Erorganic@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello Douglas,
>
> 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".
--Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx
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".