Behind the Bean: The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry

8/6/2019 Behind the Bean: The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry

1/59

Behind the BeanThe Heroes and Charlatans ofthe Natural and Organic SoyFoods Industry

The Social, Environmental, and Health Impacts of Soy


2/59

2 Behind the Bean: the heroes and Charlatans o the natural and organiC soy oods industry.

The ollowing sta members helped research, write, edit, and support this report and scorecard:

Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst, principal authorMark Kastel, Senior Farm and Food Policy AnalystWill Fantle, Research DirectorLynn Christianson, Research AssistantMargaret Hannah, Board President, Scientic Editor

The ollowing provided proessional assistance:

Tim Hill, report layout/design, www.timhilldesign.comAlex Turner, scorecard layout

The Cornucopia Institute is dedicated to the ght or economic justice or the amily-scale arming community. Throughresearch, advocacy, and economic development, our goal is to empower armers both politically and through marketplaceinitiatives.

The Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the cred-ibility o organic arming methods and the ood it produces are made in the pursuit o prot. We will actively resist regula-tory rollbacks and the weakening o organic standards, to protect and maintain consumer condence in the organic oodlabel.

The Cornucopia InstituteP.O. Box 126Cornucopia, WI 54827978-369-6409 voice866-861-2214 [email protected]

Cover design by Tim Hill.Photos on cover courtesy o Vermont Soy, Louis Rainville, Midwest Organic Farmers Cooperative, and iStock Photo.

Copyright 2009, The Cornucopia Institute


3/59

the CornuCopia institute 3

Acknowledgments 4

executive summAry 5

introduction 7

PArt i: the orgAnic soy scorecArd 9

c oa 10

c tapa a op 12

c sa, A sa 13

c A ga e oa caa 14

c spp n Aa oa Fa Fa 16

cpa ra oa s sa 23

Pa lab 30

PArt ii: unmAsking the nAturAl soy industry 31

ia n: s p 31

ha: t P naa s a n Pa 34

conclusion 44

APPendix A: scorecArd rAtings 45

APPendix B: letter to comPAnies 48

APPendix c: list oF comPAnies 49

endnotes 52

Contents


4/59


Acknowledgments

The Cornucopia Institute wishes to thank:

Blooming Prairie FoundationThe Wedge

And the thousands o amily armers, and their urban allies, who und our work with their generous donations.

1.


5/59


Executive Summary

Withthecontinuedmarketplaceshift toward eating organic, local, and sustainably produced ood,more consumers are interested in knowing the story behind their ood. This cultural shit representsconsumers desire to eat healthily, and to invest in environmental health, amily arms, animal welare,

and, oten, their own local economies.

Adding to the social, health and environmental impacts o ood-buy-ing decisions, people purchasing organic soy oods, such as tou andsoymilk, want to know whether the soybeans were grown by Ameri-can amily armers, whom they trust, or imported rom China, Brazil,and other countries. Consumers, especially those investing their hard-earned dollars in organic brands, are edgy about imports ater multiplecontamination problems with imported ood, including the recentChina melamine scandal.

Many educated consumers also want to avoid genetically engineeredingredients, and many assume organic companies test or raud or ac-cidental contamination.

Some soy consumers, many o them vegetarians or vegans or religiousor philosophical reasons, eel it is important to support amily-ownedbusinesses that share their values, as opposed to buying brands ownedby multi-billion-dollar corporations that are also heavily involved inconventional animal agriculture.

To shed some light on these questions and more, the Cornucopia In-stitute developed this research paper and the accompanying OrganicSoy Scorecard. The scorecard rates organic soy ood brands based onten criteria, including soybean sourcing and production practices. The

scorecard serves as an objective resource or consumers and wholesalebuyers, and showcases the heroes in the organic soy oods business. PartI o the report examines some o the criteria o the scorecard in greaterdepth and showcases some o the companies that scored highly, as wellas some o the companies that did not.

The report highlights the brands in the 5-Bean category that appearhighly committed to organic integrity and source exclusively domes-tic organic soybeans, most oten directly rom amily armers (ratherthan ve stars, the companion scorecard ranks brands on a 1-to-5 Beanrating). I we wish to see more North American armers switching toorganic agriculture, as opposed to relying heavily on genetically engi-

neered crops, petroleum-based ertilizers, and toxic pesticides, consum-ers must support the companies that buy rom North American organicarmersand the Organic Soy Scorecard shows which companies doso.

At the bottom o the scorecard (in the 0-Bean and 1-Bean categories)are the companies that were unwilling to share their sourcing and pro-duction inormation with The Cornucopia Institute and, more impor-tantly, their customers. Our research indicates that many o these com-

i n

Aa a

a a

pp

pa a b

n Aa aaa oa

s sa

pa

p c: ck.cm


6/59


panies are sourcing Chinese soybeans, and this may be why so many are unwilling to share their sourcing decisions.

Given the weak U.S. Department o Agriculture (USDA) oversight o organic certiers working in China, their hesitationmakes sense. When the USDA audited certiers in all o China, or the rst time in August 2007, they scrutinized ourcertiying agents but visited only two arms in China. They ound multiple noncompliances o the ederal organic stan-dards. Noteworthy and worrisome violations include the ailure o one certiying agent to hire Chinese inspectors that areadequately amiliar with the USDA organic standards, and the ailure by another organic certiying agent to provide a writ-ten and translated copy o the USDA organic standards to all clients applying or certication. This raises serious concerns

about whether oods grown organically in China ollow the same USDA organic standards with which we require Americanarmers to comply. How can you sign an adavit that you are ollowing the letter o the lawwhen you have not had theopportunity to read the law in your native language?

Part II o the report exposes a dirty little secret in the naturaloods businessthe widespread use o a toxic and environmen-tally damaging chemical, hexane, in the manuacturing o nat-ural soyoods such as vegetarian burgers, nutrition bars, andprotein shakes. The use o chemical solvents such as hexane isstrictly prohibited in organic ood processing, yet its use is wide-spread in the natural soy industry, including in some productslabeled as made with organic soybeans, such as Cli Bars.Hexane, a neurotoxin, is listed as a hazardous air pollutantby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and grainprocessors, including soy processors, are responsible or morethan two-thirds o all hexane emissions in the United States.

The eects on consumers o hexane residues in soy oods have not yet been thoroughly studied and are not regulated by theU.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Test results obtained by The Cornucopia Institute indicate that residuestentimes higher than what is considered normal by the FDAdo appear in common soy ingredients.

At least two hexane-extracted ingredients are ound in certain processed organic oods, including organic inant ormula.Both ingredients can be sourced organically. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommended that oneo the ingredients, soy lecithin, be removed rom the USDAs National List o approved substances or use in organicallylabeled products (current regulations allow manuacturers to use conventional versions o certain minor ingredients i the

organic version is commercially unavailable and it is deemed sae). Unortunately, the NOSB also voted to keep a de-oiledorm o conventional soy lecithinproduced with hexane and acetoneon the National List as a matter o convenienceor ood manuacturers.

Other hexane-extracted ingredients that many industry experts believe should not be present in organic oods, especiallyorganic inant ormula, are algal DHA and ungal ARA oils. These oilsnutritional supplements containing omega-3 andomega-6 atty acidsare produced by Martek Biosciences Corporation by way o a process that immerses ermented algaeand soil ungus in a hexane bath. The Cornucopia Institute is especially concerned with evidence obtained through a Free-dom o Inormation Act request with the FDA that these DHA and ARA oils, when added to inant ormula, are linkedto serious health complications experienced by some inants. Organic oods should be a reuge rom chemically processedadditives in oods: consumers expect nothing less.

t a

a aa

a a aza a pa b

ePA pb

a p,

pa aa


7/59


Introduction

in todays globalized food system, consumers are increasingly interested in knowing the ull storybehind their ood. Recent reportssuch as toxic chemicals in baby ormula or excessive levels o anti-biotics and pesticides in oods rom Chinaremind us o how little control we have over our ood. Or-

ganic oods should provide a reuge rom these uncertainties. We trust that the USDA Organic labelprovides a sae haven rom chemicals used to grow and process oods. We also suppose that purchasingorganic oods means supporting a more environmentally sustainable and more economically just oodsystemone that connects consumers with the North American amily armers who grow our oodwithout synthetic ertilizers and potentially harmul chemical inputs.

The organic label does indeed assure consumers that the ood was produced in a more sustainable way than conventionaloods. The vast majority o organic ood manuacturers believe deeply in the principles that are oundational to the organicmovementecological sustainability, air prices or armers, and so onand their products refect this commitment.

