This Article is Cross-Posted on KosherEye.com

Now it’s on to the Farm – a 50-mile drive from the plant.

As city dwellers, we did not know what to expect at the “chicken” farm. Wise Organic Poultry contracts with farmers willing to raise chickens to its high specifications – combining humane methods, proper feed, and ample space. To visit one such farm, we traveled to a picturesque well–maintained farm, owned by a grower in the Susquehanna Valley of Central Pennsylvania.

We donned disposable shoe coverings, a full body protective bodysuit, and head apparel. Prior to entering the main area where the chicks are kept, we stepped into an antiseptic, granular shoe disinfectant and proceeded into a large temperature controlled barn where the little chicks are raised. The birds, in this case Cobb chickens, were 8,000 in number. The chicks are vaccinated at the hatchery one day after birth, prior to their arrival at the growers. The vaccine dye shows up as pink on their backs to show they have been vaccinated. Although no antibiotics are ever used, vaccines are administered at the hatchery. A vaccine builds the birds’ immune system, allowing it to resist certain diseases. Think of it as similar to our “flu” vaccinations. When we exited the barn, we again stepped into the granular shoe disinfectant, removed the disposable covering and deposited them into a large disposable plastic bag.

The chicks are kept primarily indoors until they are three weeks old and then, weather permitting, given protected outdoor access. They are then considered “free roaming” and can come and go as they please. The barns have 8 hours of darkness every evening, “sleeping time”, a rule for growing organic birds.

Issac selected this grower because of the grower’s long time family farming history, his excellent reputation, and his dedication to a fully organic program. Theirs is a high–tech organic facility monitored with the latest equipment for health and welfare of the chickens.

A computer controls temperatures in each barn: It is automatically adjusted depending on the age of the chicks. The temperature usually starts at 92 degrees and is gradually lowered to 70 degrees as the birds age. Layers of saw dust cover the floor about 2–3 inches deep and the covering remains for the duration of the life of the particular flock.

To monitor the health of the flock, official monthly reports are required: barn record sheets are kept daily with documentation relating to  temperature, litter quality, health, air quality, rodent control, and water. Organic birds are required to each have one square foot of space in the barn as compared to .34 square feet for commercial birds.

Automatic feeding and water systems run the length of area. There is a stainless steel “nipple” for water. The steel glistens and attracts the birds to the water.  The chicks are not handled until they are hand caught for shipping. Most of Wise Organic Pastures’ chicks are shipped for slaughter at 6-8 weeks of age. Isaac processes 10,000 chickens per week, and he tries to increase production by at least 10% for holidays

Organic poultry is usually more costly than conventional poultry. Why? As we observed first hand, there are more stringent growing conditions. The feed must be organic and there are multiple space and atmosphere considerations. Not only is Issac Wiesenfeld concerned about the quality of the feed, the sanitation and health of the birds, but he is currently working diligently to add an additional label to his kosher, organic chickens; a humane notation on his label, indicating that the birds were raised in accordance with an officially recognized Animal Welfare Policy.

In the twelfth century, the writings of the Jewish physician Maimonides, detailed the medicinal properties of chicken and chicken soup. We hope that we have informed our readers, so that they can choose just the right healthy, delicious and nutritious chicken for every pot.

Wise Organic Pastures – The Processing Plant

This Article is Cross-Posted on KosherEye.com

Our Bubbie and “grand” Bubbies may have known how to make a famous roast chicken and of course, chicken soup, but certainly did not face the same chicken challenges that the kosher shopper faces today. Most chicken is no longer raised in the back yard! The consumer is now faced with numerous choices in quality, type and price.

Chicken has become a multi-billion dollar industry in America. Kosher chicken is no exception, but is somewhat more complicated. There has been extraordinary growth in kosher poultry sales in the last few decades. Along with observant Jews, many non-Jews and Jews who don’t necessarily adhere to kosher laws now purchase kosher poultry. Why? There is a perception that kosher certification adds a layer of clarity and transparency to poultry purchases. In addition to the FDA and government regulatory agencies, the processing plant must adhere to the specifications of a supervising kosher agency and rabbinical authority. Many consumers welcome this extra layer of inspection.

