ever before. Idaho news station KTVB recently investigated the cost of local organic foods and what goes into 'organic' certification. As of 2008, USDA numbers show Idaho ranks in the top ten states for organic food sales with more than $71 million in goods sold each year.





How Do You Know It's Organic? by Jamie Grey

"More and more people are concerned about where their food's coming from, and how it's been grown and what's gone into it," said Ariel Agenbroad, Horticulture Educator at the University of Idaho Extension Center in Canyon County.

Agenbroad says people are choosing to buy organic for a variety of reasons, including personal health beliefs, concerns about sustainability, and worries about food treated with chemicals.

Organic vs. Conventional: Cost comparison at the market

KTVB did a quick cost comparison using two grocery stores to check prices of organic produce and conventional produce. Calculating a simple average, recent prices showed organic produce generally costs around 50% more than non-organic.

For example, we found non-organic strawberries selling at $2.00/lb, while organic strawberries were $2.99/lb. Non-organic raspberries were $2.99/lb, while organic were $3.49/lb. The most drastic difference was green peppers: non-organic peppers sold for 59 cents each, while the organic variety cost 153% more at $1.49.

While those prices may shock some, we did find some items priced equally or cheaper. For example, organic navel oranges and organic kiwi fruits were priced lower per pound than their non-organic counterparts at Albertson's.

Is it really organic?

"You can trust the label -- that if it says 'certified organic by' -- that they are being inspected," said Brandon Lamb, organic program manager for the Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture.

Lamb and other inspectors check farms to make sure they're meeting USDA organic standards.

"How they're going to comply with those rules and regulations, how they're going to manage for pests, what their plan is for soil fertility, what their crop rotation is," Lamb said.

Organic farms earning more than $5,000 a year have to get certified through the USDA standards, proving they're using required sustainable farming practices. In Idaho, there are more than 200 certified organic operations, and most are growing crops.

How does a farmer or rancher get USDA certified?

Lamb allowed KTVB to accompany inspectors visiting a local vineyard for an organic re-certification inspection. Rocky Fence Vineyard in Emmett grows organic wine and table grapes and has always farmed organically. The vineyard sells to a local winery and ships table grapes internationally.

"These grapes here are just from the Idaho sun, and from the Idaho mountains," grape grower Michael Medes explains.

We found the several-hours-long inspection got down to the nitty-gritty -- from checking extensive records, receipts and plans, to walking down every row of grapes looking at the vines, to checking sheds, equipment and sprays. The idea is to check for sustainable farming practices at every level of production.

In a certified organic operation, natural pesticides, fertilizers, equipment, and other implements are allowed unless otherwise prohibited by the USDA. Synthetic products are not allowed unless specifically listed. Idaho's organic program (1990) is older than the federal accreditation program (2002), and regulations are continually getting tighter.

Farming organically costs significantly more

The USDA recently surveyed farmers nationwide, and found organic operation and production expenditures around 60% higher than conventional expenditures. The average organic farm spends $171,978 per year, while other farms spend an average of $109,359.

"If I could use a herbicide, it would be a lot easier," Medes said. "If I have to treat my vines when I have problems, the treatments usually cost about three times more than conventional and are about a third as effective."

Medes showed KTVB a gallon container of natural, USDA organic approved treatment that cost between $200 and $300 for one container. Growers say the higher cost has to be passed on to consumers, though they say the product from using organic practices is worth the price.

"We try to get our grapes tasting better so it's worth paying more. I mean that's our goal," Medes said.

Since consumers do sometimes pay more, organic growers say USDA certification is proof consumers are getting their money's worth.

"I'm glad they're real strict, because if the consumer's going to spend for organic produce, they should be protected that we're not spraying these things," Medes said.

Dept. of Ag: Other terms like 'spray-free' are not regulated

KTVB checked out several food labels at a local farmer's market and saw words like "natural," "no spray", "sustainably raised" and "country organic." Experts say those labels could mean the farmer is using organic practices, but they may not be certified or regulated.

