The sanet post referred to by Charles Benbrook below was not received by either
of the two e-mail address of mine that subcribe, so I'm pasting it in here. The
issue he raises is the same main one I've been stressing for the past few months
- that of Freedom of Information; the right to inform and be informed regarding
the attributes of a given food product bing offered to thee public. The only
point I would add (once again) to what I (rather quickly) read is that to me,
the restrictions are so blatantly unconstitutional, that I have no doubt
whatsoever that they will be overturned by the Supreme Court in the end (unless
the country has indeed gone mad), causing a great amount of harm in the mean
time and requiring considerable (and needless) expense to get to that point -
back to square one!
Finally, that which is truly valuable about OFPA is put in jeopardy by the above
fatal flaw, and the issue of OFPA's driving a yet deeper wedge between the
organic and conventional food production systems is enhanced rather than
resolved by the act. Organic foods may be defined but will NOT be made more
competitive by it, since costs are raised by the Act. This is an unfortunate
trend and MORE unfortunate is the relative lack of response encountered in
support of mandating the studies required to legislate into existence economic
indicators that would account for the true costs to the environment and public
health (not to mention quality of life), for toxic versus non-contaminating
methods of agriculture. THAT also belong in OFPA! (But may not appeal to the
faint of heart).
Charles Benbrook wrote:
> Because of the number of requests for recent Sanet posts re the
> rule, we decided to post some of the key substantive components of the
> dialogue the last couple of months that has played out on Sanet. Just this
> a.m., we added a thoughtful piece by Fred Kirschenmann on some of the big
> issues. We will continue to post additional items that add to the
> discussion. This material is accessible at
> <http://www.pmac.net/nosrule.htm>, or via the PMAC "What's Hot" page.
-----------------------
The Proposed Organic Rule: It's Not Just About Sewage Sludge, GEO's and
Irradiation
Frederick Kirschenmann
January 4, 1998
Since the proposed Rule to implement the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
hit the streets in mid December, 1997, it has raised howls of protest. The fact
that our government would even consider allowing sewage sludge, genetically
engineered organisms and irradiation technologies in the production and
processing of organic foods seemed too outrageous to be believable. The fact
that livestock standards have been dramatically weakened, and that synthetic
materials, which the National Organic Standards Board specifically disallowed,
were put back on the National Materials List as allowable substances (which the
law specifically prevents the Secretary from doing) received much less
attention.
But the Rule proposes other regulations that may have even more sweeping
implications. These regulations, should they become law, could affect every
American, not just those interested in organic food. The regulations, as
proposed, would eliminate any real differentiation of food products through
labeling thus ending consumer ability to "boycott" or "buycott" food products
with their shopping dollars to support environmental goals. In other words it
could end all eco-labeling.
In the labeling section of the Program Overview the proposed rule suggests
regulations regarding the "Use of Terms of Statements That Directly or
Indirectly Imply That a Product is Organically Produced and Handled (Section
205.103). In this section of the rule USDA proposes to regulate "the labeling or
market information that directly or indirectly imply organic production and
handling practices" and then goes on to propose that "any terms or phrases that
directly or indirectly imply that a product has been organically produced or
handled would be prohibited from being used on the label, labeling or market
information of products that are not produced in accordance with the Act and the
regulations".
The Proposed Rule then goes on to give some examples of the kind of labels that
would be prohibited under this regulation. They include: "produced without
synthetic pesticides", "produced without synthetic fertilizers", "raised without
synthetic chemicals" "pesticide-free farm", "no drugs or growth hormones used",
"raised without antibiotics", "raised without hormones", "no growth stimulants
administered", "ecologically produced", "sustainably harvested", and "humanely
raised".
These broad, prohibitory regulations, should they become law, would force many
U.S. companies and grower associations who currently produce and label
eco-products to remove them from the market.
Several examples come to mind. Coleman's Natural Beef which produces a product
without growth hormones or antibiotics. The North American Bison Cooperative
that markets a hormone free and irradiation free bison product. Numerous
companies and grower associations that are presently marketing products produced
with IPM technologies. Perhaps even companies using the "dolphin safe" and
"SmartWood" labels to differentiate sustainable fishing and forestry products
would be in jeopardy.
The proposed rule also proposes regulations that would prohibit private organic
certification companies from certifying or labeling products that differentiate
"any farming or handling requirements other than those provided for" in the
government's regulations. (Sec. 205.301) This means that if the government
insists on allowing sewage sludge, irradiation, genetically engineered
organisms, piperonyl butoxide and other materials and technologies that the
National Organic Standards Board specifically rejected for use in organic
production, than no one can certify any product that is free of these practices.
