Organic Engineering
Mother Jones has obtained an internal memo that shows how
the USDA is sacrificing the federal standards for organic
foods to accomodate biotech special interests.
by Leora Broydo
> As the U.S. Department of Agriculture moves toward
>finalizing the first-ever federal standards for
>organic food, Mother Jones has obtained internal USDA
>documents that show the agency has bowed to pressure from
>biotech interests and flouted the recommendations of a
>congressionally empowered board of representatives from the
>organic industry by including genetically engineered
>in products in its list of substances allowed in organic food
>production.
>
> A May 1, 1997, USDA memo, written eight months before the
>department released its proposed standards, demonstrates
>the USDA's intent to ignore standards recommended by the
>National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)ùa panel of organic
>industry experts created in 1990 as part of the Organic
>Foods Production Act. The memo also shows that the
>multinational department knew its intention to accommodate special
>interests such as biotechnology would "generate
>controversy."
>
>In 1990 the organic industry had pushed for and won the
>passage of the organic food act in the hope that a
>government-regulated standard and stricter enforcement
>would help protect consumers from fraudulent labeling
>claims and raise consumer confidence in organic products
>both nationally and overseas.
>
> But since the act was passed, the food market has changed
>dramatically with the introduction of high-tech innovations
>such as bioengineered foods. While the biotech industry
>considers its food products safe, consumers have been less
>than confident. In Europe, protests against genetically
>altered soybeans and other products have made countries in
>the European Union reluctant to import or sell them.
>
>The memo sheds light on the agency's concerns about not
>including genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the
>proposed standards: "Few if any existing [organic]
>standards permit GMOs, and their inclusion could affect the
>export of U.S. grown organic product," reads the memo.
> "However, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
>and the Foreign Agricultural Service [USDA divisions] are
>concerned that our trading partners will point to a USDA
>organic standard that excludes GMOs as evidence of the
>department's concern about the safety of bioengineered
>commodities."
>
> The USDA clearly finds itself in a predicament: The United
>States, with the support of the Clinton administration, has
>invested tremendous resources in bioagriculture and has
>become the world's evangelist for genetic engineering. In
>1994 alone, the federal biotechnology research budget
>exceeded $4 billion. It's estimated that 24 million U.S.
>acres were planted with transgenic or genetically altered
>crops last yearùup from 6 million acres in 1996.
>
>"What [the USDA wants] to do is make sure that everything
>possible can be done to enhance the prospects for genetic
>engineering," says Margaret Mellon of the Union of
>Concerned Scientists. "Biotech is facing an uphill battle
>for acceptance and would...like to be able to say, 'Well,
>the organic community accepted it, why don't the rest of
>you?'"
>
>But USDA senior marketing specialist Michael Hankin argues
>that it was appropriate to include bioengineering in the
>proposed standards because the agency wanted feedback from
>the public on its inclusion. "The department supports the
>[organic] industry and is responsive to the wants and needs
>of the consumers," he says.
>
>According to Hankin, the push for the inclusion of genetic
>engineering was not only internal but also came from none
>other than the Clinton White House, represented by the
>Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of
>Science and Technology Policy. U.S. Trade Representative
>Charlene Barshefsky has been pressing Europe to accept
>bioengineered food products. And Science and Technology's
>presidential advisory committee includes biotech giant
>Monsanto's senior vice president for public policy,
>Virginia Weldon.
>
>The internal memo also discusses the USDA's attempt to
>wrest control from the NOSB over the most important
>component of the standards the "National List" of
>substances allowed in organic food production. The law says
>that the USDA can't add any substances to this list unless
>it has NOSB approval. But the USDA has a different
>interpretation of the law: According to the memo, the
>department claims that since the word "list" is written in
>lowercase letters in one instance, the law allows the USDA
>to add substances to the list without the board's approval.
>Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.),
>who penned the act, say this is baloney.
>
>"The intent of the law was to give the NOSB sole authority
>to place items on the National List," says DeFazio. "If the
>USDA continues to stand by this interpretation, it is very
>likely that it will be challenged in the courts."
>
>A three-page chart included in the USDA memo also details
>15 areas in which the department's recommendations differ
>from the NOSB's. For example, under "pesticide residue" the
>chart explains that the USDA does not agree with the lower
>pesticide level recommended by the NOSB because "[the NOSB
>standard] establishes organic as being a 'safer' food, and
>our program is not a food safety program."
>
>The chart also addresses standards applied to slaughter
>animals. While the NOSB recommended that the use of drugs
>in slaughter stock be prohibited, the USDA again overruled
>the board, proposing that "use of antibiotics [be] allowed
>in very young animals" and that "parasiticides may be used
>any time other than on a routine basis." The listed reason
>for the change? "Not allowing use of antibiotics and
>parasiticides would prohibit production of organic
>livestock in some locations."
>
>When the USDA finally released its national standards
>proposal last December, it not only included the use of
>genetically engineered products but also allowed for
>irradiation and fertilization with sewage sludge which can
>contain metals and toxic chemicals.
>
>The proposed standards also would prohibit organic
>certifiers from requiring higher standards than those of
>the USDA. "This means that if the government insists on
>allowing sewage sludge, irradiation, genetically engineered
>organisms, piperonyl butoxide, and other materials and
>technologies that the NOSB specifically rejected for use in
>organic production, then no one can certify that any
>product is free of these practices," says organic farmer
>and NOSB member Fred Kirschenmann.
>
>The public comment period for the regulations ends April
>30, and, so far, the USDA has received thousands of letters
>of protest from organic producers and consumers demanding
>changes in the proposed standards. The USDA, which hopes to
>release a final set of rules late in the fall, promises to
>consider these protests and make changes to the rules.
>However, if the USDA retains control of the National List,
>the organic industry, and hence consumers, will always be
>at the mercy of government interests. "The very fact that
>[the USDA] would add genetic engineering at the service of
>the biotech industry illustrates precisely why [Congress]
>did not want the USDA to have complete discretion over that
>list," Mellon says.
>
>Opinions vary as to what the final outcome will be. It is
>within the realm of possibility that new rules could be
>written, followed by a another public comment period. The
>idea of using interim standards while the details are
>hashed out has also been raised. Even after eight years,
>the organic industry would still rather hold off than make
>compromises. "We've waited this long," says Kathleen
>Merrigan, a senior analyst for an alternative agriculture
>institute and member of the NOSB. "There's no reason now to
>rush to the finish line."
>
>Comments may be submitted or reviewed via the Internet at
>http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop or may be submitted in writing
>to Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator, Agricultural
>Marketing Service, USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 4007-S, Ag Stop
>0275, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> Mother Jones Archive
>
> Other Articles by Leora Broydo
>
> The MoJo Wire and Mother Jones are projects of the Foundation for
>National
> Progress, a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization, founded in 1975 to educate
>and
> empower people to work toward progressive change.
>
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".