Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] the organic standards and the law

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] the organic standards and the law
  • Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 21:42:55 -0600


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.




  • [Livingontheland] the organic standards and the law, Tradingpost, 05/06/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page