"Consumers want to look for the organic label. [There] is the USDA issued label, and only growers that have gone through the process of becoming certified and gone through the paper work and had inspections done on their farm have permission to use this logo and call their produce certified organic," Agenbroad said. "Lots of other people will use terms like 'natural' or 'no spray' or 'organically grown', but those don't come with the seal, so it's not an absolute guarantee."

Knowing that information, experts suggest you check labels and ask questions to make sure a farm's growing practices match up with your personal beliefs about food.

"[If] You're buying based on your values, and if it's important for you to see farming happen in that way, or support a grower who uses those principals or practices, then it is worth the money to you," Agenbroad said.

Small farms don't have to be inspected to use 'organic' labeling

Lamb says small farms earning less than $5,000 a year don't have to get inspected to advertise that they're organic, they just need to register with the state. Lamb's office handles those applications as well. Usually, he says getting a small farm organic certificate is just a quick check and registration process, and does not include inspection.

Boise's Capital City Market requires proof of USDA organic certification from anyone who wants to sell using the term 'organic'. Other terms, like natural or spray-free aren't checked because the market says there's really no way to check because there aren't standards or certificates for those terms.

Fines, penalties and suspensions for incorrect use of 'organic' label

Growers and producers can be denied certification, have their license suspended, or issued a notice of non-compliance with the USDA if inspectors find violations with their methods.

"Every year we have approximately 10 to 15 operations that are suspended, but typically that's for failing to apply," Lamb said.

Lamb and his office also investigate if people report problems or suspect an organic farm or operation is out of compliance. He says they usually investigate complaints within 24 hours.

Additionally, the USDA issues fines to growers or operators found to be using the "Certified Organic" label fraudulently.

New organics health study by Stanford

Looking at the health aspects of organics, a new research study by Stanford University shows practically no nutritional difference between organically and non-organically grown produce -- but does show a big difference in the use of pesticides.

Organic fruits and veggies have a 30% lower risk of pesticide contamination than non-organic. However, no studies found specifically that pesticides at non-organic levels cause harm.

Scientists also looked at pork and chicken. They discovered there's a 33% greater risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in non-organic pork and chicken. They also found higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken.

HOW TO: Enjoy Your Labor Day Weekend

You probably don't need anyone to tell you how to spend your Labor Day weekend, but the fine folks at Organic Gardening came up with a list of a few nifty ways to enjoy the long weekend. We think they're pretty great, so we figured we'd share them with you. Enjoy!

1. Go to a farmers’ market. Harvest time is heading into high gear, so there’s no better time to head to a nearby farmers’ market and stock up on fresh, tasty edibles. You’ll not only get great field-fresh food; you’ll also support your local economy—and help fight global warming, since locally produced food comes without the carbon emissions required to truck it across the continent. Look for food grown with organic methods, and you avoid ingesting harmful chemicals and also support agriculture that adds carbon to the soil instead of releasing it into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. Now’s also a good time to sign up for a Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) program, so you can get farm-fresh food every week.

2. Dig a root cellar. Not sure where or how to store all the fresh produce you got at the farmers’ market? A root cellar could be the answer. Don’t worry—you don’t have to literally dig one out of the ground (though you could, if you’re looking for a weekend project). Odds are there’s a cool, dark space somewhere in your home that will do: a shelf in the basement, an unused closet, even space under your porch.

3. Avoid overeating. Most holidays have a strong food component, and with its various buffets, cookouts, and picnics, Labor Day weekend is no exception. So follow the healthy-eating advice we offered back on July 4. Simple tactics like choosing smaller plates and keeping a count of your drinks can have a big impact on your calorie intake. And when it comes to overeating, keep the big picture in mind: Most of the food we’re exposed to has been pumped up with extra fat, sugar, and salt to play on our biologically hard-wired food cravings.

4. Get ready for fall allergies. If you’e prone to autumn allergies, ragweed and other triggers may already have you sneezing. Arm yourself with some easy nondrug allergy remedies that will cut down on the need for pills. Make sure your diet includes foods rich in folate, a B vitamin that seems to protect against allergies. And learn about some things you can do around the house to prepare for fall allergy season.