But the system is not perect. Given our willingness to pay more or organic oods, companies sometimes enter the organicsector motivated by prot and choose their own bottom line over a commitment to organic principles. Some companies go

to China or cheaper organic ingredients instead o supporting North American amily armers.1 Others use harsh neuro-toxic chemicals (described below) to process ingredients in oods to which they then, disingenuously, attach the made withorganic ingredients label. This report, and its accompanying scorecard, ocuses on soy oods and provides wholesale buyersand consumers with a resource to help make inormed purchasing decisions in the marketplace.

We chose soy oods or our second scorecard because they are an important part o the diet or many conscientious eaterswho buy both organic and vegetarian oods. Organic oods are grown and processed in ways that build soil health, promotesustainability, and reduce negative environmental impacts; vegetarian diets are produced with less energyone study ound

vegetarian diets require one-hal the amount o energy compared with meat-based diets2 and less animal suering.3

The majority o soybeans grown in the United States are used or animal eed in conned animal eeding operations (CA-FOs), oten called actory arms, which pollute the environment and raise animals in conditions that many describe as

unnatural and inhumane.4 From the point o view o vegetarians and grass-ed meat enthusiasts, CAFOs are also very ine-

oc m c b n i.

p c Mw oc m Cv.

Pa a

a pp a a aab

a a j

a

n

Aa a a

z a

pa a a

p


8/59


cient, requiring anywhere rom 8 to 16 pounds o soybeans to produce 1 pound o bee, or example.5 Soy oods such as touand soy milk (reerred to hereater as soymilk) allow people to source their dietary protein directly rom a vegetarianood, without involving animals. As a result, oods such as tou and soymilk are staples in the diets o most vegetarians.

The Cornucopia Institute asked companies that produce organicsoy oods such as soymilk, tou, and vegetarian burgers about theirproducts, raw materials, and production practices. Part I o thereport examines, in depth, some o the criteria used or our score-

card. We were interested in each companys commitment to or-ganics and to avoiding contamination with genetically engineeredorganisms (GEOs). We were also interested in each companyscommitment to supporting domestic amily armers, which is whywe asked about the sourcing o their soybeans. The majority ocompany participants source their soybeans directly rom NorthAmerican amily armers, and The Cornucopia Institute was ableto veriy these claims. Companies that nurture direct relationshipswith North American organic armers received high scores. Allcompanies listed in the scorecard were given multiple opportuni-ties to participate; while many chose to do so, some declined andwere unwilling to share any inormation regarding the sourcingo their soybeans with Cornucopia researchers or, indirectly, withtheir customers.

While Part I o the report ocuses on the scorecard o organic soy companies, Part II examines the conventional (natural)soy industry. According to one survey, more than one-third (37%) o Americans specically seek out soy oods or health

reasons.6 The FDA-approved health claim that 25 grams o soy protein per day may reduce the risk o heart disease 7 cer-tainly plays a role; the same survey ound that 85% o respondents either agreed with this claim or wanted more inormation.In this report, we will explore how this health claim came about as a result o pressure rom corporations involved in soyprocessingnot health care proessionals. This report will also briefy explore the debate surrounding natural substancesound in soybeansisofavoneswhich are structurally similar to the hormone estrogen and exhibit weak estrogenlike e-ects in the human body.

Any ood to which scientists devote this much time and attention is bound to create controversy. Many see nothing wrongwith eating minimally or traditionally processed soy oods in moderation, as one would eat any plant ood in moderation aspart o a balanced diet. However, given that highly processed soy protein ingredients are now ound in more and more pro-cessed oods, as well as 25% o inant ormula sold in the United States, it is worth noting some o the controversies aroundthe purported health benets o soy.

Part II also exposes the natural soy industrys dirty little secret: its widespread use o the chemical hexane. Hexane is usedto process nearly all conventional soy protein ingredients and edible oils and is prohibited when processing organic oods.It is used in the ood processing industry as a solvent to separate the oil rom the protein and ber o grains, including soy-beans. It is a cost-eective solvent and highly ecient at creating high-protein isolates, but it is also a neurotoxic chemical

that poses a serious occupational hazard to workers and is an environmental air pollutant. 8 Residue tests show that smallamounts o hexane can and do appear in ingredients processed with this petrochemical. The government does not requirethat companies test or hexane residues beore selling oods to consumers, including soy-based inant ormula.

Organic oods or oods labeled made with organic ingredients are almost always ree o ingredients processed with hexanebut not always. Cli Bars, or example, misleads consumers with the made with organic soy and oats label, when one othe rst ingredients listed is conventional, hexane-extracted soy protein isolate. And companies that use soy lecithin, avital ingredient in oods such as chocolate and baby ormula, have a choice between an organic, non-hexane-extracted ver-sion and a conventional version. Those that are truly committed to organic principles will choose the organic versionevenwith its higher costwhereas companies that might be more concerned with their prots tend to choose the nonorganicversion.

t c cc cm.t c w namc c m cv c.

p c: ck.cm


9/59


Part I: The Organic Soy Scorecard

Cm w b c. t c v c w m cm c k:

Bw mm c c. ec c w q, c c-

. c x, sv sc s ax a.

op sH : t c m-w b w wc b, m-w wk-w cv. m b v cm x, w b bc c.

sba PaH : i c, cm b c b c cm b b cv c.

dH : Cm c c, , cc c gMo cv c. p c w.

cH : i c, cm c b c w c cv Q ac i. Qai b vv m cm wv c .

oa P lH : Cm mc c c cv c vv b c cv c.

maaH : Cm mc c - v m c v c cv c cm cck. Cck w b cm cv .

s a Fa rapH : t c c cm b c mn amc c m m v m.

t x cm b c m n amc m b v m.t x , , cm c b m bk w c namc b (c jc); cm w cck c cm m w . scv b m m w m w c-

m xc m c b.

nx cm c b m bk w cm v n amc b bw w w t Cc i v cm. lw - cm c b m bk c , c m C Bz, v w cm w cck bk w c m.

Cm v m b c cv z c.

P gmo caaH : t c c cm m gMo c-m v cm . s w c cm n-gMopjc v w m m c, m cc. i , cm cv w c.

FaH : t c c cm c v

c ( v). xm, m c v xc c cc w mk. a w c, b , cm c v. Cm c v w c cv w .

s lH : Cm c c cv c. oc c vb, b c w mc x-xc cvc c . Cm cv c cv w c.


10/59


commitment to orgAnics

I we continue our oenses against the land and the labor by which we are ed, the ood supply will decline, and

we will have a problem ar more complex than the ailure o our paper economy. The government will bring orth

no ood by providing hundreds o billons o dollars to the agribusiness corporations.9

Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson, rom an op-ed piece in theNew York Times,January 2009

a dead zone in the gulf of mexico the size oNew Jersey,10 thousands o cases o acute pesticidepoisoning among armers and armworkers,11 pol-luted water rom animal agriculture that kills mil-lions o sh12these are just a ew examples o theoenses against the land and labor that WendellBerry, a armer and agrarian poet and writer, andWes Jackson, president o The Land Institute in

Kansas, are talking about. But Berry and Jacksonare also talking about something more serious thanthese high costs. They are taking a lesson rom his-tory: societies that ignore the health o the landand soil that grows their ood are doomed to ail.I we want our children and grandchildren to eattomorrow, we must care or the land today.

Increasingly, governments, scientists, and organizations arecoming to the same conclusions. In 2008, an intergovern-mental panel, supported by organizations such as the World

Bank and the United Nations, reported that organic man-agement o ood production is the most sustainable way toeed the world.13 Organic arming combines old wisdom withmodern knowledge o pest control, nutrient cycling, cropsynergies, and soil health. Scientists and researchers are con-tinually discovering additional benets o growing ood underorganic management, while dispelling the myth that organicarming systems are less productive than intensive conven-tional systems.

I armers do not care or the land, we risk losing the resourceson which our ood production depends. Organic agriculture

aims to build the health o the soil, and to raise its produc-tivity through means that are less dependent on ossil-uelenergy. Organic agriculture, thereore, is more than a systemo withoutswithout growth hormones, without synthet-ic ertilizers, without toxic pesticides, and so on. It is aboutbuilding a healthy and sustainable ood production system.

