Your comments on no synthetics allowed in products labeled "organic" and
public access to non-business related certification and laboratory analysis
documents are consistent with OFPA. But I do have a comment on the National
List and a question that follow on the possible content of processed
"organic" foods.
Let me take one moment to indicate why the next 4 months will set the course
of organic farming and handling for many years and why it is worth everyone
being actively involved with understanding OFPA and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Everything that has gone before is conversation,
opinions-NOSB meetings, livestock hearings, discussions between all of us do
not count in the next 4 months. It all seemed like a lot of energy, work and
involvement at the time, but was only the preliminary to the Public Comment
Period. OFPA is not an opinion to me, it is what we have to live and work
under for decades. The public input during the comment period, albeit, the
only comments that can be considered are how to implement OFPA within the
limits set by the Act of Congress itself, are of the greatest significance to
the future relationship between the consumer, organic farmers and handlers.
Either OFPA meets the expectation, the perception, of the purchaser of
organic food and fiber products or we might as well call our products
natural. I appreciate SANET being around as a vehicle to thoughtfully
discuss the issues.
Best Regards, Eric Kindberg
In reference to this comment:
"Each must be reviewed on a case by case basis and when a given product
is the best alternative available, that may be sufficient basis for an
exception. In other words, present organic standards involve many
exceptions based on necessity - the impending total loss of a crop for
instance. These circumstances are now left in large part to the
discretion of the inspector. When no synthetic substance will be present
in an otherwise organic food product and are necessary due to the
unavailability of a more "organic" alternative solution, there may be
sufficient basis for certification."
The Organic Foods Production Act details some differences between the past
and its approach:
The Act provides 11 categories of possible exemptions (exceptions) for the
possible use of synthetic substances in organic farming. The criteria of
"necessity" is not one of the reasons for use of a synthetic substance.
Under the Act, the role of the inspector is to verify the applicants
information supplied on the application and offer to the certifying agent any
further documented observations on the applicants qualifications for being
licensed as a certified organic farm or handling operation. That is the
extent of the inspectors role.
Under OFPA, neither the inspector nor the accredited certification agent
makes the decision on synthetic substances that can or cannot be used on an
organic farm. The National Organic Standards Board in collaboration with
public and scientific input is the critical information collector, reviewer
and evaluator of such substances. The synthetic substance is either on the
National List or it can not be used on certified organic farmland or
livestock. The procedures and criteria for consideration of use of a
synthetic substance is found in OFPA.
And in your comments you reference OFPA requirements for use of
non-synthetic, but not organically produced substances (ingredients, etc.) in
processed organic foods.
"The old figure was 10% of that allowable for conventional products."
What did this mean?
> On to the next SANET discussions.
>
> Should synthetic substances, food additives, processing aids, yeasts,
> rennets, enzymes, etc. be allowed in processed organic food labeled
> "organic"?
Organic means not synthetic. So the answer is no.
> Does the public have the right to "public access to certification documents
> and laboratory analyses that pertain to certification" with the
> non-disclosure of "any business related information concerning such client
> obtained while implementing" certification?' Both these quotes are from
> OFPA.
You bet.
> And bear with me, here is the most significant of all: What are the
> procedures for and the content of the National List?
>
> In the first sections of OFPA ,all synthetic substances are prohibited from
> use in organic farming and handling and all natural substances are allowed
to
> be used. However, OFPA makes it more complex as follows:
>
> Quoting the Senate Committee Report on prepared for passage of the Organic
> Foods Production Act of 1990:
> "Most consumers believe that absolutely no synthetic substances are used
in
> organic production. For the most part, they are correct and this is the
> basic tenet of this legislation. But there are a few limited exceptions to
> the no-synthetic rule and the National List is designed to handle these
> exceptions.
>
> Organic farmers have used some synthetic substances for several good
reasons.
> For example, some organic farmers use certain synthetic analogues to
natural
> substances when those substances are difficult to obtain. Insect
pheromones,
> a often-used biological control substance in organic farming, are very
> difficult to collect in nature and are therefore synthetically produced.
The
> Committee does not specifically disallow the use of pheromones in organic
> farming simply because they are synthetically produced when pheromones are
> effective and ecologically benign.
Those substances are not applied to the crop but are used to attract
pests away from crops, so there's a valid exception to the rule.
There's no contact with the crop.
> The Committee does not intend to allow the use of many synthetic
substances.