Nor could certifiers certify a product as meeting the requirements for
biodynamic farming, since its methods include requirements not "provided for" in
the rule.
Such regulations not only take power and preference away from consumers, and
limit the market opportunities of producers, they restrict commercial free
speech and leave chemically sensitive and allergic people without any reliable
choices in the marketplace that can potentially protect them from harm.
Ironically, the proposed rule does not place such restrictions on imported
products or on foreign certifiers. The only requirement is that imported
products "at least" meet the requirements of the US organic regulation. In
effect, then, the regulations will encourage consumers to look for imported
organic products, certified by foreign certifiers which can differentiate
themselves from the US organic rule by prescribing additional requirements. And
it will force international certifiers doing business in the United States to
move out of the country if they want to uphold the standards they have become
identified with over the past few decades. In order to retain the value of their
trademarks, many of which are now recognized throughout the world for
disallowing numerous practices and substances that the proposed rule would
allow, those international certifiers would be forced to operate from another
country. Other countries not only allow private certifiers to uphold higher
standards but some actively encourage it.
Alternatively, US certifiers could certify products destined for export to a
higher standard, but would not be allowed to so represent those same products in
the domestic market. In point of fact if the standards in the rule are not
changed, US organically labeled products could rarely enter export markets based
on US certification since sewage sludge, etc. etc. have always been prohibited
in organic production in most foreign markets.
This potentially creates a laughable scenario wherein US certifiers could
certify product to meet export standards, see those products sold into foreign
markets from which they could then be sold back into the US. Yet it would be
illegal to market those same products directly in the US.
In short, this proposed rule does not serve the interests of American producers
or consumers. It will be a boon for the conventional food system which has, for
years, sought to eliminate any differentiation in the marketplace that threatens
their market share.
1/4/98
-----------------
Enfasis added by DH.
Once again, the simplest way to prevent these and other abuses in to make
certification voluntary; an issue that involves a contract or covenant between
buyer and seller and which conforms to a legal minimum definition of what is
organic - whether certified, CSA, uncertified or whatever; and which includes
sanctions for misrepresentation. It would not be difficult to for any interest
party to prove fraud (he/she'd need to submit valid and conclusive proof,
including analysis), and the changes to OFPA that this would require are
minimal.
I'm doing some things that do not permit me to put this message in a more
finished state at the moment but in any case, the issue seems clear enough and
comments are accepted until mid-march by the USDA. And I'm going to have to go
over the Rule line by line in order to make a precise (rather than
philosophical) contribution.
---Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--------------A9DE70F00F3FD8D46F41356F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The sanet post referred to by Charles Benbrook below was not received by either of the two e-mail address of mine that subcribe, so I'm pasting it in here. The issue he raises is the same main one I've been stressing for the past few months - that of Freedom of Information; the right to inform and be informed regarding the attributes of a given food product bing offered to thee public. The only point I would add (once again) to what I (rather quickly) read is that to me, the restrictions are so blatantly unconstitutional, that I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be overturned by the Supreme Court in the end (unless the country has indeed gone mad), causing a great amount of harm in the mean time and requiring considerable (and needless) expense to get to that point - back to square one!
Finally, that which is truly valuable about OFPA is put in jeopardy by the above fatal flaw, and the issue of OFPA's driving a yet deeper wedge between the organic and conventional food production systems is enhanced rather than resolved by the act. Organic foods may be defined but will NOT be made more competitive by it, since costs are raised by the Act. This is an unfortunate trend and MORE unfortunate is the relative lack of response encountered in support of mandating the studies required to legislate into existence economic indicators that would account for the true costs to the environment and public health (not to mention quality of life), for toxic versus non-contaminating methods of agriculture. THAT also belong in OFPA! (But may not appeal to the faint of heart).
Charles Benbrook wrote:
Because of the number of requests for recent Sanet posts re the-----------------------
rule, we decided to post some of the key substantive components of the
dialogue the last couple of months that has played out on Sanet. Just this
a.m., we added a thoughtful piece by Fred Kirschenmann on some of the big
issues. We will continue to post additional items that add to the
discussion. This material is accessible at
<http://www.pmac.net/nosrule.htm>, or via the PMAC "What's Hot" page.The Proposed Organic Rule: It's Not Just About Sewage Sludge, GEO's and Irradiation
Frederick Kirschenmann
January 4, 1998
Since the proposed Rule to implement the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 hit the streets in mid December, 1997, it has raised howls of protest. The fact that our government would even consider allowing sewage sludge, genetically engineered organisms and irradiation technologies in the production and processing of organic foods seemed too outrageous to be believable. The fact that livestock standards have been dramatically weakened, and that synthetic materials, which the National Organic Standards Board specifically disallowed, were put back on the National Materials List as allowable substances (which the law specifically prevents the Secretary from doing) received much less attention.