In 1995, the National Organic Standards Board dened theprincipal guidelines or organic production as the use o ma-

p c Vm s, l rv.

i a

a a

a, a pp a

p-ba z a

p, pp a a b b

p a pa

a a p


11/59


terials and practices that enhance the ecological bal-ance o natural systems and that integrate the partso the arming system into an ecological whole. Theboard members also agreed that the primary goalo organic agriculture is to optimize the health andproductivity o interdependent communities o soil

lie, plants, animals and people.14

In order or a ood to bear the green USDA Organicseal, it must be produced according to the USDAorganic standards, which were developed with theseprinciples in mindto restore ecological balance,soil health, and productivity in our agricultural sys-tem. The USDA accredits certiying agents, whichare responsible or inspecting arms and processingacilities, on an annual basis, to ensure that USDAcertied organic oods comply with these ederalstandards.

I we wish to see more armers caring or the landin thoughtul ways, consumers must support organicarmers by buying the oods they produce and payingthem a air price or it. Currently, 99.8% o soybeanacres are armed using almost exclusively genetically engineered seed and conventional, not organic, methods. 15

This is one reason why the scorecard is so important, and why it contains several criteria that gauge the companys overallcommitment to organics (to see all criteria used to rate companies, see The Organic Soy Scorecard on page 23). Thecriterion Percentage Organic Soybean Purchases awards higher ratings to companies that purchase only organic soybeans,as opposed to a combination o organic and conventional soybeans. Companies that manuacture and market only organicproducts (Organic Product Line) are more committed to supporting organic agriculture and receive a higher score on thiscriterion than companies that are engaged in both organic and conventional ood production and marketing. The criteriaFlavors and Soy Lecithin also measure a companys commitment to supporting the growth o the organic industry, andthose that use only organic favors (or organic ood ingredients as favors) and organic soy lecithin rate higher than those

that use conventional favors and lecithin (both are currently allowed in organics). For more inormation on soy lecithin,see page 39.

Perhaps most importantly, the scorecard allows consumers in the marketplace to support the companies that in turn supportNorth American organic armers. These companies are a crucial linkconnecting the conscientious consumer with organicarmers. It is important, then, or consumers and wholesale buyers to know which companies are serious about supportinglocal organic armers.

2.

oc m m , wc, , w c b w .

p c: ck.cm


12/59


commitment to trAnsPArency And oPenness

organicconsumersWanttofeelconnected to their ood, they want the story behind their ood, andabove all, they want to know that they are buying a product that was grown with respect or the environ-ment and amily armers.

In the marketplace, organic ood does cost more than conventional ood. When consumers pay more, they consider theextra dollars that they invest to be well spenta contribution to a ood system that is sustainable, environmentally riendly,and economically just. The ollowing words are taken rom a soy suppliers web site and aptly capture how some companiesconsider organics to be just a marketing strategy to increase protability:

Smart processors are catching the [organic] wave,

and riding it to the increased prots brought by

value-added organic oods. An organic label com-

mands a premium price, and implies increased

social responsibility or a brand. Quite simply,

organic means smart marketing [emphasis add-

ed].16

Note also that this supplier writes that organicimplies increased social responsibilityactualcommitment to social responsibility presumablydoes not matter, as long as the company can ap-pear to be socially responsible and use this as amarketing tool.

The National Organic Program may be overseenby the USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service,but ew organic consumers and organic armerssee organic production as purely a marketingtool. The organic label indicates that the ood

was produced in accordance with the ederal or-ganic standards. When a company ollows theorganic standards and respects the letter andthe spirit o the law, the organic word and la-bel should indeed act as an encouragement orconscientious consumers to purchase that prod-uct. But companies that use the organic label orother organic claims must act in socioenviron-mentally conscious ways. It has become too easyor companies to claim to be organic and green,while placing their prots beore their social andenvironmental commitments.

Companies that did not wish to share certain ba-sic inormation with The Cornucopia Institute,such as where their soybeans were sourced, aremissing a key point o the organic movement:consumers want to eel connected to their ood,they want the story behind their ood, and aboveall, they want to know that they are buying aproduct that was grown with respect or the en-

cpa a a

a ba a t

cpa i, a

ba , a a

p a :

a ,

a b , a ab

a, a a a b a

p a a p a a a

p c Mw oc m Cv


13/59


vironment and amily armers. The companies that see the organic label as more than a marketing tool were willing to sharetheir story (including certain proprietary inormation, which we committed to treat condentially, enabling us to act-checktheir representations) and their products story with us. The scorecard, as well as inormation in this report, will help con-sumers identiy the companies that are serious about supporting a more sustainable and just ood system.

Companies that openly shared their sourcing and production inormation with The Cornucopia Institute when lling outthe survey received ull points on the Disclosure criterion o the scorecard. Even i a company did not score highly on allother criteria, it was still recognized as being open and transparent with its customers.

commitment to stAke-holders, in Addition toshAreholders

ofthecompaniesthatWereconsidered early pioneersin the American organic soy ood business, some remainindependent and owned by their original ounders, andothers are now part o publicly traded corporations.Protability is an important goal or any company, butonly publicly traded corporations have a legal mandateto return prots to shareholders and must place prot-ability beore other concerns, such as social responsibil-ity and environmental stewardship.

When The Cornucopia Institute asked the CEOs o the compa-nies that were original pioneers in the organic soy ood movementto ll out the Organic Soy Survey, their reaction to our requestor transparency seemed to correlate with their ownership struc-

ture. Those that remain independent and managed by their origi-nal ounders, such as Eden Foods and Whole Soy & Co, didnot hesitatenames o armers and suppliers were immediatelydisclosed (we did, however, commit to all industry players thatwe would hold all proprietary inormation in strict condence).These CEOs, being the original ounders o organic companies,helped build the organic industry and ully understand why theircustomers want to know where their ood is coming rom. Theyappear to share their customers values, and their companies ap-pear to remain value-driven. The CEOs o early pioneering com-panies that were bought by large, publicly traded corporations,such as Silk (now part o Dean Foods) and Westsoy (now part

o the Hain Celestial Group), reused to share any inormation orthe Organic Soy Scorecard.

cpa a a

p a aa b

a , a

e F a w s & c,

a a

a cpaaa a

a pp a

p c: ck.cm


14/59


commitment to Avoiding geneticAllyengineered orgAnism contAminAtion

Genes do not unction in isolation in any organism. Rather, they interact with and inuence each other. When

genes are manipulated by genetic engineering or conventional breeding, these interactions can lead to unintended

side-eects that alter traits other than the intended one.17

Union o Concerned Scientists

in 2008, 92% of soybeans grown inthe United States were genetically en-gineered. In states such as Iowa andIndiana, the percentage is even high-er95% and 96%, respectively.18 Thisis a tremendous increase since 2000,

when 54% o U.S.-grown soybeans weregenetically engineeredan impressivelevel o adoption, considering geneticengineering o soybeans is a relativelynew technology.19

Nearly all genetically altered soybeans are en-gineered to be tolerant to the herbicide gly-phosate, marketed as Roundup by Monsanto.20This allows armers to spray their elds with

this herbicide, killing weeds without killing theRoundup Ready soybean plants. Farmers plant-

ing genetically engineered soybeans are only al-lowed to use Monsantos Roundupnot a lessexpensive generic version o the herbicide gly-phosateon Monsantos genetically engineeredsoybeans. This assures Monsanto that armerswill continue to purchase their herbicide.

Farmers are not only required to use Monsantos proprietary version o glyphosate, but they are also bound by a technol-ogy agreement that they are required to sign, which prohibits them rom saving seed rom their crop to use the ollowingyear. When adventurous genes have contaminated some armers crops, even when they have not planted geneticallyengineered seed, Monsanto has successully sued these armers or patent inringement.

Consumers should not be ooled by claims that genetically engineered crops and sustainable agriculture can go hand inhand. For example, studies have shown that the planting o Roundup Ready crops does not lead to reduced herbicide use.In act, according to a report by agronomist Charles Benbrook, between 1996 and 2004, armers used 138 million morepounds o herbicides on genetically engineered varieties than on conventional ones.21 This is partly due to the emergenceo herbicide-resistant superweeds. According to the report, As weed scientists have predicted or years, the widespreaduse o glyphosate on millions o acres o GE crops has selected or weeds that are tolerant to the chemical. These new weedsare subdued only by multiple applications o glyphosate and/or other herbicides. Some armers are orced to use what theyreerred to as a chemical cocktail in order to subdue the resistant weeds. Today, genetically engineered soybean plants andheavy pesticide use go hand in handnot exactly part o a sustainable agricultural system.

ta, a bapa a a p a

a a pa a aab

aa

p c: ck.cm


15/59


The claims by biotechnology corporations that genetic engineering increases crop yields, and is thereore necessary to eeda growing world population, have also recently been reuted. Failure to Yield, a report by the Union o Concerned Scientistspublished in April 2009, is the rst to evaluate in detail the overall yield eect o genetic engineering. Regarding soybeansspecically, the report concludes that herbicide-tolerant soybeans, the most widely utilized genetically engineered crop byar, do not increase either operational or intrinsic yield.22 In addition to nding that genetic engineering does not increasecrop yields, the report also contributes to debunking the myth that organic methods produce lower yields: Organic andlow-external-input methods (which use reduced amounts o ertilizer and pesticides compared to typical industrial cropproduction) generally produce yields comparable to those o conventional methods or growing corn or soybeans.