5. Do some late-season gardening. It’s not too late in the year to get your hands dirty, even if you don’t live in a southern part of the country. Good late-summer garden projects include planting garlic, installing a birdbath, or digging next year’s beds. You can also start a compost pile to build up some natural fertilizer for next year’s garden. If your garden’s lush right now, take an inventory of how high everything’s grown, and build some homemade supports and trellises that will give next year’s crop a lift. Or start your fall garden cleanup so your soil will he healthy and ready come spring.

6. Clean with vinegar. If you’re using some of the extended weekend to get some housecleaning done, try out the cheap, easy, ecosafe alternative to harsh chemical cleansers. Fast becoming the second-favorite liquid of the Rodale.com staff (water is number 1, of course), vinegar has all kinds of awesome uses. For basic cleaning, 1 part vinegar to 9 parts water will wipe out germs and grime. Mix vinegar with other natural ingredients to make specialized cleaners that cost a fraction of the toxic stuff you get at the stores.

7. Try canning or pickling. With some basic supplies and traditional canning techniques, you can preserve your favorite summer fruits and vegetables to enjoy in fall and winter. Check out Rodale.com's Nickel Pincher for a canning primer that you can use to make fruit preserves and jellies. You can apply the same skills to other fruit canning recipes, and try canning some tomatoes and pasta sauces. Or try your hand at pickling.

8. Relax. Maybe you’re one of those people who have trouble unwinding after a busy week. A great way to signal to your body that it’s time to relax is to spend some time in nature, so hang out outside as much as you can. Try a calming beverage and review our list of holiday stress-busters, which, though December-oriented, could also apply to anyone who’s running around buying charcoal or struggling with the logistics of one last desperate beach weekend. Anyway, those end-of-the year holidays will be here before you know it.

Do certification labels really matter?

 More good information from our friends at NewHope360:

As consumers grow weary over subpar food regulations at the federal level, manufacturers are increasingly seeking ways to help shoppers distinguish their products from the sea of conventional (and often irresponsibly produced) items. Certification labels—sometimes referred to as eco labels—are skyrocketing in popularity. Among the most ubiquitous? Certified Organic, Fair Trade, Non-GMO Project, and Gluten Free. But while certifications signal something to the consumer, do they actually have tangible benefits for the farmers who grow the raw materials?

Chances are you have also seen the Rainforest Alliance Certified logo—characterized by a little green frog—on packages of natural chocolates, coffee, tea, or fruit juices. But what exactly does the logo mean? And how does it differ from the wealth of other eco labels available?

After researching the stipulations involved with the Rainforest Alliance Certification, it was time to venture into the belly of the beast and see the positive changes, if any, gleaned from sustainable agricultural methods first hand.

Destination? Guatemala.
Crop? Coffee.
Certification requirements
Obtaining and maintaining Rainforest Alliance Certification is tough. Farms must adhere to stringent standards set by the Sustainable Agriculture Network; including ecosystem and water conservation, wildlife protection, safe working conditions, and waste management, among others. There are 100 different criteria in total, 14 of which are critical, and absolutely necessary. During certification evaluation, the farm must score at least 80 percent adherence to achieve certification. Independent auditors inspect the farm every year in order to ensure criteria are upheld.

About the Rainforest Alliance Certified label
If a manufacturer wants to display the “little green frog” on their package, the product must contain at least 30 percent Rainforest Alliance Certified content on the understanding that it takes time to build supply chains. But there are a few conditions: The percentage must be labeled on package to ensure transparency, and the company must commit to scale up by 15 percent each year until the product reaches 100 percent certified materials.

Making compost
La Azotea, a coffee farm located just outside the historic city of Antigua, Guatemala, lies in the shadow of three volcanoes, one of which emits smoke almost daily. The Rainforest Alliance Certified farm follows a rigorous composting system. Workers mix coffee pulp and horse manure into long rows, and let it sit and bake in the sun.

The composting process
"After 38 to 40 days, the compost is moved into a dark indoor shed for 8 days, where it’s processed by worms—creating a rich, dark soil," says Vicente Cuyuch, compost manager at La Azotea. "The compost is applied either at the roots or sprayed directly onto the coffee plant."
Along with producing a stronger and healthier plant, using compost enhances the end product too—many say La Azotea’s coffee is perfectly balanced.