> This legislation has been carefully written to prevent widespread
exceptions
> or "loopholes" in the organic standards which would circumvent the intent
of
> this legislation. The few synthetic substances that are widely recognized
as
> safe and traditionally used in organic production are explicitly cited in
the
> bill as potential items to be included on the National List if the Board
> (NOSB) and the Secretary approve of their use.
>
> The Board and the Secretary may consider allowing the use of synthetic
active
> ingredients in the following categories only: pheromones; copper and sulfur
> compounds; soaps; horticultural oils; toxins derived from bacteria; treated
> seed; fish emulsions; vitamins and minerals; livestock parasiticide and
> medicines; and production aids such as machinery cleansers.
Each must be reviewed on a case by case basis and when a given product
is the best alternative available, that may be sufficient basis for an
exception. In other words, present organic standards involve many
exceptions based on necessity - the impending total loss of a crop for
instance. These circumstances are now left in large part to the
discretion of the inspector. When no synthetic substance will be present
in an otherwise organic food product and are necessary due to the
unavailability of a more "organic" alternative solution, there may be
sufficient basis for certification.
> Organic farmers also use substances in which the active ingredient is known
> to be natural but which also contain inert ingredients that are undisclosed
> as a matter of trade secret law under the FIFR Act. The Committee suspects
> that many of these inert ingredients are synthetic. For example, adjuvants
> would fall into this category.
>
> Until such time as FIFRA is altered to require the full disclosure of inert
> ingredients, organic farmers should be allowed to continue using compounded
> substances if the active ingredient is natural and if use of the substance
is
> recommended by the NOSB and approved by the Secretary for inclusion on the
> National List. However, in order for the NOSB to evaluate whether certain
> compounds should be listed, the Board will need some information about the
> inert ingredients in question. The Committee directs the Board to seek
the
> advice of the Administrator of the EPA, who has information on inert
> ingredients submitted as part of registration, as to whether such inert
> material would be appropriate for organic production. EPA's response will
> not limit it's regulatory responsibility for such material.
They can patent and disclose.
> Almost all State and private (certification) organization standards also
> provide for certain exceptions from the no-synthetic rule, some more
> explicitly than others. In deciding upon an acceptable list of materials
for
> the Organic Standards Board and the Secretary to consider, the Committee
> surveyed State and private regulations to ensure that the above categories,
> while more restrictive than most of the current standards, will indeed
> protect the integrity of the organic product while at the same time provide
> the producer a reasonable amount of flexibility on production materials.
>
> The Committee understands that just because a substance is natural does not
> mean that it is safe and appropriate for organic production. The National
> List may also include natural substances otherwise allowed under this title
> but which are determined to be harmful to human health or the environment
and
> inconsistent with organic farming. Certain botanical pesticides may be
> considered by the NOSB and the Secretary to be inappropriate for organic
> production because their use poses significant harm to human health or the
> environment. Whatever natural items appear on the National List shall be
> prohibited from use in organic production.
>
> Finally, the National List is designed to cover ingredients used in
> processing. The bill allows that up to five percent of processed food
> labeled "organically produced" may contain non-synthetic ingredients which
> are not organically produced if those ingredients are included on the
> National List. The five percent figure was arrived at after consulting
with
> various organic food processors as the amount of flexibility necessary in
> processed food. The Committee intends that the guideline for processed
food
> ingredients on the National List be that such ingredients are difficult or
> impossible to obtain. An example might be certain spices that are
> unavailable at this time from an organic farm. It may also include items
> that are not technically organically produced such as yeast.
The old figure was 10% of that allowable for conventional products.
> Several steps must be taken before an item appears on the National List in
> any of the above categories. First, the Organic Standards Board must
review
> the substances in question based upon criteria cited in the bill and with
the
> aid of the Board's technical panels. The Board may decide what substances
> require review. As well, individuals may petition the Board to evaluate
> substances for inclusion on the National List. The Board then constructs a
> Proposed National List which is submitted to the Secretary as
recommendation
> for composition of the final National List.
>
> The Secretary may not include exemptions for synthetic substances other
than
> those exemptions recommended by the National Organic Standards Board. The
> Proposed National List represents the universe of synthetic materials from
> which the Secretary may choose. Before establishing the final National
List
> the Secretary shall publish the Proposed National List in the Federal
> Register and seek public comment. The same procedures are to be followed
for
> any amendments to the National List."
>
> >From my perspective these are "real" issues. With the coming of the
Proposed
> Rule discussion seems in order.
Yeah they're real. They're just not the ONLY real issues.
> Best regards, Eric Kindberg
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".