Beware -- "Organic" Doesn't mean "no MSG" --
Report from 2006
"Autolyzed yeast" and "natural flavoring" in organic products contain just as much processed (manufactured) free glutamic acid (MSG) as conventional products. Carrageenan in organic products causes adverse reactions just as non-organic carrageenan does.
A BIT OF HISTORY
In1990, a National Organic Program, to be run by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), was created by Congress.
Following outcries from 275,603 professionals and consumers concerned about the integrity of organic food, the USDA's initial proposed National Organic Standards, circulated in December, 1997, were withdrawn.
On March 13, 2000, the USDA proposed improved, but still unacceptable, National Organic Standards (the Proposed Rule). Under the law and the Proposed Rule, there was to be a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) whose function it would be to make recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on substances to be placed on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Members of the NOSB were to be nominated by legislators and approved by the USDA. The NOSB would make recommendations, but final decisions pertaining to the National Organic Program, including decisions about which substances would and would not be included in the National List, were to rest with the Secretary of Agriculture, i.e., with the USDA.
In making their recommendations to the USDA, the NOSB was to consider Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) reviews and input from public meetings as well as its own expertise. TAP reviews were to be a required step for making changes to the National List; and the USDA was to award TAP review contracts only to independent, reputable organizations with expertise in relevant areas. At the time the Proposed Rule was being promulgated, TAP reviews were being provided to the NOSB by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) under contract to the USDA.
In the late 1990s, when the Truth in Labeling Campaign became aware that there was to be a National Organic Program run by the USDA, we were fearful that placing a national organic program with the USDA would almost certainly undermine the integrity of the organic industry. Our deep seated concern stemmed from our growing understanding of the tremendous pro-big business, consumer-be-dammed influences exerted over Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA staffs by the food and drug industries; and our growing understanding of FDA and USDA infrastructures that enabled revolving door policies whereby industry personnel rotated in and out of the FDA and USDA, and/or FDA and USDA employees took lucrative jobs in the food and/or drug industries after retiring from the FDA or USDA. (We would later learn that those same influences affected decisions made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).
On August 8, 1997, Auxein Corporation made application to the EPA for registration of its pesticide product AuxiGro WP Metabolic Primer (AuxiGro) containing the active ingredients GABA (gamma aminobutyric acid) at 29.2 percent and processed free glutamic acid (MSG) (identified in the application as "glutamic acid" ) at 36.5 percent. Federal Register notices chronicling the application and approval of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and AuxiGro are available on the Web via GPO Access, the Federal Register, through:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Testing of AuxiGro was also approved in that year, and many of the test crops sprayed with AuxiGro were brought to market without giving notice to consumers.
On January, 7 1998, the EPA granted processed free glutamic acid (MSG) (identified as "glutamic acid") an exemption from establishment of a tolerance limit--meaning that there would be no limit to the amount of MSG residue from AuxiGro that could remain in or on a fruit, seed, grain, leaf, or vegetable when brought to market. In that same month, AuxiGro was approved for use on a number of crops. Approval for use on all other crops came later. These approvals were not announced in the Federal Register.
On September 25, 1998, the name first used for MSG by Auxein Corporation ("glutamic acid") was changed to "L-glutamic acid."
Understanding how Ajinomoto Co., Inc., (the world's largest producer of the flavor enhancer known as "monosodium glutamate" and a leading manufacturer of free amino acids) operates (l-manuscript.html), it occurred to us that Auxein might approach the organic community for organic certification. Might approach? Ha! By the time we became aware that the EPA had approved processed free glutamic acid (MSG) for use on crops, and had also approved the "growth enhancer" called AuxiGro, Auxein Corporation had approached OMRI to recommend AuxiGro for organic certification. At the same time, we were told that OMRI had approval of AuxiGro virtually assured. The appropriateness of technical advice given to the NOSB and the USDA by OMRI had gone virtually unchallenged.
At the time, OMRI published and disseminated generic and specific (brand name) lists of materials rated by OMRI as being allowed for use in the production, processing, and handling of organic food and fiber. Much of the organic industry looked to OMRI for interpretation of research pertaining to the safety and/or appropriateness of products for organic use. If a product was added to an OMRI list of materials rated by OMRI as being allowed for use in the production, processing, and handling of organic food and fiber, the producer was charged both an initial charge and a yearly fee for maintaining their product on OMRI's list. So if OMRI was able to convince the organic community to approve MSG and AuxiGro for use in organics, OMRI would receive both an initial fee and a yearly fee from Auxein. Thus, OMRI's income was dependent, at least in part, on the number of products it successfully recommended be allowed to use the label "organic." From 1999 to 2002, OMRI was pushing to add AuxiGro to its list of allowed substance, and to have the National Organic Program add processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and AuxiGro to the list of allowed substances on the National List.
So there it was. Our fears had become reality. The USDA was operating as we had seen it work in the past: doing the bidding of big business or looking the other way while its contractors or others did the bidding of big business. We had seen it written that the USDA would award TAP review contracts only to independent, reputable organizations with expertise in relevant areas. In actuality, the USDA had awarded a TAP contract to an organization that was going to profit from every product it convinced the National Organic Program to add to its list of acceptable materials. The same OMRI that Auxein Corporation was paying to get MSG and AuxiGro approved for organic use had a contract with the USDA to tell the USDA what products they should approve. Clearly, the USDA did not (and does not today) understand the concept of "conflict of interest." In fact, when asked later about the credentials that TAP reporters must have, the USDA mentioned "demonstrable expertise in organic production and handling or scientific disciplines such as veterinary medicine, ...or toxicology." The USDA did not list freedom from conflicts of interest among its list of necessary credentials.
It would appear that the organic community had not been aware of what was going on in this arena, just as they had not been aware that autolyzed yeast was not appropriate for use in or with products certified organic. When the Truth in Labeling Campaign alerted the organic community to the fact that the "L-glutamic acid" in AuxiGro is a synthetic product, and that it is identical to the processed free glutamic acid (MSG) found in the food additive called "monosodium glutamate," the approval process for "L-glutamic acid" and AuxiGro ceased to move forward. It must be noted, however, that OMRI's Technical Director, Dr. Brian Baker, who was spearheading OMRI's representation of both "L-glutamic acid" and AuxiGro as being suitable for use with organic products, did not recommend denying their organic certification. OMRI simply tabled its application to the National Organic Program. Several years later, OMRI withdrew its application. According to information coming from OMRI in 2006, "While the product name [AuxiGro] was at one time considered for inclusion in our list, the organization did not complete the decision to list the product. In 2002, the company voluntarily removed the product from consideration because the new National Organic Program Rule would have clearly prohibited it."
As this was first written (June, 2006) OMRI was no longer listed among the USDA's TAP reviewers. We have not, however, seen a statement from the National Organic Program stating that they would reject TAP review applicants because of conflicts of interest. Neither is the list of allowed substances on the National List free of MSG-containing ingredients. Allowed ingredients that are known to cause MSG reactions in MSG-sensitive people,
which are made with synthetic chemicals, include Autolyzed Yeast, Brewers Yeast, Nutritional Yeast, and Carrageenan.
Continued...