Kosher shoppers have choices to make. Our goal is to understand and to explain some of them to our readers.

Recently, as part of the KosherEye “kosher” summer road trip through Pennsylvania and Maryland, we were invited to tour both The Wise Organic Pastures processing plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania and a Wise Organic Poultry Farm, which is a 50-mile drive out into the Susquehanna Valley.

In Scranton, we had the pleasure of meeting Moshe Fink, founder of David Elliot Chicken and owner of the processing plant used by Wise Organic Pastures. He answered many of our technical kosher “processing” questions and provided background information.

According to Moshe, for poultry to be considered kosher, they must be in good health when slaughtered. The shochet must use a sharp knife and no stunning or electric shock is permissible before “shechita” (slaughter). Kosher poultry may not be heated, and blood must drip freely from the bird after slaughter. The knife must be sharp, the killing respectful, and the resulting blood symbolically “buried” under a floor covering – in this case a layer of sawdust, coal and ashes. The processing method is cold and no heat is ever applied.

Following slaughter, non-kosher poultry may be scalded with hot water. A natural occurrence from the use of hot water is that feathers just “slide” off. The result of kosher slaughter and cold processing is an unwelcome problem: residual feathers. If consumers are asked the one negative of kosher chicken, it is the feathers!

The David Elliot processing plant uses the “Cadillac” of defeathering machines, the LINCO, made in Sweden. But even with this mechanical wonder, which can be adjusted to the average size of the birds, due to the cold water processing system, feathers must be removed manually at the end of the processing line.

At the David Elliot plant, teams of workers stand with defeathering razor sharp knives and manually remove feathers after the machines have completed the initial process. Yes, this extra step of manual defeathering adds to the price of the poultry, and therefore, it is understandable that value priced poultry has more feathers when delivered to the consumer.

One positive aspect of the “kashering” process is very welcome. All kosher birds are soaked in fresh cold water for 1/2 hour, are than covered in salt for one hour, and then washed in fresh running water 3 times. This is done to follow the biblical prohibition to eating blood. Because of the salt “bath”, most consumers applaud the taste, which taste similar to culinary brining. Kosher chickens have won numerous taste awards including a contest held by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. In this contest, a main rule is no seasoning is allowed on the chickens. Empire Kosher Poultry has won several of these prizes and Moshe Fink attributes the consecutive awards to the kosher process – specifically salting!

Our poultry facility visit began with the gracious invitation of our host Issac Wiesenfeld, president and owner of  Wise Organic Pastures.His mother, Rachel Wiesenfeld started Wise Organic Pastures in 1992. She founded the company after the family faced a financial setback. According to Mrs. Wiesenfeld, there was “a need in the kosher poultry market for wholesome chicken raised the old-fashioned way — free range, organically fed, hormone-free — and processed according to strict kosher standards. At the time, there was organic chicken and there was kosher chicken, but no one was offering chicken that was both organic and kosher.”

Her son, Issac, the fifth child of 11 siblings, was the only sibling to join the company! The offices are based in Brooklyn, but the plant and farms are in Pennsylvania. The family has had a thriving business relationship with Moshe Fink for the past 18 years. Although the Wise Organic Pastures started 18 years ago, the company could not add the official organic label until the legislation was passed in Washington in Oct 2001. The Wiesenfelds are truly organic kosher pioneers! And, timing is everything. Since USDA established the National Organic Program officially in 2002, the organic food market has grown by almost 20 percent annually.

KosherEye was given a full tour of the entire David Elliott  processing plant. What did we see?

