Bush Officials Weaken (Destroy?) Organic Food Standards

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

Bush Officials Weaken Organic Food Standards: Changes Made

With Zero Public Input

 

http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/220704/CTM%20-%20US%20weakening%

20organic%20standards.htm

 

Bush Officials Weaken Organic Food Standards

Changes Made With Zero Public Input

Bush Greenwatch.org

 

The Bush Administration is giving Americans new reason to watch what

they eat. Over the course of ten days last month, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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, as well as synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and

more… were made with zero input from the public or the National

Organic Standards Board (NOSB), 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 the

changes are harmless: " The directives have not changed anything.

They are just clarifications of what are in the regulations that

were written by the National Organic Standards Board, " stated USDA

spokesperson Joan Schaffer. " 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 of

agricultural systems at the University of Minnesota argues that what

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

in fact 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 longstanding

industry sympathies: Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman served on

the board of directors of a biotech company; both her chief of

staff and director of communications were plucked right out of the

National Cattlemen's Beef Association. One practice favored by large

agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on cows. A USDA guidance

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 other 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 Medicine Advisory Committee and

executive director of Food Animal Concerns Trust. Another new

guidance put out 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 startling step of issuing a legal directive that opens the

door for use of some synthetic pesticides on organic farms.

 

Last but certainly not least, another guidance released on April 14

narrows the scope of the federal organic certification program to

crops, livestock, and the products derived from them, meaning that

national organic standards will not be developed for fish,

nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, or

personal-care products. 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.

 

This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist

magazine. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine.

SOURCES:

1 Antibiotic Guidance statement, USDA, Aprr.14,2004

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/AntibioticGuidance

041304.pdf

2 Fishmeal Guidance Statement, USDA, April 14,2004

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/FishmealGuidance04

1304.pdf

3 Pesticide Compliance, USDA, Apr23, 2004

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/compliance/PesticidesCompliance.pdf

4 Scope Guidance Statement, USDA, Apr14, 2004.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/ScopeGuidance04130

4.pdf

5 http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000123.php

21st May, 2004