07/03/2015
Whole Food's "Responsibly Grown" Ratings Try To Convince Shoppers That Conventional Is Just As Good As Organic.
You may have seen those little circular stickers on the fruit and vegetable signs at Whole Foods, touting the company’s “Responsibly Grown” rating system for groceries. The three category rankings of “good,” “better” or “best” appear on the pricing signs, along with the place of origin, cost, and whether the product was grown conventionally or organically. In fact, at our local Whole Foods there is a huge round plaque on one of the walls in the grocery section telling shoppers “LOOK FOR RESPONSIBLY GROWN…The finest produce and flowers come from healthy farms.”
Recently, my family went to our local Whole Foods and came across the Responsibly Grown rankings on avocados, bananas, pineapples, etc., In one bin we found conventional California avocados, and in the bin right next to it organic California avocados, both of which carried Whole Foods “BEST” ranking for Responsibly Grown. My daughter watched in horror as I took pictures of the two grocery signs side-by-side. (Her: “Why are you doing that - its embarrassing?” Me: I’m going to make a post. Her: “It’s embarrassing.” Me: “I’m not just taking pictures of random grocery signs for my collection, I’m making a post.” Her: “Right, because posting about grocery signs is not weird.” Sigh).
Anyway, if you like to read weird posts about grocery signs, Whole Foods rankings would like you to know that organic and conventional avocados are just as healthy for the environment and for humans. Please Ignore the price difference they charge you -- 2 conventional “BEST ranked” California avocados cost $4, but if you want the organic “BEST ranked” California avocado you have to pay Whole Foods 2 for $5. Sure, but remember: both are BEST.
Another example, a USDA Organic Ecuador banana got the Best rating, but then the conventional Ecuador Banana got that same Best ranking. Still Whole Foods will charge you 99 cents per lb at Whole Foods for the Organic, while conventional Ecuador banana costs 79 cents per lb – aren’t you silly?
The “Best” ranking for the conventional is particularly interesting because under Whole Foods guidelines, conventional Ecuador Banana’s can still get “BEST” rankings even though they are sprayed with any or all of the following pesticides:
“Acibenzolar-S-methyl (i.e., Boost® 50 SC), difenoconazole (i.e., Sico® 25 EC), epoxiconazole (i.e., Opus® 12.5 SC), fenpropimorph (i.e., Volley® 88 OL), mancozeb (i.e., Dithane® 60 SC), pyraclostrobin (i.e., Regnum® 25 EC), pyrimethanil (i.e., Siganex® 60 SC), thiophanate-methyl (i.e., Cycosin® 70 WP) and tridemorph (i.e., Calixin® 86 OL) for control of black sigatoka / sigatoka negra (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) on bananas in…Ecuador.”
Epoxiconazole is listed as a carcinogen under Prop 65 law in California since 2011. Thiophanate-methyl is listed as a male and female toxicant, meaning it is endocrine disruptor under Prop 65. Difenoconazole is listed as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA. Mancozeb is listed a carcinogen under Prop 65 in California, a probable human carcinogen according to the EPA, an EPA hazardous air pollutant and developmental/reproductive toxin, as well as a possible groundwater contaminant under California law. Pyrimethanil is listed as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA. Thiophanate-methyl is listed as a likely human carcinogen by the EPA, and a female and male reproductive toxin according to Prop 65 law and the EPA, as well as a potential groundwater contaminant under California law.
In fact, a banana plantation in Ecuador can still get that Best rating today even if it is sprayed with chemicals that Whole Foods will be banning starting after September 2015, presumably due to their recognized toxicity, namely “Glyphosate (i.e., Arrasador® 36 SL) and diquat dibromide (i.e., Reglone® 20 SL)” and “Terbufos (i.e., Forater® 15 GR).” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, and has been found in studies to be estrogenic and cause breast cancer cells to grow into the parts-per-trillion range. Terbufos is listed as an Extremely Hazardous Substance by the World Health Organization, and as Highly Toxic by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. It is a nervous system toxicant.
