Here's some info for you - would love to hear what other response you get -
thanks!
Patricia Dines
Community Action Publications
---- FORWARD ---
From: INTERNET:BanGenFood@MailingList.net,
INTERNET:BanGenFood@MailingList.net
To: Patricia Dines, 73652,1202
Date: Mon, Feb 9, 1998, 10:24 PM
Subject: Int'l reaction to organic standards
From: Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)
Forwarded from Linda Bullard, IFOAM by Reggie James
Subject: IFOAM on USDA's Bogus Organic Standards
Author: Michael Hansen at CU3
Date: 2/6/98 7:26 PM
A FIRST RESPONSE of IFOAM to the
US proposed Rules for Organic
Production
Press Release
January 5, 1998
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has
just
begun its process of reviewing the USDA's proposed rule for organic
production, but a first reading indicates that it is well below the
standard
of IFOAM and that there are a number of causes for alarm. We would like to
call attention to two of them here: the failure to exclude genetic
engineering
and the prohibition of private seals based on standards higher than or in
addition to the national requirements.
IFOAM's position on both these points is unequivocal. Our Basic Standards
for
organic production, which are voted by our General Assembly every two
years,
prohibit all forms of genetic engineering at every stage of production and
processing, with no possibility for case-by-case authorizations. The
reasons
for this refusal are varied and complex; they include health,
environmental,
ethical, and market considerations, they are both scientific and trans-
scientific. According to the Basic Standards, the technology is inherently
opposed to the principles of organic agriculture because manipulations at
the
molecular level bypass the wholistic approach to organisms and systems on
which organic agriculture is based. All certification bodies which are
accredited in the IFOAM Accreditation Programme must reflect IFOAM's
genetic engineering ban in their own standards and inspection procedures.
In any case, our market is demanding this guarantee as strongly as they
have
ever demanded anything in the history of our movement. This demand was
reflected in the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board to
prohibit genentically engineered organisms and products derived from them
in organic production and handling, and is repeated in the Codex
Alimentarius organic guidelines, which are nearing the final
decision-making stage. Nonetheless,the USDA has chosen to ignore these
signals and delay taking a clear position. While appearing to be open to
further consideration of the issue in the Preamble, the USDA tips its hand
by permitting genetic engineering in the rule itself, which admits a number
of genetically engineered products such as bacterial toxins and chymosin.
USDA seems to be excusing itself for rejecting the NOSB recommendation on
the
basis of an implied contradiction with the US government's policy of
"regulating GEOs based on risk, not on how they are produced." But this is
a
false contradiction, because the organic rules are not about regulating
genetic engineering; they are about regulating organic agriculture, which
is, by definition, based on the way the product is produced. In addition,
the organic system as a whole is voluntary in the sense that no one is
bound by law to be an organic farmer or to buy organic products. In
legislation of this type the thing that matters is what the creators of the
demand and those who supply it want it to be, and that is based on values
and principles not restricted to notions of risk.
The acceptance of genetic engineering in the proposed organic rule is
rendered
even more unnerving by the fact that private bodies are prohibited from
using
seals based on higher or additional standards than the national
requirement.
These two things taken together, if allowed to stand, will drive a wedge
through the heart of the U.S. organic movement and effectively destroy the
hard-won consumer confidence in organics-presumably the reason for a law
in the first place. In criminalizing the use of private organic seals
based on adherance to higher organic standards than its own, the USDA has
lost sight of its proper role. It is indeed ironic that the United States,
the home of free enterprise, is the only country in the world which
proposes to restrict the enterprise of private certification bodies in
this way. IFOAM is convinced that a dynamic development of organics rests
on maintaining this right, in conjunction with a provision for delegation
of accreditation to private programs which fulfill international
accreditation norms and under the supervision of the AMS.
Genetic engineering is rapidly penetrating the conventional food supply.
Already more than three million acres in the United States are under
genetically engineered crops. The government's policy against mandatory
labelling of genetically engineered foods means that the only alternative
for consumers who wish to avoid them is to buy organic. If now organics are
legally prohibited from offering an alternative, there won't be one. Is
that the method in this madness?
Of course we realize that a general ban on genetic engineering will usher
in a
whole new range of difficult challenges, such as what new inspection
procedures are needed to back up the guarantee, how to maintain supplies of
certain products, and how to deal with the gray areas. And as the chemical
industry retools to genetic engineering, these difficulties may be
expected to
increase. But the refusal of the organic movement to bow to expediency is
the
foundation of our market. We should see in these hardships opportunities to
expand into new economic sectors, such as the manufacture of enzymes with
traditional technologies to service our own needs. Already suppliers are
coming forward to offer certified non-genetically engineered rennet, yeast,
and enzymes. The best way to ensure continued supplies of non-genetically
engineered products is by maintaining a ban on genetic engineering in
organics.
The greatest disservice that USDA could do the US organic sector is to
adopt a
national rules depriving it of the right to steer clear of genetic
engineering.
Not only would its own organic market be destabilized in very short order,
but
also US organic product would quickly come to be equated internationally
with
genetically engineered food. Why would they want to do this to one of the
fastest and most sustained growth sectors in the US economy?
In the interest of the worldwide organic movement, we urgently request
every
reader of Organic Gardening to join us in writing the USDA before March
16th
to demand that the National Organic Program Rules include a generalized
prohibition of genetically engineered organisms and products derived from
them
at every stage in the production and handling of organic products and that
it
guarantee the right of private bodies to use seals based on standards that
are
higher than the national minimum, backed up by a system for delegating
accreditation to private programs which fulfill international accreditation
norms. With a massive outpouring of feedback, we will hopefully be able to
protect the integrity andfuture development of organics.
Linda Bullard
Vice-President of IFOAM
NOTE: With 570 member organizations in more than 100 countries, IFOAM is
the
only worldwide federation bringing together all branches of the organic
sector
from farm to table. Its head office is located on an organic farm in
Germany:
Oekozentrum Imsbach, D-66636 Tholey-Theley, Germany. Tel: 011 49 6853 5190;
Fax: 011 49 6853 30110;
E-mail: IFOAM@t-online.de
Web: http://ecoweb.dk/ifoam
--
http://www.greenbuilder.com
telnet://fc.greenbuilder.com:3000
modem: 512.462.0633
---
Green Building Professionals Directory at
http://www.greenbuilder.com/directory/
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".