The sanitation and efficiency we observed at the plant was impressive. Before we were permitted to tour, we had to dress from head to toe, (including boots and hats) in sanitary cover. The shechita atmosphere was antiseptic. The Rabbi inspects each bird for blemishes or problems, and then skillfully and quickly cuts through the neck with a slash of his constantly sharpened knife. The job must be both holy and professionally precise. From the off-loading dock to the packaging area, the plant appears clean, well run and intense in purpose. Certainly the atmosphere is not for the squeamish; however it was a realistic view of how the chickens we eat are slaughtered, kashered, cleaned and packaged.

Both the Organic and Kosher poultry market has grown over the years. The economy certainly affects the consumer’s ability to buy the higher priced organic chickens- but, conversely, the number of organic buyers is growing.

For more information about Wise Organic Pastures, visit WiseOrganicPastures.com. To learn more about David Elliott poultry, call 570-344-6348.

This list, from Consumer Reports, of Common Industry Chicken Terms, is very informative.

I eat in a pretty healthy manner. I cook most of my own meals, and even when I eat out or at other people’s homes I’m careful what and how much I eat. [I also keep kosher, so I guess by definition I think a lot about what I eat or don't eat, but it's rote by now--I've been doing it most of my life.]

Over the past few years, I’ve developed a host of food intolerances/allergies (still not sure which they are yet, still working on that part) and in addition to making sure I eat healthily, I also have to make sure I don’t eat things that make me sick.

I’ve gone through fits and spurts of eating organic, cage-free, preservative free, artificial flavors & ingredients free, home-grown…you get the idea. It’s not that I don’t care about environmental sustainability, or even the fact that organic, cage-free, or local produce is more expensive or not as accessible; honestly, for better or worse, it’s just not in my frame of reference. I buy things without thinking how far my bananas have traveled to get to me, or how the field workers who picked my grapes were treated.

Having food allergies has made me infinitely more mindful about what I’m putting in my body because of the ill effects certain things can have on me. But it has also made me think a lot more about food sustainability and food ethics in general, and how the choices I make about food impact others. Sure, I’m only one person, and what kind of environmental impact am I really having by buying bananas that have been shipped from Chile? What point does it make if I buy ethically raised meat? But if everyone thinks like that, then everyone is contributing to problems rather than helping to solve them.

At this point in my life (and budget), I can’t commit to completely changing the way I shop and eat; I know it wouldn’t stick. But I’m taking small steps to buy more local produce, ethically raised meat, and free trade items, and hope to incrementally adapt my habits in the long term.

Food allergies have made my life complicated, but they’ve also opened my eyes to how the choices I make about food can have a significant impact on more than just me. Silver lining, I guess?

Do you have food allergies or intolerances? How have they impacted your life?

Gluten or dairy free? Check out my food blog for some recipes!

By Josh Berkman, cross-posted on From the Ground–the blog of American Jewish World Service (AJWS)

Over the last week, an important discussion has emerged in the blogosphere about the best ways for hungry nations to produce food. The debate began with a piece by Wellesley professor Robert Paarlberg, published in Foreign Affairs. Paarlberg argues that sluggish food production�rather than price explosion�is responsible for food insecurity in the Global South and that the only way to produce enough food is through advanced technology, increased chemical use and genetically modified seeds. He marginalizes organic farming as quaint and unrealistic as a solution. It’s time to stop rejecting biotech and industrial food production, Paarlberg claims, and realize that it is the only way forward.

A few days later, FP posted a rebuttal piece by Anna Lappe arguing that Paarlberg misrepresents organic farming and its demonstrated potential to produce large amounts of food on small parcels in the developing world. Sustainable agriculture is far more scientifically intensive than what Paarlberg gives it credit for, Lappe says, and much better for the environment to boot. Lappe also cites numerous studies concluding that low impact farming requires less water, doesn’t cause pollution or degrade land and it doesn’t leave peasant farmers dependent on large multinational corporations for materials.

