M O J O U R N A L
News from the MoJo Wire and Mother Jones magazine
Week of March 10 - March 16, 1998
http://www.motherjones.com/
E X C L U S I V E __________________________________________________
*Organic Engineering* - Article - Mother Jones has learned that the USDA is
sacrificing the organic food industry for biotech special interests.
See the leaked memo that details the sellout at the website.
___________________________________________________
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
http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/MJ98/broydo.html
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
products in its list of substances allowed in organic food production.
A May 1, 1997, USDA memo, written eight months before thedepartment released
its proposed standards, demonstrates the USDA's intent to ignore standards
recommended by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)ua panel of organic
industry experts created in 1990 as part of the Organic Foods Production Act.
The memo also shows that the department knew its intention to accommodate
special pipeline u but interestsu such as biotechnologyu 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 inthe 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 obstruction and the Foreign Agricultural Service [U
SDA divisions] are concerned that our trading partners will point to a
USDAorganic standard that excludes GMOs as evi dence 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 year up 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
cience 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." [Image]
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.
--------------------------------------
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".