Consumers wishing to avoid genetically engineered oods should choose organic, because the ederal standards or organicagriculture prohibit the planting o genetically engineered crops. But while organic armers are required to use seeds thatwere not genetically engineered, armers and ood processors are not required to test or accidental contamination. Ac-cidental contamination is a growing concern. Contamination can occur at several points in the path rom seed to table,including in the elds through cross-pollination (although this is o much greater concern or corn and some other cropsthan or soybeans), and through contamination o processing and transportation equipment, among other actors.

Some companies claim to be non-GMO (nongeneticallymodied organism) and test or contamination, but not all.Most companies rely on written statements rom suppliersthat the product is non-GMO, but otentimes these state-ments are not backed by testing or adequate inormation.Those that do test, or have other procedures in place toavoid contamination, received high ratings on the Preven-tion o GEO Contamination criterion o the scorecard.

Companies also received points or being enrolled in TheNon-GMO Project, which is a new collaborative eort thathas established North Americas rst consensus-based stan-dard o best practices or avoiding GEOs in production. Itis a collaboration o manuacturers, retailers, processors,distributors, armers, seed breeders, and consumers. Theproject also has a third-party verication system to assesscompliance with the standard.

The core components o the Non-GMO Project standard are traceability o the ingredients, segregation o GEO and non-GEO oods along the path rom seed to table, and testing or accidental contamination at critical points. The Non-GMOProject provides extra assurance to consumers that the product was tested or GEOs, and that the company making theproduct has a dedicated system in place to minimize contamination.

Companies producing soy oods that are already enrolled in the third-party Non-GMO Project include Eden Foods andWhole Soy & Co. Consumers can expect to see the Non-GMO Project Veried label on some oods in the all o 2009.

n-gMo pjc V b c b c c 2009.


16/59


commitment to suPPortingnorth AmericAn orgAnic FAmily FArmers

I people want high-quality organic ood grown by American amily armers, they need to support us not only

when times are good, but also when times are bad.

Phil Lewis, organic armer in Kansas and owner o Lewis Ag Service,which supplies organic soybeans or Small Planet Tou.

sales of soy foods and beverages increased 29% be-tween 2003 and 2007.23 Despite the surge in consumerdemand or organic soy-based oods in the United States,USDA data suggests that the number o domestic acresplanted with organic soybeans is decreasing. In 2002, therst year o USDA organic certication, 126,000 acres

o organic soybeans were grown in the United States. In2005, the most recent year or which the USDA has data,that number dropped to 122,000.24

According to two USDA economists, U.S. organic soybean produc-tion started declining several years ago as low-cost production beganto increase in developing countries.25 Some amily armers growingorganic soybeans tell a similar story: when China started to oer or-ganic soybeans at a slightly lower price, some companies, like indus-try leader Dean Foods and its Silk soymilk brand, took advantage othe lower prices rom China. In China, 40,000 hectares o armlandwere certied organic in 2002, this number increased by over 1000%

to 3,466,570 hectares in 2006.26

Based on our own research, using import data, we estimate thatclose to 100 million kilograms o organic soybeans and soymeal wereimported rom Asia between March 2008 and March 2009. Today,there is indeed a shortage o domestic organic soybeans. Years ago,when China oered cheap organic soybeans, some companies didnot hesitate to purchase Chinese soybeans instead o supportingNorth American amily armers and domestic organic soybean pro-duction. Now that companies and consumers are wary o Chineseimports, and looking or domestic sources, they are encounteringa shortage o high-quality organic soybeans. Some brokers havestanding orders rom ood manuacturers or domestic beans, whichwill likely remain unlled. These ood manuacturers will have nochoice but to go abroad, shut down their businesses, or switch romorganic to non-GMO conventional.

The important dierence between companies sourcing Chinese soy-beans and those still sourcing all American-grown organic soybeansis the companys commitment to domestic organic agriculture.While companies like Dean Foods told its Silk customers a coupleo years ago that it had to go to China because o domestic short-

p c tou p.

w pa da F

s a p

a a a a

ca ba

a, sa

Pa t a kaa,

pp Aa a

a


17/59


ages, others like Small Planet Tou were able to continue oering their customers 100% American-grown organic soy oods.Small Planet Tou has been working with the same American armers or 17 years and did not end its relationship with themas soon as cheaper soybeans became available rom other countries. And while Dean Foods is today shiting product linesmore and more to the use o conventional soybeans, companies such as Vermont Soy are working together with armers intheir home state to grow organic soybeans or their products.

To combat a shortage o organic cows milk, over the past 10 years, many companies, including Dean Foods/White WavesHorizon label, in order to grow their market share, helped recruit dairy armers and paid them supplemental income during

their transition to organics. I Dean Foods and other corporations had been truly committed to the organic arming move-ment, they could have incorporated the same methodology or securing adequate raw materials to grow their soy business.However, they opted instead to source cheaper beans rom China without the necessity o upront investments.

Concerns about the saety o oods coming rom China have led some companies to discontinue using Chinese soybeans.But instead o working more closely with North American organic armers, some, like Dean Foods/WhiteWave, are sourcingmore nonorganic soybeans. Other companies are now looking to India as an alternative source o cheaper organic soybeans.While Indias organic soybean exports to the United States are dwared in comparison to Chinese exports, they will likelyincrease over time. In 2008, approximately 120,000 kilograms o organic soybeans were imported rom India versus ap-proximately 95 million kilograms rom China. And despite the concerns about oods coming rom China, many companiescontinue to source Chinese soybeans. The scorecards Sourcing and Farming Relationships criterion sheds light on com-panies purchasing practices, with companies sourcing directly rom American amily armers receiving higher scores thanthose sourcing Chinese organic soybeans.

s: caRegulation is an imperect substitute or the

accountability, and trust, built into a market

in which ood producers meet the gaze o

eaters and vice versa.

Michael Pollan27

for the past couple of years, North Americanorganic armers have been concerned, or goodreason, about the availability o cheap organicimports rom China and their eect on the pricespaid to U.S. armers. When companies boughtorganic soybeans rom China that were slightlycheaper than American-grown soybeans, it otenmeant that American organic armers were notable to sell their soybeans. Some armers unor-tunately exited organic production, while othersshited to producing crops other than soybeans.

Some industry insiders estimate that as many as50% o organic soybeans consumed in the Unit-ed States are imported rom China. Meanwhile,some armers report that they sell organic soy-beans to Japanese companies, who are willing to pay the extra price, including the extra price in reight, rather than buyChinese imports, which they believe to be o lower quality. Since the USDA does not track imports o organic agriculturalproducts, there is no government data available on the exact quantity o imported organic soybeans rom China. Our ownresearch, using proprietary data we purchased, indicates that approximately 100 million kilograms o Asian-grown organic

s a a a

a a 50% a ba

u sa ap ca

p c: ck.cm


18/59


soybeans, nearly all Chinese, were imported to the United States between March 2008 and March 2009. For comparison,

approximately 130 million kilograms o organic soybeans were grown in the United States in 2005. 28

The Cornucopia Institutes aim is to give consumers the inormation necessary to buy soy oods that contain North Amer-icangrown organic soybeans. We identied the companies that have maintained positive relationships with domestic or-ganic armers and have thereby assured a steady and adequate supply o North Americangrown organic soybeans. Stayingtrue to the spirit o organics, these companies remained devoted to their armers even when China oered organic soybeansat lower prices.

For consumers, a major concern with Chinese soybeans stems rom the numerous reports o contamination o importedoods. One example is the recent problem with melamine contamination o Chinese oods. Melamine is a chemical that iscommonly used to manuacture plastics and adhesives. It boosts the apparent protein content o raw ood materials (becauseit contains nitrogen, which is also a major element in proteins), and Chinese workers have admitted to illegally adding this

chemical to animal eed.29

Melamine was also detected in ood or humans, such as powdered milk used or inant ormula in China. When com-bined with cyanuric acid, which may also be present in melamine powder, melamine can orm crystals that can give rise to

kidney stones, potentially causing kidney ailure and, in some cases, death.30 As o September 17,2008, the World HealthOrganization reported over 6000 cases o kidney stones in Chinese inants, and three inant deaths as a result o melamine

contamination o inant ormula.31

In November 2008, a French arm cooperative ound melamine up to 30 times the maximum level allowed by authori-ties in 300 tons o organic soymeal imported rom China. The soymeal was used to make eed or organic poultry. 32 Giventhe problems with Chinese imports, the FDA currently tests each shipment o soy protein coming rom China or possiblemelamine contamination. Consumers can also be assured that whole soybeans, which are used to make soymilk and tou,are less likely to be contaminated with melamine than soy meal. However, while the melamine contamination problem maybe under control, these experiences with ood adulteration and contamination do underscore the need or strong oversighto oods coming rom China.