So where does AJWS fall in this debate? Somewhere in between, but a bit closer to Lappe’s point of view. We believe that, first and foremost, it is critical that food be produced locally. When poor communities are reliant on shipments of industrial-produced, what happens when wars, weather, corruption and oil price spikes disrupt the flow? So the question is how best to produce enough food on local farms. Again, the answer lies in the middle. We know that organic farming is gentle on the land and sustainable. When communities are given access to the right resources, we’ve seen phenomenal results with our grantees. But our grantees’ experience also indicates that to achieve these results, there is a role for the proper use of technology and certain inputs. AJWS’s director of advocacy, Timi Gerson, expands on our position in a piece that was posted today at Civil Eats, and she asks for all of us to push for food aid programs that emphasize and enable local production. Check it out!

I have long harbored misgivings about soy.  It is highly estrogenic. It’s associated with many environmental concerns (fields are clear cut internationally to support it, most of the crop goes toward feeding animals on feedlots, etc.) It’s highly processed (and a non whole food) as milk, frozen entrees, and other products.  And honestly, and this is just my perspective, I don’t enjoy the taste. But I have always respected the fact that many people do not agree with me on all these points, and enjoy soy as a deliberate and integral part of their diet.  Most of these folks have countered my concerns with the fact that it is a healthy, non-animal protein that provides efficient calories at a low cost. 

Recently, the Cornucopia Institute released their Soy Report and Scorecard, and it is quite a read.  Some highlights include:

• Questionable sourcing, especially as it relates to soy beans from China.
• Widespread use of hexane for processing soy foods.  Hexane is a neurotoxin listed as a hazardous air pollutant by the EPA.
• Significant transparency and quality concerns with private label products.

The report also assigns scores of 1 – 5 beans of excellence to various brands and producers, and allows you to drill down and read details of their findings for each. 

Regardless of your preferences, this report is worth reviewing. It provides significant information about soy and it’s risks, origins, practical uses, and better options.

Image: USDA Agricultural Research Service

By Audrey Sasson, cross-posted on From the Ground–the blog of American Jewish World Service (AJWS)

I recently attended an event promoting Eric Holt-Gimenez’s new book (co-authored by Raj Patel), Food Rebellions: Crisis and the Hunger for Justice. Eric is the executive director of Food First and a powerful advocate for transforming our broken food system. His presentation unpacked the causes of hunger worldwide and promoted a reinvestment in local food systems as both a just and effective solution.

Eric began by outlining the rise of the industrial food system, starting with how the Green Revolution of the 1960s displaced local food systems and imposed an industrial model of food production from the North to the Global South. With the rise of Structural Adjustment Programs in the 1980s and what he dubbed “Free trade mania” in the 1990s, local food systems worldwide have been compromised and abandoned. The results? Countries in the Global South used to produce $1 billion in food surplus. Today, those same countries have an $11 billion food deficit.

One of the more illuminating moments for me came when Eric described the process by which the UN published the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The biggest study of its kind ever conducted, the IAASTD was published in 2008 and was meant to put corporate agriculture at ease by proving that the industrial model, including widespread use of GMOs, can and does effectively feed the world. Instead, the study concluded that small-scale farmers and organic, agro-ecological methods are the way forward to solve the current food crisis and meet the needs of local communities.

Eric made a strong case for fighting poverty through rebuilding local food economies and he pointed to the food sovereignty movement as paving the way. Interestingly, he connected the fight for food sovereignty worldwide to local food justice efforts here in the United States and elsewhere. The explosion in CSAs, school gardens, urban farms in low-income communities–to name a few–is part and parcel of the effort to reclaim control over our global food system and intentionally participate in a more just and sustainable model.

I haven’t read his book yet, but if it’s anything like the talk he gave I’m sure it’ll inspire. You can find out more on the Food First website. And if you’re looking for ways to plug into food justice efforts in New York, check out the AJWS-AVODAH Partnership’s new initiative, the Brooklyn Bridge CSA!

