>ACRES, USA
>a journal of regenerative agriculture
>
>T R A N S I T I O N S
>
>Steve Sprinkel
>on the road in Van Buren County, Iowa
>
>November, 1998
>
>
>Washington, DC Report
>
>After four days in the nation=92s capitol observing the National
Organic =
>Program
>process, optimism for quality implementation of the Organic Foods
Product=
>ion
>Act ( OFPA) was about as hard to find as a weed-free field of 1998
organi=
>c
>soybeans in Iowa.
>
>A request had been made in the summer by the some National Organic
Standa=
>rds
>Board members and other activists for a more open dialogue with USDA
whil=
>e the
>revised rule was being created. The result from USDA was a series of
Thin=
>king
>Papers which were drawn up in a curious form seeking to satisfy all
parti=
>es,
>and therefore disappointing most, except the Office of Management and
Bud=
>get,
>whose editorial demands on USDA helped to create a confusing and
misleadi=
>ng
>first document. You remember the adage about too many cooks. The
Thinking
>Papers did not go down well with many folks.=20
>
>One big problem with these Thinking Papers is that their publication in
t=
>he
>Federal Register initiates a Public Comment Period. Since the rationale
b=
>ehind
>the Papers only was based on the original, flawed Proposed Rule of 17
>December, 1997, contrasted with the comments received through April,
the
>information in the Papers is not up to date. Therefore, concerned
observe=
>rs
>asked the Agricultural Marketing Service for an addendum to the
publicati=
>on in
>order to clarify the omissions. If your are now entirely confused and
>aggravated, you have company.
>
>The only idea commonly agreed upon by attendees to the 15th meeting of
th=
>e
>National Organic Standards Board is that we seem to have never been
furth=
>er
>from an acceptable Proposed Rule.
>
>We can spread the blame/credit around fairly evenly. Folks claiming to
>represent the organic community asked for those Papers, and brokered a
de=
>al
>with Enrique Figueroa, the Administrator of the Agricultural marketing
>Service. They traded the dialogue opportunity for more time in issuing
th=
>e
>second proposed organic rule. In other words, we, or I should say =93
the=
>y=94 can
>talk, but now taken back is the USDA Secretary=92s promise to have the
re=
>vision
>out by the end of the year. This contingent petitioning USDA for
dialogue=
> is
>the same one working strenuously to not have the OFPA implemented at
all.=
> DUH.
>
>For three years this very influential and well-connected ( especially
to =
>DC)
>organic/sustainable sub-set has been dragging its feet, delaying and
>postponing substantive progress, first under the banner of the Private
Se=
>al
>Use Coalition, and now joined by elements of the National Campaign for
>Sustainable Agriculture.=20
>
>Few if any of these folks, generally the private certification
community,=
> want
>the OFPA implemented. Up until now their general argument for a
certifier=
>=92s
>ability to certify to higher standards than USDA=92s didn=92t obtain
much=
> traction
>within the entire community, including state certification officials
and
>organic farmers.
>
>But when USDA rolled out its potential certification methodology on the
2=
>8th
>of October, defining certification as an un-interruptable federal
license=
> with
>certification agencies not capable of decertifying their client
producers=
>,
>handlers and processors, the wheels started to come off the federal
wagon.
>
>Though Keith Jones, the Director of the National Organic Program, was
abl=
>e to
>describe the proposed system to the qualified satisfaction of NOSB
member=
>s
>concerned that consumers may not be protected, most attendees were
convin=
>ced
>that the government has taken federal control to a new and unauthorized
l=
>evel.
>The fundamental concept of local, chapter control of certification,
and
>education towards better performance of the standards, is one chip few
a=
>re
>willing to bargain away. Failure to see that education and local
improvem=
>ent
>is a key feature in organic certification is akin to so many other
flaws =
>in
>the federalization process.=20
>
>Criticism of federal participation in organic agriculture had
previously =
>been
>confined mostly to the metaphorical and geographical =91hollers=94 and
wi=
>lderness
>populated by back-to-the-landers, and other folks generally repulsed by
o=
>ur
>hypocritical Big Brother.