And yet, strong oversight o the organic standards may be exactly what is lacking in China. Organic oods grown in Chinaor export to the United States are certied by one o a handul o U.S.-based, USDA-accredited certiers working in China,or a oreignusually EuropeanUSDA-accredited certier. There are currently no Chinese-operated certication agen-cies that have been accredited by the National Organic Program.

In August 2007, ater years o aggressive public criticism by The Cornucopia Institute, the USDA sent two sta membersto China or a belated audit o USDA-accredited certiers working in the country. This was the rst time that USDA stamembers visited certiers in China and Chinese arms to ensure that inspection procedures were in compliance with the

o ca,

usdA a

a pa

a a

a q ab

a

c p

oc b C.

p c nw s


19/59


USDA organic standards. It was an inexcusable delay, especially given the history o raud in Chinese organic commerce intheir domestic market, which has been well documented in the Chinese media.

As it turns out, the USDA audited our certiying agents during their China visit but visited only two arms in the entire

country.33 It is the responsibility o the USDA to ensure that certiying agencies are properly certiying and applying theNational Organic Program standards. Waiting ve years to visit Chinese arms, and then visiting only two arms in theentire country, shows a level o gross neglect by the USDAs organic program managers during the Bush administration. Ithe reputation o organic ood is impugned through illegal and raudulent activities in China and an incompetent level o

oversight by the USDA, it will be the domestic armers and entrepreneurs that built this industry who will be harmed.

One o the U.S.-based certiers working in China, the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA), certies at least

119 arms in China,34 yet inormation obtained through a Freedom o Inormation Act request by The Cornucopia Instituteindicates that USDA auditors did not visit a single Chinese arm as part o their OCIA audit. One and a hal years atervisiting China, the USDA has not yet shared with the public the 2007 audit report or OCIA, which was part o the Chinavisit.

Some o the noncompliances ound by the USDA auditors are worrisome and raise questions. One concern is that theChinese inspectors employed by the certiying agents are not adequately amiliar with the USDA organic standards toproperly certiy Chinese arms to our standards. The integrity o organic ood depends on the ability o the organic certiersto adequately inspect arms and processingplants and ensure that the organic standards are upheld. The national organic

standards, in section 205.501(a)(5), state that certiying agents must ensure that their inspectors have sucient expertisein organic production or handling techniques to successully perorm the duties assigned. The USDA auditors ound thatthis was not the case in several instances. In their audit report or the Institute or Market Ecology (IMO), a Swiss certiying

agent that currently certies 62 arms in China,35 the USDA auditors state36:

The inspector had limited experience with processors in general and o organic processing and handling techniques. The inspector

indicated the client needed to maintain a buyers list. When asked to which standard the requirement to maintain a buyers list

came rom he was not sure. When questioned on whether the requirement was a USDA National Organic Standard requirement

he did not know [emphasis added].

In their audit report or the German certiying agent Ecocert, the USDA auditors noted that Ecocert had ailed to conductperormance evaluations or the three client managers:37

A private or governmental entity accredited as a certiying agent under this subpart must: Conduct an annual perormance evalua-tion o all persons who review applications or certication or make certication decisions and implement measures to correct any

deciencies in certication services. [USDA auditors ound] no records o perormance evaluations or the three client managers.

This raises serious questions about whether organic products coming rom China comply with the USDAs national organicstandards. These products may be accompanied by an organic certicate, but is that enough assurance, given that someChinese inspectors hired to certiy to the USDA organic standards are not amiliar with our standards or are not evaluatedannually as required by the USDA standards?

Equally worrisome is the nding that armers may not always be adequately inormed about the USDA organic standards.The USDA auditors ound the ollowing noncompliance during its audit o Ecocert:

The NOP standards are not provided to all clients that apply or certication. The translated standards are only provided to those

clients that request the standards or that participate in training sessions. Those that request the standards are provided only those

portions they inquire about (i.e., national list, labeling, etc. ).38

This nding adds to the concerns about whether oods grown organically in China ollow the same USDA organic standardswith which American armers are required to comply. Can armers in China really be expected to know the American stan-dards they are supposed to ollow i the certier ails to supply them with a copy o the USDA standards?

As a result, certain practices common in China but prohibited by the USDA organic standards may occur on Chinesearms that grow crops or export to the United States. The use o night soil is one example. Traditionally, Chinese arm-


20/59


ers use human waste to ertilize their crops. The use o human waste is strictly prohibited in organic agriculture accordingto the USDA organic standards. Organic consumers in the United States can only hope that supervisors who oversee theindividual armers are amiliar enough with the USDA organic standards and that they adequately relay the specics o thestandards to the individual armers.

Another concern that many have raised is that imported soybeans are accompanied by a certicate stating that the productis organicbut it is all too easy to alsiy these records, whether intentionally or unintentionally. One cannot dierentiatean organic soybean rom a conventional soybean just by looking at it; the organic certicate accompanying the load is the

only assurance that the product is grown according to the organic standards. The audit report or the IMO includes severalnoncompliances which reveal the certiers carelessness with organic certication, and raises questions about the trustwor-thiness o the organic certicates coming out o China. The ollowing noncompliance involves negligence about identiyingorganic products with organic certicates:

Bags o soybean meal kept in the oil processing warehouse in Dalian, China did not contain any orm o identication on the bags

[emphasis added]. There were no records to veriy that the product was in act organic and it was transerred rom one company to

the next. The company stated this was because they considered it an internal transer. However, they are operating as two separate

certied operations.39

This noncompliance raises similar concerns regarding carelessness o the certier:

An audit trail on the incoming product and production record or a lot o soybeans was conducted by the inspector during the wit-

ness audit in Dalian, China. However, the calculations conducted did not account or the oil production rom the soybeans. Theinspectors stated the IMO checklist does not require this and thus was not considered in the calculations. The dierence in the

unaccounted product was 56.8 metric tons.

During the tour o one processor, the inspectors reviewed two pallets o organic product and did not review or observe the other two

pallets. Additionally, none o the six to eight pallets o conventional product were reviewed. Pallets were covered with tarps and

could not be observed unless the tarps were lited. An audit trial [sic] conducted on product did not account for all product used

during production [emphasis added].40

It is important to note also that USDA auditors visited two locations in China that are certied by IMO, both processingacilities. The auditors did not visit a single arm certied by IMO. I the carelessness with which they certiy the processingacilities is ound also on the 62 arms they certiy to the USDA organic standards, this raises serious questions about someorganic crops coming rom China.

Clearly, there is inadequate oversight in China, which points to a problem within the USDA and its ailure to adequatelyaudit the certiying agents. Perhaps the ve-year audit requirement is adequate or domestic certiers. But in light o therash o recent and highly publicized ood contamination problems fowing rom China, it makes sense or the USDA to visitChinese arms on a more requent basis.

s AaThe area deorested or cropland and mean annual soybean price in the year o orest clearing were directly

correlated.41

Douglas Morton et al., in the Proceedings o the National Academy o Sciences

south american countries, including Brazil and Argentina, are major sources o organic imports including soybeans. 42Industry insiders estimated that Brazil produced 30,000 tons o organic soybeans in the early 2000s. 43 Most organic soybeanproducers are located in the southern regions o the country, ar rom the Amazon rain orest. While consumers shouldlikely not be concerned about organic soybeans grown on recently cleared rain orest land, it is a concern when purchasingconventional soy oods. However, organic production in other regions undoubtedly puts pressure on converting more rainorest into productive agricultural use.


21/59


Brazil is a major producer o conventionally grown soy-beans, both or human consumption and animal eed. In2008, Brazil reported record grain harvests, harvestingabout 60.1 million tons o soybeans.44 Brazils cultivatedsoybean area nearly doubled in the course o a decade,rising rom 29 million acres in 1994 to 52 million acres in2003.45 World consumption o soybeans, especially or ani-mal eed, drove this expansion.46 Large-scale monoculture

arms, which are highly mechanized and chemical inten-sive, are the norm in Brazil.