The genetically modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture’s approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case – in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto’s insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Our struggle here at CFS is a struggle for organic and sustainable farrmers everywhere. This is truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle, between the farmers we represent and Monsanto, a chemical company turned seed company that appears to have control of our food supply as its ultimate goal. Here are the words of my boss, Andrew Kimbrell: “That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”

The federal district court required the Department of Agriculture to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the impacts of the crop on the environment and on farmers; the first time the U.S. government had ever undertaken such analysis for any GE crop. The court permitted farmers that had already planted to continue, but halted any further planting pending the agency’s re-assessment. That the EIS was required is not in dispute; the legal issue is only the scope of relief while USDA analyzed the impacts of the crop for the first time.

In October 2009 Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to hear further arguments. In response, the Center and the U.S. government separately opposed that request the following December. USDA completed the first draft of the EIS in December 2009.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. It is the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since the U.S. Organic standard prohibits genetic engineering, and alfalfa exporters, since most overseas governments also reject GE-contaminated crops.

Here are the worlds of Phil Geertson who we represent: “We trust the Supreme Court will uphold farmers right to choose their crop of choice and protect us from the constant fear of contamination from GE crops.”

This struggle that we are engaged in is all of our struggle – centered on the right to eat food without GMOs and farmers to grow GMOs. Please stay tuned to this important case, consider a donation to the Center For Food Safety, and please – Submit comments to the USDA on their profoundly disappointing EIS, recently issues.

Onward
zelig

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA failed to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) before deregulating the crop. An EIS is a rigorous analysis of the potential significant impacts of a federal decision. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the GE plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in an EIS.

USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009.
A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously. Instead, USDA has completely dismissed the fact that GE contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products. And, incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE contamination (also known as transgenic contamination or biological pollution) of organic. USDA’s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the environment.

CLICK HERE to Review the draft EIS:

Review Supplemental documents here:

CFS is spearheading a campaign to ensure that all affected parties are involved in the public process and have the opportunity to submit public comments. This is the first time the USDA has done this analysis for any GE crop. Therefore, the final version (and resulting decision) will have broad implications for all GE crops. The failure of the agency to address the environmental and related economic impacts of GE alfalfa will have far-reaching consequences for organic and conventional agriculture and food producers.

Consumer/Organic Outreach Talking Points
*Tell USDA That You Care About GE Contamination of Organic Crops and Food:

USDA claims that there is no evidence that consumers care about contamination of organic alfalfa and alfalfa-derived foods with Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa.

- Prohibition of genetic engineering (GE) is a fundamental tenet of the Organic Standard. In fact, USDA’s failure to exclude GE crops from the first version of the organic rule was one of the main reasons that 275,000 people filed public comments in 1997– the largest outpouring of public participation in the history of U.S. administrative procedure. Consumers care deeply about organic integrity, and genetic engineering is fundamentally at odds with organic. More than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.

*Tell USDA You Will Reject GE Contaminated Alfalfa and Alfalfa-Derived Foods:

USDA claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the GE material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product.

- The Organic Standard requires that livestock feed for animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products is 100 percent organic. Protecting organic alfalfa, the main source of feed for the organic dairy industry, is crucial to the health of that important sector of U.S. agriculture. Additionally, as the Court found in the lawsuit that required this EIS, to “farmers and consumers organic means not genetically engineered, even if the farmer did not intend for his crop to be so engineered.” Whether or not the end product is impacted is not the issue. Farmers’ fundamental right to sow the crop of their choice is eliminated when it is contaminated with transgenes, and so is the public’s ability to support meaningful organic food and feed production. The public’s trust in the integrity of the organic label is essential to the continued vitality of the organic foods industry. Tell USDA you reject GE contamination of organic by any means or at any stage of sustainable food production.

*Tell USDA to Protect Organic Farmers and All Farmers Who Wish to Choose to Grow Non-GE Crops:

Although USDA says it supports “coexistence” of all types of agriculture, USDA refuses to even consider any future for alfalfa that would include protections from contamination for organic and conventional farmers and exporters.

