Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Organic Food
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/index.htm
Beyond Pesticides is a member of the National Organic Coalition (NOC). The 
Coaltion's materials below give the latest information on organic agriculture 
and policy in the U.S., as well as NOC's position on the 2007 Farm Bill, now 
being debate in the U.S. Congress.

Take Action: Stop the pro-pesticide provision in the Farm Bill (4/9/08).

    * National Organic Coalition members
    * 2007 Farm Bill recommendations
    * NOC Testimony regarding 2008 Appropriations Requests
    * Certification Cost Share Program
    * Conversion and Stewardship Program
    * Pasture Factsheet
    * Seeds and Breeds Farm Bill Proposal
    * Organic Farming Research Foundation Map of Certified Farms

Background on the Organic Standards

Listen to Beyond Pesticides discuss the history of the National Organic 
Standards, farming and product labeling on an Organically Speaking podcast 
interview - download (right click, save as) or stream.

The national organic stardards implemented by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture took effect on October 21, 2002. Products bearing the new USDA 
Organic Label meet the requirements of the Final National Organic Program 
Rule, the national standards for the production, handling and processing of 
organically grown food in the United States. These rules, which replace state 
and local standards, were released in December 2000, but took nearly two 
years to reach the marketplace. View a National Organic Standards factsheet.

USDA released a weak version of proposed organic rule October 1998, but it 
was met with much criticism and sparked an unprecedented 325,603 public 
comments. USDA proposed allowing bioengineered crops, sewage sludge, and 
irridation, which became known as the “big three,” under the definition of 
organic. Many changes, including removal of the "big three" were made to the 
final rule.

While it is generally agreed that the final rule is an improvement over the 
proposed rule, many organic farmers and environmentalists have concerns with 
the regulations. In October 2002, just days after the rules governing organic 
under NOP were implemented, Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey filed suit 
against USDA claiming that USDA regulations governing foods labeled “organic” 
contravened several principles of the OFPA. Having initially lost on all 
counts, Harvey prevailed in January 2005 when the Court of Appeals ruled in 
his favor. Groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have filed a petition asking 
USDA to bring the regulations into compliance with the law (read more, 
6/23/05).

Beyond Pesticides' organic program is instrumental in contributing to 
increasing consumer demand for organic food and the growth of the organic 
industry, which plays a major role in reducing pesticide use and promoting 
sustainable practices. We support organic agriculture as effecting good land 
stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on 
the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated 
with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to 
drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and 
environmental threat.

Organic Healing
Let the organic healing begin. Joining with hundreds of our sister 
organizations, we issue the Open Letter To The Organic Community in an effort 
to both set the record straight on amendments to the Organic Foods Production 
Act (OFPA), which we reported in the Fall 2005 issue of Pesticides and You 
(PAY), and bridge differences as we move ahead together to strengthen the 
partnership between consumers, farmers and food processors that will grow the 
organic marketplace.

Reality vs. fiction
If healing begins with acceptance of reality, it is our hope that Beyond 
Pesticides' work can make a contribution. The Winter 2005-2006 issue of PAY 
contains excerpts from a piece written by the man behind the lawsuit against 
USDA, Maine organic blueberry farmer and processor Arthur Harvey (In the 
Words of Arthur Harvey). See also Harvey and the Soul of Organic by Grace 
Gershuny. Mr. Harvey’s victory in court set off an Organic Trade Association 
(OTA) firestorm, which led to the adoption of a Congressional rider on an 
agriculture appropriations bill that amends OFPA. And now, Mr. Harvey and 
organizations that supported parts of his lawsuit (including Beyond 
Pesticides) are under attack. The Organic Consumers Association has called 
the OTA rider a “sneak attack” because the trade group used methods on 
Capitol Hill, such as closed door meetings that locked out Democratic staff 
and a refusal to negotiate a legislative agreement, that are decried as 
undemocratic. In return, OTA and its supporters criticize Mr. Harvey and his 
supporters for participating in an undemocratic sneak attack by using the 
courts to change a policy that was vetted through the rulemaking process.

Using the democratic process and the courts
Mr. Harvey and numerous groups have put years of statements on the record 
warning USDA that its regulations were not in compliance with the law. 
Because he believes deeply in the importance of healthy organic standards, 
Mr. Harvey at considerable personal expense and time participated in National 
Organic Standards Board meetings as a member of the public and, when his 
efforts failed in that arena, he dug deep into his family’s savings to file 
his lawsuit. OTA and USDA chose to ignore these concerns in the public 
process.

It is simply fiction to suggest, as OTA supporters have, that negotiations 
broke down between OTA and those supporting Mr. Harvey’s lawsuit. One only 
need ask members of Congress, who tried fruitlessly to facilitate 
negotiations, whether any talks on the legislation ever got started.

Supporters of the Harvey lawsuit took the approach that the issues could be 
resolved with all stakeholders and therefore eschewed a public fight, 
assuming that agreements would be hammered out. When it became clear that OTA 
had no interest in such a process and was moving against legislative 
protocol, the groups had no choice but to air the disagreement and fully 
engage their constituents.

Looking to the future
That is all in the past. It remains to be seen how the marketplace will 
respond to the changes in law. Do consumers want to know what synthetic 
ingredients are in their food labeled organic? Will companies differentiate 
their products in the marketplace with labeling that carries a “no 
synthetics” disclosure? Will the media, which engaged on this issue, and in 
its editorials called for strong, clear standards, continue to track this 
issue? Are consumers engaged and seeking to strengthen standards? As The New 
York Times said in its November 4, 2005 editorial on the subject, “Unless 
consumers can be certain that those standards are strictly upheld, “organic” 
will become meaningless.” The key is what “those” standards are as we now 
move into USDA rulemaking on the new law. This assumes the law is not 
repealed by a Congress that is increasingly uncomfortable with an 
administration and a Congressional leadership that have diminished respect 
for the legislative process and enforcement of laws.

Why organic integrity is critical
The Winter 2005-2006 issue of PAY expressly illustrates why a strong organic 
standard with integrity is so important. It must be held up as the solution 
to the pesticide problem. For example, if the two victims of pesticide 
poisoning, described in this issue, were living in communities where organic 
is the norm, they probably would not have been poisoned. Similarly, as the 
debate over the safety of 2,4-D continues and the regulatory risk assessment 
and risk management processes continue to be politicized (both the subject of 
articles), it is clear that the real solution is the widespread adoption of 
organic practices.

This issue also contains a special focus on pesticides and water, and the 
widespread failures to protect the nation’s waterways from pesticide 
contamination. As one solution, we launch our campaign to prepare for a 
Spring campaign to stop the use of hazardous lawn chemicals and introduce a 
new door hang (Want a Green Lawn Safe for Children and Pets?) to warn people 
about the dangers and the availability of safe practices and products. This 
is part of a broad campaign, coordinated by the National Coalition for 
Pesticide-Free Lawns, with groups in over 20 states.

We are optimistic about the possibility for change in the new year as 
communities adopt policies and practices that protect human health and the 
environment.