Between 2002 and 2003, the USDAs Foreign AgriculturalService reported that 30% o Brazils soybean crops weregrown in Amazonia.47 Prior to 2006, researchers oundthat agricultural intensication leads directly to rain or-est clearing.48 Even i soybeans were not directly grown onrecently cleared rain orest land, the acreage still contrib-uted to rain orest clearing by orcing ranchers to look or

round tABle on resPonsiBle soyKw cm c cc w vm c m c b x b s amc, c v c r tb rb s ac(rtrs).

t rtrs m-k v b cc w mc cm. i wk w b-w c m bvb cc m v mc v c.

rv mj b m c v b cm -, , cm c bv round table.ub, m q w w r tb rb s c cm w m, cb, c w b.

Mv, bc b M s w c v a seat at the table. i -, z c r ac nwk, aseed e, e v200 , c v m rtrs v cmmc b b

c b c b b.

n m v w v cm r tb rb s m cw, mz cv cc. t r tb w c, wc b m c m, k cv cc m b. xm, bw c cv , b -b.

aw M b c w w b b m qb; b j m w not b: cmm c c b w b m b .

t rb rb s m b b b . n b, c W W t n Cvc, c- c- m b b v mc c.

ov 200 cv z v z m r tb. i vm c c cv cc, -mz r tb rb s, wc m c b c xc cvcc b.

sb w Bz c c .

p c: ck.cm


22/59


more grazing land.

While it is unlikely that certied organic soybeans are grown directly on recently cleared rain orest land,49 conventionalsoybeans used in soy oods such as nutrition bars and vegetarian burgers may well have been grown on ormer rain orestland. Solae, which is a major supplier o conventional soy protein ingredients or nutrition bars and vegetarian bars, is analliance between Du Pont and Bunge Limited.50 Bunge, an agribusiness corporation based in New York but ormerly basedin Brazil,51 owns Bunge Brasil. In 2005, Bunge bought soybeans rom 30,000 growers in Brazil.52

According to the Rainorest Action Network, Bunge is the largest exporter o soy rom Brazil, where the crop has becomethe greatest driver o deorestation in the Amazon and the Cerrado. The Rainorest Action Network also reports thatBunge continues to buy soy rom plantations that have been blacklisted by the Brazilian government or using slave labor.

Nonprot groups like Greenpeace and the Rainorest Action Networkare working hard toward the goal o ensuring that no soybeans are plant-ed on ormer rain orest land. In 2006, Greenpeace pressured major userso Brazilian soybeans to stop buying them, such as McDonalds in Eu-rope, which ed the soybeans to chickens destined or McNuggets. Andin July 2006, companies that are heavily involved in soybean productionagreed to a two-year moratorium, stopping the trade o soybeans grownon newly deorested land. The moratorium was extended one more yearand is now in eect until July 23, 2009.53

Some believe that the moratorium is working; others, including Friends o the Earth and Conservation International, con-test this assertion. They note that Brazils environment ministry recently said that as much as 7,000 square kilometers oBrazils rain orest was cleared rom August through December, reversing a three-year decline in the pace o deorestation.54While it may not always be soy, theres a clear link between agriculture and deorestation, with livestock and then grainarmers such as corn playing a signicant role in deorestation, said Paulo Gustavo do Prado Pereira, environmental policiesdirector at Conservation International.55

Others, including Greenpeace, believe that the moratorium is working because these acres were not cleared specically orsoybean production. The rst eld survey since the moratorium, in March 2008, ound no soybeans were grown in any othe 193 deorested areas within the three states o Mato Grosso (the number one soy-producing state), Para, and Rondonia.Greenpeace noted that the moratorium is doing its job and halting soya related orest destruction, despite the pressure

rom rising soya prices. However, Greenpeaces Amazon campaign director, Paulo Adario, said he is still concerned becausemuch o the deorestation has occurred in areas next to existing soybean plantations, suggesting that the grain elds couldmove into those areas to meet growing international demand.56

Today, Bunge continues to buy Brazilian soybeans, and there does not appear to be any guarantee that these Brazilian soy-beans do not end up in natural nutrition bars, vegetarian burgers, and other soy oods. Since Solae, a major supplier o soyprotein isolate to natural ood companies, is a subsidiary o Bunge, it is possible that natural products and green oodscontaining soy protein are made with Brazilian soybeans.

3.

ca ba

a

ba a aa b

a a b

a a


23/59


comPAny rAtings in the orgAnic soy scorecArd

5-Ba Baeden Foods is the only 5-Bean-rated company thatsells its products nationwide and internationally. AllEdenSoy productsmade rom Edens soymilkcontain100% U.S./Canadian-grown organic soybeans. We werepleased that Eden Foods was ully transparent in their dis-closure o where their ingredients are sourced. Names andphone numbers o organic armers were immediately given

upon request; Eden Foods claim that it has long-standing relationships with itsarmers was conrmed by ollow-up research. The company is also highly com-

mitted to using only pure, real-ood ingredients in its soymilk, such as vanillaextract and cocoa powder instead o natural favors agents. Eden Foods is oneo the ew companies that perorms testing or GEO (genetically engineered or-ganisms) contamination on every load o incoming soybeans. This is a companythat appears highly dedicated to supporting organic armers and providing trulyorganic ood to consumers.

vermont soyis an excellent choice or soymilk and tou or people living in New England andNew York. This relatively new company, which started selling resh organic soymilk in 2007, is work-ing with Vermont armers to reach its goal o sourcing exclusively Vermont-grown organic soybeans.Beore they reach this goal o 100% Vermont-grown, they will source a small amount o organicsoybeans rom armers in neighboring Quebec. Vermont Soy is working with University o Vermont

researchers and armers to develop a soybean variety that grows best in the New England climate. Thecompanys goal is to establish a healthy ood system through a local economy supported by ood andagriculture. Vermont Soy is also committed to using only real-ood ingredients, favoring its soymilkwith real vanilla extract and air-trade cocoa powder. Vermont Soy is unique in that it gently pas-teurizes its soymilk, as opposed to the high-heat or ultra-high-heat pasteurization that is commonwith other commercially available soymilk brands. While gentle pasteurization gives their soymilk aslightly shorter shel-lie, it also means that it undergoes a less intense processing procedure.

Also at the top o our scorecard, in the 5-Bean category, are a number o small, independently ownedartisan tou and soymilk makers that buy soybeans directly rom American organic armers. Thesetou makers pride themselves in handcrating tou in small batches, resulting in tou that is, as theydescribe it, ar superior in taste and quality compared to tou that is mass produced. They are also

committed to vegetarian values. These tou makers have direct, sometimes long-standing, relation-ships with their armers, allowing them to continue sourcing all American-grown soybeans even attimes when domestic organic soybeans are in short supply.

smAll PlAnet toFu is based in Washington state and calls itsel the Microbrew o Tou. Itstou is available in stores in western states. Small Planet Tou is serious about supporting Americanorganic armers and has bought soybeans rom the same American armers or the past 17 years.

FArmsoy is a amily-owned business in Tennessee. Its tou is available in Fresh Market stores in various parts o thecountry, including the Southeast and Midwest. The company buys directly rom amily armers and handcrats the tou.

cornucoPiA FundingFrom the soy Foodsindustry

i 12 m bc-

, xm 3.5% Cc b cm mc cv wb w m-c mk.

t c c (b wb k bm cc) bjcv w w- 10 q. t bjcv - w cc. t c c/ v cc c

- c.W cmmc -c w cc v wb cmmc.


24/59


twin oAksproduces tou, tempeh, and soymilk at the Twin Oaks intentional community in ruralVirginia. Its products are available on the East Coast. This worker-owned cooperative buys organic soy-beans directly rom an organic amily arm in Virginia, reducing the carbon ootprint o their soybeansby buying so close to home.

In Canada, unisoyA sells tou in the eastern provinces. Unisoya is owned by two brothers who growtheir own organic soybeans on 400 acres. This company thereore alls in a category o its own: theseowners do not buy directly rom organic amily armers, they are organic amily armers. Footprint Foods

sells tou and tempeh in Canada under thegreen cuisine

brand. It is a amily-owned company thatbuys Canadian-grown organic soybeans rom a broker who identied Canadian armers who grow thesoybeans that are used in Green Cuisines products. Even though this company does not buy directlyrom amily armers, its supplier participated and the soybeans could be traced to the arms in Canadawhere they were grown.