- USDA can approve GE crops in whole or in part. Partial approval could include use restrictions, geographic limitations or planting isolation distances. Yet, in the court-ordered analysis, USDA analyzed only two options: 1) Full approval, allowing GE alfalfa to be grown and sold without restriction like any other crop; and 2) No action, meaning GE alfalfa could only be grown under USDA permit, as at present. USDA’s “all or nothing” approach leaves un-analyzed any potential options to protect farmers. This is contrary to law and logic. USDA’s basic mission is “protecting American agriculture.” Yet, USDA refused to even consider any options that might protect organic and conventional agriculture from contamination and the resulting loss of markets and ability to sow the crop of their choice.

*Tell USDA That Protecting Farmers is Its Job and That Relying Solely on Monsanto’s Business as Usual “Best Practices” Ensures Widespread GE Contamination:

USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent GE contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary.

- In the lawsuit requiring the EIS, the Court found that GE contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place!

- The EIS itself acknowledges that GE contamination may happen and includes studies that honey bees can cross-pollinate at distances over 6 miles, and Alkali bees at 4-5 miles, much further than any distances under Monsanto’s “best practices.”

-In general, where other GE crops were approved without restriction, contamination of organic and conventional seeds and crops is widespread and has been documented around the world. A recent report documented 39 cases in 2007 and more than 200 in the last decade. The harms incurred by organic farmers and food companies from GE contamination are many and include: lost markets, lost sales, lower prices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic certification, expensive testing and prevention measures, and product recalls. In at least one case, pervasive GE contamination eliminated an entire organic sector. According to an article in the journal Nature Biotechnology: “[T]he introduction of GEherbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada destroyed the growing, albeit limited, market for organic canola.”

*Tell USDA That GE Alfalfa Would Significantly Increase Pesticide Use and Thereby Harm Human Health and the Environment:

USDA admits (correctly) that introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa will increase Roundup use. However, USDA’s claims that the increase is not significant and that Roundup will replace other, more toxic herbicides are flat-out wrong.

- The great majority of GE crops grown today are Roundup Ready, and their widespread introduction has vastly increased Roundup use and fostered an epidemic of Roundup-resistant weeds. To kill Roundup-resistant weeds requires higher doses of Roundup, often in combination with other toxic herbicides. Over the past 13 years, Roundup Ready crops have significantly increased overall herbicide use on corn, soybeans and cotton – by 383 million pounds – and Roundup Ready alfalfa will only make matters worse.

- As the agency’s own studies here show, the great majority of alfalfa is currently grown without the use of any herbicides at all. So Roundup Ready alfalfa will increase Roundup use and exacerbate the resistant weed epidemic without displacing other herbicides on most alfalfa farms.

- Roundup has been associated with increased rates of several cancers in pesticide applicators (e.g. non-Hodgkin’s & multiple myeloma), and is highly toxic to frogs at field-relevant concentrations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently re-assessing the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, for the first time in over 15 years. USDA should wait for this new EPA assessment before it considers approving GE alfalfa.

*Tell USDA That Harm to Small and Organic Farmers is Significant:

USDA concludes that GE alfalfa will cause production to shift to larger farms (that can afford built-in isolation distances) and conventional growers who are not threatened by GE contamination, but that these economic shifts are not significant.

- Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected. Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses.

Comments can be filed online HERE:

Comments are due February 16, 2010. For written, mailed comments please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044.

Last November, I koshered my kitchen for the first time. I did so with the full understanding that my decision came with certain compromises, like giving up my favorite cheeses and my delicious but uncertified collection of vinegars. While a bit heartbreaking, these were sacrifices I was willing to make as I welcomed in my new lifestyle. If only I had known that I might have to give up salad, too.

Leafy salad greens, along with berries, asparagus and a variety of other produce, have come under serious scrutiny in the kosher world over the past decade. There’s nothing treyf about these particular fruits and vegetables, except that they have a tendency to attract insects, which are halachically forbidden. Once they are removed from a spinach leaf or the inside of a raspberry, the produce is theoretically fit to eat. But kosher agencies like the Orthodox Union and KOF-K argue that certain bugs (for example, aphids, thrips and mites) are too small to spot easily, but large and common enough to be compromising.