>=20
>But when Eric Kindberg cracked on the 29th, it meant that the
government=92=
>s
>best grassroots ally was ready to come off the mountain. According to
rec=
>ent
>research, as many as 40% of all organic farmers are not certified. This
g=
>roup
>is rarely represented, often forgotten, but can not be ignored,
particula=
>rly
>when another double digit percentage of certified growers would abandon
t=
>hird
>party certification if they could because their marketing is so direct
th=
>at
>independent verification is superfluous. For seven years Kindberg had
arg=
>ued
>in favor of OFPA as an innovatively democratic leveler, hoping that
gover=
>nment
>would provide what self-interest had caused to be ignored in the
organic
>private sector.=20
>
>What is important to note is that advocates like Mr. Kindberg are
willing=
> to
>support the law while condemning USDA=92s position and rationale on
natio=
>nal
>certification. We now enter a more dangerous period where our homegrown
>alternative must mature, one way or the other, as uniform standards are
>adopted.=20
>
>Organic Agriculture began as a revolution. Revolutions are always
difficu=
>lt to
>codify; just ask Marat, or Madison. We are still caught in the dilemma
of
>having to provide proof that the organic alternative, both in
production =
>as
>well as in certification, is not just viable, but the best philosophy
>available to small farms and individual consumers. If anyone wants to
kno=
>w
>what motivates this movement, you can find it in the farm auction
section=
>s of
>the newspaper, or in Page One stories about synthetic pesticides hidden
i=
>n
>fertilizers, confined feedlot livestock unfit to eat and the rise in
inci=
>dence
>of diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers. While it may be
possible =
>for
>state government to acquire organic principles and promote and protect
th=
>em,
>expecting the DC sausage makers to come up with anything but hamburger
is=
> but
>a dim possibility.
>
>Enough editorializing. This may happen now:
>A new association of producers, certifiers and consumers will take
shape =
>as
>the National Organic Congress, or the National Organic Union. This new
en=
>tity
>will call for national standards, probably in accordance to the OFPA
rega=
>rding
>materials, and may undertake independent accreditation through the
Americ=
>an
>National Standards Institute ( ANSI). ANSI may accredit certification
sys=
>tems
>according to the International Standards Organization ( ISO).
Preliminary
>investigation of the ANSI/ISO program indicates that such a private
route=
> to
>accreditation may be just as expensive as the government program. OFPA,
t=
>he
>federal legislation proving so difficult to implement, may be used by
ANS=
>I-
>accredited certifiers to the extent necessary to provide for
internationa=
>l
>equivalency for export and import. We do still have to deal with the
rest=
> of
>the world, even though are own corner of it is far from fixed. Wherever
y=
>ou
>turn there are always more acronyms.
>
>The additional Thinking Papers should be trashed. But now that they are
i=
>n the
>official pipeline, the Thinking Papers need to be responded to. They
are =
>on
>the AMS website <ams.usda.gov>, and appear in the Federal Register.
Form=
>erly
>cautious organic activists are now willing to work with the independent
>accreditation coalition, the Organic Materials Review Institute, and to
>strengthen regional certification bodies. It remains to be seen if
livest=
>ock
>producers will begin labeling organic meat products with or without FDA
>approval by next summer. If the revised rule is released on January 1,
si=
>x
>months should be ample time for FDA=92s Food Safety Inspection Service
=
> (
>FSIS) to begin working with the organic community and allow meat to be
la=
>beled
>=93organically produced=94 for the first time. It is time for organic
fa=
>rmers to
>meet and talk regionally and formally with their certifiers and begin
to =
>take
>back the entire process.=20
>
>Organic Livestock Marketing
>If organic farmers are going to produce and label organic meat, the
first
>order of business should have been for the 40 certifiers to agree on
unif=
>orm
>standards of production and handling. The Organic Certifier=92s Caucus
of=
> the
>Organic Trade Association did not agree on uniform standards, according
t=
>o
>Marty Mesh of Florida Organic Growers. The independent accreditation
move=
>ment
>will have to take on that issue if it wants to be legitimate, and up
unti=
>l now
>uniform organic meat standards have not been adopted. The formal
petition=
> to
>FSIS for an interim organic meat label does not include such
uniformity, =
>and
>consumers as well as organic farmers need such standards. If federal
>permission is not granted, such uniformity is even more required in
order=
> to
>self-defend the product and the producer should producers elect to
marke=
>t
>organic meat without approval.=20
>
>Before we approach that bridge, one option remains: Indicate to the
USDA=
> Food
>Safety and Inspection Service that the organic community requests
immedia=
>te
>publication in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Intent to
Propos=
>e
>Rulemaking on organic meat, poultry and processed eggs in order to
gather
>information as to whether claims relating to the production of food
anima=
>ls,
>including the term "organically produced" should be permitted.
Appropria=
>te
>legal acting should be taken to support this request.
>
>
>The Face of Future Organic Certification?