4-Ba BaBrands in the 4-Bean category are also good choices, produced by ethical companies that openly shared inormation abouttheir sourcing and production practices with Cornucopia Institute researchers. The reasons why they are not in the 5-Beancategory vary, but each company should be commended or its commitment to transparency and honesty with its organiccustomers. As 4-Bean-rated brands, these companies all scored highly onmost scorecard criteria.

Some 4-Bean-rated brands, such as orgAnic vAlley soymilk, greAt eAstern sun miso, and Fresh toFu, orexample, source exclusively rom North American organic armers and use only organic favors and ood ingredients but donot yet have a testing system in place to discover any contamination with genetically engineered organisms. wildwood,on the other hand, sources some organic soybeans rom China but buys only rom Chinese arms that are inspected regularly

by company representatives, as opposed to relying solely on organic certicates or assurance that the organic standards wereollowed. Wildwood also retains a long-standing relationship with a midwestern armer who supplies some organic soybeans.Wildwood is one o the ew companies to have in place a GEO contamination tracing and testing system. Others, like toFushoP, lose points or sourcing organic soybeans rom China instead o domestically but are still rated highly or using onlyorganic ood ingredients as favors and being highly committed to organics.

There are many additional brands and products listed in the 4-Bean category o the scorecard. To nd out more about youravorite soy ood products, see the Organic Soy Scorecard, available on our web site (www.cornucopia.org/soysurvey).

3-Ba BaAmong private-label brands (store brands), hArris teeter stands out or its openness and transparency; it is the onlyprivate label to provide ull and open disclosure about its sourcing practices. Harris Teeter is in the 3-Bean category becausetracing the soybeans to their source was not possible. A soybeans path rom eld to shel is much longer or those destinedor private-label products; sometimes numerous middlemen are involved, and while some involved in producing Harris


25/59


Teeter soymilk participated, we were ultimately unable to veriy the source o the soybeans. Our research indicates that thesupplier o the organic soybeans or Harris Teeter soymilk works closely with North American organic armers and sources atleast a air percentage o North American organic soybeans. Again, this grocery chain deserves credit or being transparentwith their customers.

2-Ba BatrAder Joes participated in the project by lling out the survey but reused to disclose sourcing inormation. It is uniqueamong private-label brands or the company policy against sourcing genetically engineered ingredients (whole Foodsalso has a company policy against sourcing genetically engineered ingredients but did not participate in this project).

For vegAns

v w c v m , m b m kw

m cm xcv b, w vv m c mk c,w mk . Mv, m v b mk c c, qm, c.

t Cc i m, c m b c m , w b , m. , xcv c w q v c cc. a , v v-b- cm vv --m-b xcv. t c c c qm , v .

ev -b cm cc vv m c, c oc V, nc lw, cv m c t Cc i oc d scc ( www.cc.).t m cm c, -b m c wc mc m m vm b cm-b c m w cmm m.

a w m b b b m cm c xcv, m fc -c c b m m w w b xcv. oc m v m, wcm m m , m - m m ( m m ). Cm m m , xm, mc m b z - b cz b cv m. o m c m, m m m.

Cm w w v m c m cm vv c m m m- v sk, w b d . d vv v cv c m c m w hz, wc w 8000-cw c c m. t b m c c , m wc c c cmm. M v-b mk mk ckb cm vv m .

a cm w v-, -, -b cc cc cm w w cm vv m m c.


26/59


1-Ba a 0-Ba BaWhy are some well-known companies rated at the bottom o the scorecard? Because these companies reused to share the

answers to the questions on which the scorecard is based.

Nearly all companies that are highly rated enthusiastically responded to our request or inormation about their companiesand products. These companies are proud o how they make their oods and enjoy sharing inormation about their high-quality organic products with their customers. They are eager to share their stories, ready to tell us about their ingredients,and willing to share their sourcing inormation.

But some companies did not participate. These organic ood com-panies realize that their customers want to know the story behindtheir ood, and that they value environmental stewardship, air pricesto domestic amily armers, and pure ingredients. These companiesextol their organic virtues with clever sound bites and beautiul pic-tures on their product packages, web sites, and other promotional

materials. But they do so selectively. They hire marketing proessionalswho choose their language wisely and careully decide which pieceso inormation to include and which to exclude. When The Cornu-copia Institute asked i they were willing to share inormation reelywith their customers and be rated objectively in comparison to otherorganic companies producing similar oods, they were reluctant. Al-though they may share a story on their web site to help satisy theircustomers desire or knowing the pedigree o their ood, they appar-ently do not want to share the whole story, as Cornucopias survey andollow-up act-checking require.

One-Bean companies source at least some o their organic soybeans

rom American amily armers. The companies did not disclose thisinormation; this inormation is based on Cornucopia research. Zero-Bean companies did not disclose any inormation, and our researchwas unable to conrm whether they purchase any organic soybeansrom North American amily armers or depended on questionableimports.

One striking example is PAciFic nAturAl Foods. On their pack-ages, they have a Certied to the Source seal, and their web siteexplains that this program is an ambitious endeavor to want to tracethe origin o every single ingredient we use in our oods. [We]gured i we were interested in knowing, so were our customers. Pa-

cic Natural Foods web site also has a video titled We believe weshould know where our ood comes rom, but other than sharing thesourcing o their organic bell peppers, the Pacic Natural Foods website does not share sourcing inormation or any other ingredient inits products. On the web page or its organic soymilk, Pacic NaturalFoods writes that We are very picky about our soybeans. Cornuco-pias research indicates that Pacic Natural Foods purchased close tohal a million kilograms o organic soybeans rom China in the pastyear. When asked simply to name the organic certier o the arms

Pa naa F paa

a a c

stm a, b

pa a

a t

cpa i,

a a

c a

a a ba


27/59


where their Chinese organic soybeans are grown, Pacic Natural Foods did not respond. When asked i Pacic NaturalFoods would share with us the name o the third-party certier or their Certied to the Source program, they were silent.This raises the question o whether this program is in act third-party certied, or simply a marketing gimmick.

Similarly, vitAsoy usA, makers o Vitasoy soymilk and Nasoya tou, reused to participate in our scorecard project. Ourresearch indicates that they purchase organic soybeans directly rom American organic armers in the Midwest, but they alsopurchased approximately 200,000 kilograms o organic soybeans and 100,000 kilograms o organic tou rom China.

westsoyand

soydreAm

are two soymilk brands owned by the Hain Celestial Group. Westsoy started out as a smallcompany, Westbrae Natural Foods, when a pair o idealistic students opened a coeehouse in Berkeley. One o the oodsthey oered was imported soymilk rom Japan. In 1997, the Hain Celestial Group, a multi-million-dollar publicly tradedcompany that owns many natural and organic ood brands, acquired Westsoy. The Hain Celestial Group also owns Soy-Dream. Hain Celestial did not respond to The Cornucopia Institutes requests or participation in the scorecard study, andit reused to share its sourcing inormation. They also own Earths Best, a baby ood and inant ormula brand, or whichthey also did not share any sourcing or production inormation (more inormation on inant ormula can be ound in PartII o this report).

I you enjoy a product made by a company that did not participate in our scorecard project, and would like to know the ullstory behind your ood, please contact the company and urge it to participate in the Cornucopia scorecard project. Whenadditional companies respond we will immediately update the scorecard. A sample letter or you to personalize and send tothe company, as well as company contact inormation are available on our web site (www.cornucopia.org/soyproducts).

Another brand o soymilk that chose not to participate in our scorecard project was the industrys largest producer osoymilk, in addition to other soy products, silk. WhiteWave, which markets Silk soymilk, is a subsidiary o Dean Foods.

Dean Foods is the largest processor and distributor o dairy products in the United States, with $11 billion in sales in 2007.57In his book, Organic Inc., author Sam Fromartz provides an excellent account o WhiteWaves transormation rom a small,values-driven company to a subsidiary o the corporate giant Dean Foods. When Steve Demos, the ounder o WhiteWave,started manuacturing soymilk and tou, he wanted to prove to the prot-makers that [he] had a better model, based on

values.58 Ater Dean Foods bought WhiteWave in 2002, the companys quest to increase protability or shareholderswould soon clash with WhiteWaves values. Our own research, including conversations with organic armers, adds to thisstory.

Oren Holle is an organic armer in Kansas who is also the president o the Organic Farmers Agency or Relationship Mar-

keting (OFARM), an organic armers marketing cooperative. Ater Dean Foods bought WhiteWave and sought to increaseproduction o its organic soymilk, Holle, along with representatives o the Kansas Organic Producers Association, metwith WhiteWave representatives to explore a possible partnership between WhiteWave and organic armers. He recalls,

o cm w c amc c b, w m w b , w w bc c. e Ws m , sk w d Ww K Ww pm c-.