As a result, the kosher industry and a growing number of consumers have started to eye their refrigerator crispers with suspicion. Meanwhile, new products have emerged, like vegetable soaps, and light boxes that make insects easier to see. While most Jews probably still have never heard of light boxes, for some they’ve become a way of life. All catering companies certified by Star-K, for example, are required to use them, and two years ago, the company started selling them directly to consumers for home inspection.

But why the heightened interest in insects now? One answer, according to the Orthodox Union’s Web site, is Rachel Carson, the scientist whose 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” led to a national ban of DDT and other pesticides. As Menachem Genack, CEO/rabbinic administrator of the O.U., has stated, “Since the days of Rachel Carson, the federal government has quite correctly limited the use of insecticides on food… therefore, knowing how to check for these insects has become increasingly important.” In other words, when it comes to kashrut’s bug restriction, organic produce is actually deemed more “dangerous” than its conventional counterparts. This explanation seems historically anemic, however, since the kosher laws long predate the use of pesticides, and produce has been organic-by-default for most of human history.

The actual reason for the insect fixation has little to do with a 20th-century biologist and everything to do with bagged lettuce. Pre-washed salad greens were a late but powerful arrival to the American love affair with industrial convenience foods. As they, along with shredded coleslaw, baby carrots and similar products, have grown in popularity, they unwittingly opened the door to kosher certification.

“Value-added [meaning “processed”] products made all the difference,” Rabbi Tzvi Rosen, who edits Star-K’s journal, Kashrus Kurrents, told me. “The Halacha was always clear about bugs, but now the awareness about it has been heightened.” Kosher consumers know to look for hechshers, kosher endorsements, on packaged foods, but until recently, that category didn’t include fresh produce. Now that the line is blurred, the broccoli sitting quietly on the edge of our plates has become the center of attention.

While not necessarily the stuff of daily headlines, the increasing preoccupation with bug infestation has the potential to change the kosher diet dramatically, and not for the better. Every major certification agency has guidelines on its Web site (or, in the case of the O.U., for sale on a 90-minute DVD) about proper inspection. The Chicago Rabbinical Council takes things a step further by banning the use of fresh Brussels sprouts and other produce that, because of their tightly packed leaves or small crevices, are deemed too difficult to inspect adequately. Similarly, the Kashruth Council of Canada prohibits catering services from using fresh broccoli, artichoke leaves, frisee, mixed greens, oyster mushrooms, curly spinach, watercress, dill, curly parsley, blackberries and raspberries.

Perhaps only a handful of people mourn the loss of Brussels sprouts. But many believe that there is something larger at stake here. As these industrial standards begin to trickle into people’s homes, they encourage stilted norms, including the incorrect notion that certain “seed bearing plants,” which God gave to humans to eat in Genesis, might not be fit for consumption, after all. Some argue that eventually, whole categories of fruits and vegetables could be considered untrustworthy — a stance that could, ironically, further deter kosher keepers from seeking out the healthy, organic, unadulterated foods so highly recommended by nutritionists and food experts. (Not incidentally, bagged lettuces and baby carrots both have been linked to food-borne pathogens, like salmonella and E. coli contamination — both unfortunate side-effects of industrial food production.) On the fleyshik side of things, hormone-free and free-range meat is becoming increasingly possible to find under kosher auspices. But the vegetable part of the meal seems headed in the opposite direction.

Perhaps more important, kosher agencies overstep their bounds by beginning to hechsher fresh produce. From the industry’s perspective, any expansion of business is understandably a good thing. But these agencies were developed to take the guesswork out of kosher consumption, not to discourage the use of inherently kosher fruits and vegetables, or to profit by creating a new need for inspection DVDs, light boxes and the like. The lesson to be learned here is to not give up common sense. The halachic prohibition against insects is not the issue; kosher caterers and consumers alike should certainly check for, and remove, bugs. But when this honest concern turns grocery shopping and dinner preparation into battle scenes, we can only lose.

Check out the interesting comments/response from readers at The Forward’s website.