Similarly, a Costa Rican Organic Pineapple at our Whole Foods got a “Best” ranking, but then the conventional Costa Rican Pineapple also received that same “Best” ranking. That Organic pineapple from Costa Rica costs $1.99 Lb, while the conventional also from Costa Rica costs $1.49 lb. An Organic Persian Cucumber from Mexico got the lowest possible ranking of “GOOD.” In a protest letter to Whole Foods about the Responsibly Grown labeling system, several Organic farmers even pointed out that organic produce sometimes gets LOWER ratings than its conventional counterparts. For example, conventional asparagus grown in Mexico received Whole Foods “BEST” rating, while California grown Organic asparagus only got “GOOD” the lowest rating in the system. A conventional potato farmers can get a “best” ranking while using pesticides, like Chlorpropham to stop sprouting, which pesticide is prohibited by law from use on organic farms, but doesn’t matter to Whole Foods.
In their letter to Whole Food’s CEO, the organic farmers argued, that no grower should get the BEST or BETTER rankings unless they too had met the requirements of USDA Organic under federal law, which requires third-party certification. The Responsibly Grown program, in turn, requires growers to merely self-report in response to an online questionnaire.
Under Whole Foods Responsibly Grown rankings “Certified Organic growers receive 78 total points for their USDA Organic Certification,” however, this represents only “one-third of the 225 points needed for a Best rating and one-quarter of all questions in the Responsibly Grown index.” What other things count in the 300 point total? For example, a grower can get 14 points for establishing an animal habitat and “reducing the impact of pesticides on pollinators” (i.e, cleaning up after themselves); they can get 25 points for energy conservation (including, replacing their light bulbs to LED); 10 points for instituting a recycling program (e.g., recycling the pesticide container itself), and 25 points for waste water management and conservation (though the waste water is polluted with the pesticides they used). A farm can win 6 points for doing regular tractor maintenance, vs. 10 points for USDA Organic status? This is how a small organic farm could end up having fewer points than a large conventional one, presuming they can afford to participate in the Responsibly Grown program, which the farmers claimed can cost them as much as $20,000.
In fact, a conventional farm can get extra points for just being conventional. They can earn 5 points if they self-report that they applied pesticides after finding them necessary due to inspection/monitoring (as opposed to admitting they do it for no reason other habit and laziness?). The conventional grower can get 5 more points if it keeps electronic records of the toxic pesticides it used, and 5 additional points if they calibrate the equipment applying these pesticides based on manufacturer’s instruction (another slam-dunk). Plus, 5 more points, if they create “a drift mitigation” plan for their pesticides, which means they have a plan in place to try to reduce how much of their pesticides drift from the site of application, such as when they are sprayed (good luck getting that to stay put, but a plan is all you need). This means a conventional grower can earn 20 points simply for using pesticides, while an organic farmer gets a mere 10 points for having a third party certification showing they comply with USDA Organic laws. See the perverse irony?
Clearly something has gone bad in the produce section at Whole Foods. Obviously “Responsibly Grown” doesn’t mean the same thing to me as a consumer, as it does to Whole Foods as a retailer? What could matter more in terms of responsible farming than whether or not the farm used synthetic pesticides on the food my family is eating? This is precisely why I buy organic. In turn, the consumption of fewer synthetic pesticides means the planet isn’t as polluted with them, including the water and land. Yes, it is nice that the farmer created a lovely animal habitat by putting up a bat or bird box or recycles the container the pesticide came in (hopefully it won’t be turned into a Coke bottle), but those are things I value only secondarily to the health of my family. Am I to really value an animal habitat, or a plastics recycling program, when you are applying synthetic pesticides that will end up in my kids’ stomachs, not to mention in that animal habitat you just built, and in every animal habitat on the planet over time if you believe science?
So what is Whole Foods end-game here? As Whole Foods itself says “organic still represents a limited percent of fresh produce production in the United States. With Responsibly Grown, we’ve put in place a framework to improve health and environment in many ways including, perhaps most importantly, the impact of pesticides used in conventional agriculture.” Right, most of the market is still conventional and Whole Foods is trying to make their conventional produce seem “GOOD, BETTER OR BEST” as compared to the conventional produce sold at Walmart, Costco or Ralphs etc., As more players have gotten into the organics game (Costco now being the biggest organic food retailer in the country), Whole Foods appears to have decided it needs to “spin” its conventional produce so it looks somehow more “responsible.” Consumers spent $4 billion on organics at Costco last year, compared to $3.6 billion spent on organics at Whole Foods. You would think that having made $3.6 billion in a year from organic products, Whole Foods might realize that you can’t spin tap water into wine – and sulfite free, organically grown, local wine to boot.