W t Cc i k Ceo w cm w c b, w m m w mm c (w , wv, cmm - w w m c cc). t Ceo, b

c cm, b c w cm w kw w cm m. t cm v cm m v-v.

t w , sk Ww, c m. t b cm - cm. B cm cm amc-w b, c cc amc m m c cm. B w w bus-w, w m v cv cm. tcm m, bv c m w cm m. W c w m us-w cm, c b b bck cm b cc c m w cm.


28/59


29/59


sumers. Recently, WhiteWave claims on its web site that it sources all its soybeans rom North American armers. But thecompany reused to participate in the Cornucopia Organic Soy Scorecard project, not willing to share its sourcing inorma-tion. Instead o lowering the cost o producing their soy products by sourcing raw materials rom China, it now appears thatthey might be lowering their costs by purchasing conventional, non-GMO soybeans, switching over some o their productline rom organic to natural.

In January 2009, the amiliar Silk soymilk cartons lost the green USDA Organic seal and now state natural where theyonce said organic. The cartons design is the same, and many loyal Silk customers who associate the brand with organ-

ics60 may not be aware that they are now buying a nonorganic product. Silks organic soymilk is now in a newly designedcarton.

Instead o supporting North American organic armers, or encouragingarmers to switch rom conventional to organic production, Dean Foodsis doing the opposite by buying ewer and ewer organic soybeans. Unlikethe use o the organic label on oods, the word natural is not stringentlyregulated. Natural soybeans in Silk soymilk may be produced on mon-oculture arms, using inputs such as synthetic ertilizers and pesticidesthat would be strictly prohibited in organic production. No governmentor third-party entity regulates the natural claim, so a natural soybeanis essentially a conventional, nonorganic soybean. Silk claims that its soy-

beans are produced in a sustainable manner, but there is no accountabil-ity without the organic label. Their unwillingness to use certied organicsoybeans apparently stems rom the simple act that nonorganic soybeansare much cheaper.

On some o their nonorganic products, including Silk Live and Silk Yogurt, White Wave/Dean Foods lists organicsoymilk and organic soybeans as the rst ingredient. According to a Silk spokeswoman, not all soybeans in these products

are in act organic,61 these products are made with some organic soybeans, but not enough to qualiy them or made withorganic soybeans status. To qualiy or the made with organic soybeans status, at least 70% o the ingredients must becertied organic. Either Silk is using some organic soybeans, but not all, or their yogurt contains more than 30% nonorganicruit and other ingredients, which disqualies it rom the made with organic label. Consumers who associate Silk withorganics, see that organic soybeans are listed as the rst ingredient, and assume that this yogurt is an organic product are

mistaken. This product contains more than 30% nonorganic ingredients and, possibly, nonorganic soybeans.62

Consumers who purchase organic soymilk in order to avoid supporting companies that are involved in animal agricultureshould be aware that Dean Foods, owning over 50 dairy brands in the United States, also owns the Horizon Organic dairybrand. The Cornucopia Institute has led legal complaints against Dean Foods or violating the organic standards govern-ing organic dairy production. Under their Horizon Organic brand, Dean Foods sells milk rom dairy armsincluding acorporate-owned, 8,000-head dairy in Idahothat allegedly ail to provide appropriate outdoor access to the cows, amongother violations.

ia pp n

Aa a a,

a a

a

a p, da

F pp

b b a

a ba


30/59


PrivAte lABels

Organic consumers are oten interested in knowing the story behind their oodwhere the ood was grown, how it wasprocessedbut store-brand, also called private-label, products are inherently anonymous. The store contracts with a manu-acturer to produce the private-label oods, and oten the manuacturer relies on additional middlemen. Tracing the soy-beans to the source is, thereore, oten a dicult endeavor. Direct relationships between the brand and organic armersare nonexistent. By virtue o the act that these companies are operating in a secretive manner, consumers should be very

skeptical about the quality and sourcing o the raw materials.

The only notable exceptions areHarris Teeter and Trader Joes. Both companies participated by lling out the survey; Har-ris Teeter is in the 3-Bean category and Trader Joes in the 2-Bean category.

Private-label companies in the 1-Bean category did not participate in the project, but through our research we were ableto determine that at least some o the soybeans used in their organic soymilk are most likely sourced rom North Americanorganic amily armers. Private-label companies in the 0-Bean category did not participate in the project, and we were un-able to trace the source o their organic soybeans. I you enjoy a private-label soy ood product and would like to know moreabout the sourcing and processing, please contact the company and urge it to participate in the Cornucopia Organic SoyScorecard project.

4.


31/59


Part II: Unmasking the Natural Soy Industry

isolAting nutrients: soy Protein

t P B ha ha caFood companies routinely place the needs o stockholders over considerations o public health, and the purpose o

the soy heart healthy claim was to increase market share.

Marion Nestle, Proessor o Nutrition at New York Universityand author oFood Politics

as best-selling author and New York Times

magaziNe contributor Michael Pollan points out inhis latest book, In Deense o Food, we should trustoods that are real and whole. When a ood ispart o a traditional diet throughout human his-tory, chances are that it can be a sae and healthypart o a balanced and varied diet. He suggests thatnew, inventive, novel, genetically engineered, andhighly processed oods be met with a healthy doseo skepticism. He reers to them as ood-like sub-stances.

Scientists agree; Dr. William Helerich, who studies the e-ects o soy on cancer, ound in one study that isolated soyingredients stimulated the growth o tumors. He notes, how-ever, that some studies have shown that more wholesome

soy oods such as soy four did not have this eect.63 Suchscientic studies support the idea that wholesome oods,minimally processed, are preerable to highly processed oodsincluding isolated ingredients.

Soy oods such as tou, tempeh, and miso have been part othe diet in Asian countries or centuries. William Shurtle,co-author oThe Book o Tou and director o the SoyIno

Center, points out that Okinawa, Japan, has the highest con-sumption o tou in that country, and its people have the lon-gest lie-span compared to other regions. Soy oods such astou and soymilk rom many companies that are rated highlyin our scorecard are only minimally processedsoaked,heated, ground, strained, curdled, and pressedand are notprocessed more than other traditional oods such as cheeseand yogurt produced rom cows milk.

t a a a

a pp 1998 b

P t iaa,

a pa a a sa,

a a aa a a a t Aa ha

Aa (AhA) a

a FdA

app a a a a


32/59


The SoyIno Center, which promotes soy oods as a healthy, environmentally riendly, and humane alternative to meatproducts, has a database o approximately 1,000 scientic, peer-reviewed, published studies showing health benets o eat-ing soy oods.

However, not all researchers and advocacy groups agree about the benets o soy in the human diet. The Weston A. PriceFoundations (WAPF) president, Sally Fallon, objects to the widespread promotion o soy oods as a miracle health ood.WAPFs web site lists scientic studies indicating that soy consumption, especially excessive consumption o isolated soyingredients, may be harmul to ones health. Fallon says, The propaganda that has created the soy sales miracle is all the

more remarkable because only a ew centuries ago the soybean was considered unt to eateven in Asia.64

Today, many Americans are amiliar with the health benets o soy oods through the FDA-approved heart healthy claimon ood packages containing soy protein ingredients. It is important or American consumers to understand that this healthclaim is a direct product o corporate boardrooms searching or ways to sell more soy productsand to turn the soy wasteby-products o soybean oil extraction into prots. In 1999, the FDA approved a health claim or soy oods: Diets low insaturated at and cholesterol that include 25 grams o soy protein a day may reduce the risk o heart disease. 65

This health claim was rst proposed in 1998 not by doctors or public interest groups, but by Protein Technologies Interna-tional, a company that stood to prot tremendously i it could convince the American public to buy more soy protein (Pro-tein Technologies International is now known as Solae). The key to selling more soy protein was convincing the Americanpublic that soy protein was a desirable product, and a health claim would go a long way to establish this reputation. Healthclaims on oods have long been recognized as an eective marketing tool. Even on the FDA web site, the value o healthclaims to corporate prots is acknowledged: Brian Sansoni, senior manager or public policy at the Grocery Manuacturerso America is quoted as saying that [a health claim] brings attention to products; there are newspaper and TV stories andinormation on the Internet. So what better way to convince the American public to spend money on soy protein than towidely spread the message that it could reduce heart disease? With corporate unding, scientists published articles makingthis connection. In a cloud o controversy and doubt in the scientic community, the FDA allowed the health claim in 1999,opening the door to a new world o opportunity and prots or soy processors.

In her book Food Politics

Behind the Bean: The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry

Documents

Transcript of Behind the Bean: The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry