Organic: Friend or Faux?

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

Organic: Friend or Faux?

By Amanda Griscom, Grist Magazine

May 24, 2004

 

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18771

 

The Bush administration is giving Americans new reason to watch what

they eat – and it has nothing to do with carbs. Over the course of 10

days in mid-April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued three

" guidances " and one directive – all legally binding interpretations

of law – that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word

" organic " and discredit the department's National Organic Program.

 

The changes – which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic

dairy cows, synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more – were

made with zero input from the public or the National Organic

Standards Board, the advisory group that worked for more than a

decade to help craft the first federal organic standards, put in

place in October 2002.

 

The USDA insists that the changes are innocuous: " The directives have

not changed anything. They are just clarifications of what is in the

regulations that were written by the National Organic Standards

Board, " USDA spokesperson Joan Shaffer told Muckraker. " They just

explain what's enforceable. There is no difference [between the

clarifications and the original regulations] – it's just another way

of explaining it. "

 

But Jim Riddle, vice chair of the NOSB and endowed chair in

agricultural systems at the University of Minnesota, argues that what

the USDA is trying to pass off as a clarification of regulations is

actually a substantial change: " These are the sorts of changes for

which the department is supposed to do a formal new rulemaking

process, with posting in the federal register, feedback from our

advisory board, and a public-comment period. And yet there is no such

process denoted anywhere. "

 

Organic activists suspect that industry pressure drove the policy

shifts. They point out that the USDA leadership has long-standing

industry sympathies: Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman served on the

board of directors of a biotech company, and both her chief of staff

and her director of communications were plucked right out of National

Cattlemen's Beef Association.

 

" Even though it evolved as a reaction against large-scale American

agribusinesses, the augie organic food industry has seen tremendous

growth, roughly 20 to 24 percent a year for the past 10 years, " said

Ronnie Cummins, founder and national director of the Organic

Consumers Association. " That, not surprisingly, has brought with it

investments from big business and demands for conventional farming

practices more favorable to mass production. "

 

One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics

on cows, and a guidance [PDF] issued on April 14 will allow just that

on organic dairy farms, a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules. Under the

new guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with

antibiotics but with numerous others drugs and still have their milk

qualify as organic, so long as 12 months pass between the time the

treatments are administered and the time the milk is sold.

 

" This new directive makes a mockery of organic standards, " said

Richard Wood, a recent member of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine

Advisory Committee and executive director of Food Animal Concerns

Trust. " Organic farmers that we have talked to are furious because

they have been very careful to follow the antibiotics rule. [The rule

change] undercuts their ability to make a living doing things right. "

 

 

Furthermore, said Wood, the use of antibiotics will reduce the

pressure on organic farmers to provide healthy accommodations for

their livestock. If they know they can pump their animals up with

drugs, they won't have to worry so much about disease spreading when

cows are penned up in close quarters, or about weaning calves from

their mothers at an unnaturally early age.

 

" It's hard to deny that this looks awfully like a political move by

USDA to do the bidding of larger dairy operations that want to

produce organic milk by expanding their herds with cattle that were

once on non-organic farms, " Wood said.

 

Another new guidance [PDF]put out on the same day would allow cattle

farmers to feed their heifers non-organic fishmeal that could be

riddled with synthetic preservatives, mercury, and PCBs and still

sell their beef as organic.

 

And the following week, on April 23, the USDA took the particularly

egregious step of issuing a legal directive [PDF] that opens the door

for use of some synthetic pesticides on organic farms.

 

Previously, organic farmers were only allowed to use natural,

non-toxic pesticides on their crops, which effectively prohibited use

of pesticides with hidden ingredients (pesticide manufacturers often

don't list certain ingredients, claiming the information is

proprietary).

 

According to the new guidelines, however, organic farmers and

certifiers are only required to make a " reasonable effort " to find

out what is in the pesticides being applied to crops. " If they can't

come up with the info on toxic inert ingredients that may be in their

pesticides, they're off the hook " said Liana Hoodes, organic policy

coordinator for the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.

" This takes all the pressure off of pesticide manufacturers to reveal

their ingredients and develop non-toxic products. In fact, it creates

a disincentive. "

 

Last but certainly not least, another guidance [PDF] released on

April 14 narrows the scope of the federal organic certification

program to crops and livestock and the products derived from them,

meaning that national organic standards will not be developed for

fish, nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, and

personal-care products.

 

" Consumers beware: This basically allows any opportunistic company to

put fraudulent 'organic' labels on products outside of the regulated

domain, without any liability concerns, " Hoodes told Muckraker.

 

There have never been federal organic standards for these product

categories – which is why you cannot now trust an " organic " label on

a bottle of shampoo or a package of farm-raised salmon – but the USDA

had previously said it would develop such standards. In anticipation

of that eventuality, many companies have invested millions of dollars

over the past decade to develop fish farms and factories for

non-agricultural products that adhere to criteria consistent with

those for organic crops and livestock.

 

" All that effort has just flown out the window, " Cummins told

Muckraker. " It's an outrage for the 30 million consumers who pay a

premium for organic products and expect that they can trust the

organic claim. "

 

The USDA rejects activists' interpretation of this particular

guidance: " There's a process to go through [to develop organic

guidelines for non-agricultural categories] and it hasn't happened

[yet], " said Shaffer. " It could still happen. I'm not clairvoyant. "

 

Despite the USDA's demurrals, activists view the department's changes

as a serious threat to hard-won standards for organic products. The

National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and other groups are

investigating possible industry influence into the USDA's process,

and some environmental groups are preparing to take legal action.

 

" Secretary Veneman should withdraw these new directives and follow

the appropriate rulemaking procedures, " said Riddle of the NOSB. " We

want them withdrawn and to do it right. "

 

=====

Fidyl

Live Simply So That

Others May Simply Live

Yoga-With-Nancy-SoFla/

SignSoFla/

SoFlaVegans/

SoFlaSchools/