But the Rule proposes other regulations that may have even more sweeping implications. These regulations, should they become law, could affect every American, not just those interested in organic food. The regulations, as proposed, would eliminate any real differentiation of food products through labeling thus ending consumer ability to "boycott" or "buycott" food products with their shopping dollars to support environmental goals. In other words it could end all eco-labeling.
In the labeling section of the Program Overview the proposed rule suggests regulations regarding the "Use of Terms of Statements That Directly or Indirectly Imply That a Product is Organically Produced and Handled (Section 205.103). In this section of the rule USDA proposes to regulate "the labeling or market information that directly or indirectly imply organic production and handling practices" and then goes on to propose that "any terms or phrases that directly or indirectly imply that a product has been organically produced or handled would be prohibited from being used on the label, labeling or market information of products that are not produced in accordance with the Act and the regulations".
The Proposed Rule then goes on to give some examples of the kind of labels that would be prohibited under this regulation. They include: "produced without synthetic pesticides", "produced without synthetic fertilizers", "raised without synthetic chemicals" "pesticide-free farm", "no drugs or growth hormones used", "raised without antibiotics", "raised without hormones", "no growth stimulants administered", "ecologically produced", "sustainably harvested", and "humanely raised".
These broad, prohibitory regulations, should they become law, would force many U.S. companies and grower associations who currently produce and label eco-products to remove them from the market.
Several examples come to mind. Coleman's Natural Beef which produces a product without growth hormones or antibiotics. The North American Bison Cooperative that markets a hormone free and irradiation free bison product. Numerous companies and grower associations that are presently marketing products produced with IPM technologies. Perhaps even companies using the "dolphin safe" and "SmartWood" labels to differentiate sustainable fishing and forestry products would be in jeopardy.
The proposed rule also proposes regulations that would prohibit private organic certification companies from certifying or labeling products that differentiate "any farming or handling requirements other than those provided for" in the government's regulations. (Sec. 205.301) This means that if the government insists on allowing sewage sludge, irradiation, genetically engineered organisms, piperonyl butoxide and other materials and technologies that the National Organic Standards Board specifically rejected for use in organic production, than no one can certify any product that is free of these practices. Nor could certifiers certify a product as meeting the requirements for biodynamic farming, since its methods include requirements not "provided for" in the rule.
Such regulations not only take power and preference away from consumers, and limit the market opportunities of producers, they restrict commercial free speech and leave chemically sensitive and allergic people without any reliable choices in the marketplace that can potentially protect them from harm.
Ironically, the proposed rule does not place such restrictions on imported products or on foreign certifiers. The only requirement is that imported products "at least" meet the requirements of the US organic regulation. In effect, then, the regulations will encourage consumers to look for imported organic products, certified by foreign certifiers which can differentiate themselves from the US organic rule by prescribing additional requirements. And it will force international certifiers doing business in the United States to move out of the country if they want to uphold the standards they have become identified with over the past few decades. In order to retain the value of their trademarks, many of which are now recognized throughout the world for disallowing numerous practices and substances that the proposed rule would allow, those international certifiers would be forced to operate from another country. Other countries not only allow private certifiers to uphold higher standards but some actively encourage it.
Alternatively, US certifiers could certify products destined for export to a higher standard, but would not be allowed to so represent those same products in the domestic market. In point of fact if the standards in the rule are not changed, US organically labeled products could rarely enter export markets based on US certification since sewage sludge, etc. etc. have always been prohibited in organic production in most foreign markets.
This potentially creates a laughable scenario wherein US certifiers could certify product to meet export standards, see those products sold into foreign markets from which they could then be sold back into the US. Yet it would be illegal to market those same products directly in the US.
In short, this proposed rule does not serve the interests of American producers or consumers. It will be a boon for the conventional food system which has, for years, sought to eliminate any differentiation in the marketplace that threatens their market share.
1/4/98
-----------------Enfasis added by DH.
Once again, the simplest way to prevent these and other abuses in to make certification voluntary; an issue that involves a contract or covenant between buyer and seller and which conforms to a legal minimum definition of what is organic - whether certified, CSA, uncertified or whatever; and which includes sanctions for misrepresentation. It would not be difficult to for any interest party to prove fraud (he/she'd need to submit valid and conclusive proof, including analysis), and the changes to OFPA that this would require are minimal.
I'm doing some things that do not permit me to put this message in a more finished state at the moment but in any case, the issue seems clear enough and comments are accepted until mid-march by the USDA. And I'm going to have to go over the Rule line by line in order to make a precise (rather than philosophical) contribution.
---
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct)
e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--------------A9DE70F00F3FD8D46F41356F-- 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".