Fostering biodiversity
In the Northwest region of Guatemala, nestled deep into the mountainous landscape rests ADESC (Asociación de desarrollo Social Los Chujes), a group of 68 small coffee farms certified by the Rainforest Alliance. 5,250 feet in elevation, the farm certainly looks like a rainforest. The coffee plants are small and shrub-like, and stand no more than eight feet tall (making it easier for workers to harvest by hand).

Most coffee in Guatemala is grown in the shade a portion of the year. Tall, feathery gravilea trees are planted to provide shade and humidity during the dry summer months. Other vegetation like mango and banana trees are planted to encourage bird populations and butterflies. When standing in the coffee grove you can hear wildlife in the area. The presence of spiders on the coffee plants is a hallmark of a healthy forest, says Mario Lopez, agriculture project coordinator for the Rainforest Alliance. ADESC sells all of it's coffee to Nespresso—a company that encourages sustainable coffee agriculture.

Water filtration
Cultivating larger trees amidst smaller coffee plants fosters a stronger root structure, which prevents erosion of the mountainside. Here, we see when soil contains more plants, it filters water better, leading to clearer rivers. This demonstrates the importance of having a complex plant system (multiple types of plants growing in one area rather than one species).

Dual fertilizers
Farms aren’t required to be organic in order to be Rainforest Alliance Certified. But they are prohibited from using most pesticides or planting GMOs (more on this later). Organic coffee in the Guatemalan highlands actually has lower yields and lower quality: the berries are smaller, and the acidity is unbalanced. One farmer said organic coffee must be grown in 100 percent shade all the time—which leads to more bugs.

Some conventional farmers are untrained in responsible agriculture: fertilizers are often overused because they assume the more chemicals, the better. At ADESC, soil samples are collected and analyzed every year to determine what type and how much fertilizer—a combination of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—is needed. Organic fertilizer, made from the outer layer of the coffee beans (called parchment or pulp), is used to improve the quality of the soil. Farmers apply both types of fertilizer in a half-moon shape around the base of the coffee plant, and cover it with soil to prevent runoff into rivers.

Meet Latissia Monzón Gómez
Latissia Monzón Gómez has been working with the coffee association for twelve years. She owns a beautiful 8.6 acre parcel of land in ADESC that she calls The Garden. It’s a steep farm, and it contains step-like terraces built in order for farmers to access the plants. Prior to obtaining Rainforest Alliance Certification, Latissia saw climate change first hand: it used to rain a little bit every day, but now there are large storms, followed by long droughts—and she felt helpless against it.
“We don’t have to be a part of this program, but we do it voluntarily because we have to adapt to and mitigate climate change,” explains Gómez. “To mitigate means to reduce our impact—we are responsible for the environment. Although my farm is tiny, maybe it can inspire others to be more sustainable.”
Gómez frequently gives speeches to other coffee farms in the area to advocate for environmentally friendly agriculture.

Non-GMO
While there are no genetically engineered crops the Rainforest Alliance normally certifies, the organization takes a strong stance against GMOs—especially considering there have been transgenic experiments in coffee, albeit with no field deployment.
“Potential health impacts aside, there are significant ecological risks that we believe have not been sufficiently studied,” says Chris Wille, chief of sustainable agriculture fore the Rainforest Alliance. “These include possible impacts on pollinators and other wildlife, potential runaway hybridization, and the risk of GMOs turning invasive. The study results are all over the map.
“Anyways, with a large percentage of consumers and even entire countries (for example, Germany) avoiding GMOs like the plague, green-minded food companies and retailers don’t want GMOs, certified or not.”

Certification challenges
Apart from following the practices required, many farm owners think training their workers is the hardest aspect of sustainable agriculture.
“You have to get the workers to understand the impacts agriculture has on the environment,” says Oscar Ramos, farm manager at La Azotea. “If someone has been farming with agrochemicals for decades, it’s a lot to ask to have them change their methods. Once they understand sustainability, they start to care. And then they start to take pride in their work."

Photos courtesy of the Rainforest Alliance.