>
>Lost amid all the federation talk is the fact that more states are
adopti=
>ng
>statutes covering organic production, and new certification
associations =
>are
>being organized. The federal law ( OFPA) has a lot of language in it
tha=
>t
>supports states both in their accreditation and standards and requires
th=
>at
>the USDA Secretary provide assistance to states when setting up
certifica=
>tion
>programs:
>
>CERTIFYING AGENT. The term "certifying agent" means the chief executive
>officer of a State or, in the case of a State that provides for the
State=
>wide
>election of an official to be responsible solely for the administration
o=
>f the
>agricultural operations of a State, such official, and any person
(includ=
>ing
>private entities) who is accredited by the Secretary as a certifying
agen=
>t for
>the purpose of certifying a farm or handling operation as a certified
org=
>anic
>farm or handling operation in accordance with this title.=20
>
>ASSISTANCE TO STATE:
>
>(1) TECHNICAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE. The Secretary shall provide
technical=
>,
>administrative, and Extension Service assistance to assist States in
the
>implementation of an organic certification program under this title.=20
>
>(2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. The Secretary may provide financial
assistance =
>to
>any State that implements an organic certification program under this
tit=
>le.=20
>
>Consequently, Iowa and Indiana are now implementing programs that
accred=
>it
>private organic certification associations and agencies. Iowa=92s
program=
> calls
>for a state board to review the certifiers as well as their decisions.
>Indiana=92s Organic Peer Review Panel is focused on accreditation of
cert=
>ifiers,
>but does have discretion over individual certification applicants and
wil=
>l
>hear consumer complaints and appeals by applicants.=20
>
>In California, after some initial turbulence between private certifiers
a=
>nd
>producers and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the
play=
>ers
>are cooperating a little better. This seems to be pretty much the
scenari=
>o
>being played out in the two dozen states where organic statutes exist.
St=
>ate
>involvement, never nearly as thorny as the federal mandate, may be the
mi=
>ddle
>road towards transparent and legitimate organic certification under
gover=
>nment
>authority. Perhaps the =93public-private partnership=94 still can
survive=
> at the
>state level.=20
>
>Some Good News
>
>Ironically, while regulatory issues are at an impasse, organic research
a=
>nd
>marketing has never had as much support from other divisions at USDA
and =
>EPA.
>Mark Lipson formally initiated the Scientific Congress on Organic
Agricu=
>lture
>Research ( SCOAR) at the =93Organic Farming and Marketing Workshop:
New
>Partnerships and Priorities held in Washington on the final day of the
NO=
>SB
>meeting. We were all ready for some relief. The event was co-sponsored
by=
> the
>Organic Farming Research Foundation and the Henry A. Wallace Institute
fo=
>r
>Alternative Agriculture, boosted in a big way by Jill Auburn of USDA
>Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, and was attended by
aroun=
>d
>fifty government representatives, media representatives and national
and
>international agricultural policy analysts.
>
>Key presentations were given by Rick Welsh, of the Wallace Institute,
on =
>the
>=93Economics of Organic Grain and Oilseed Production in the Midwest=94
; =
>"Meeting
>the Data needs of the Emerging Organic Industry" a set of related
>presentations by Catherine Greene, Economic Research Service, Norm
Bennet=
>t,
>National Agricultural Statistics Service, and Terry Long, Agricultural
>Marketing Service. Presentations were given by scientists from the
>Agricultural Research Service, including John Teasdale, Long-Term
Croppin=
>g
>Systems Project Coordinator, Mark Davis, Farming Systems Project
Manager=
>,
>and national program leader Mike Jawson. Projects of interest to
organic
>farmers from SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) and
o=
>ther
>programs of CSREES (Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
>Service) were discussed by Jill Auburn & others, and "Resources
availabl=
>e to
>organic farming researchers from the Foreign Agricultural Service" by
Ja=
>nise
>Zygmont, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
>
>Faith in a Seed
>The Farmer Cooperative Genome Project held its first meeting on the 2nd
o=
>f
>November in Oregon. The event brought together organic farmers and
altern=
>ative
>and organic agriculture activists to develop a strategy for cooperating
w=
>ith
>the USDA National Plant Germplasm System staff, and personnel from
Cooper=
>ative
>Development Services. An Advisory Council was formed, and participation
i=
>s
>still open to folks concerned about the risks to our common seed
heritage.
>J.J. Haapala, the Oregon Tilth Research and Education=92s chief
organizer=
> of the
>Project, encourages everyone to become familiar with the National Plant
>Germplasm System's "Genetic Information Resource Network" (the GRIN
syste=
>m).
>The GRIN system is both a listing of accessions within the NPGS system
an=
>d a
>listing of the descriptors for each crop category. Please refer to the
GR=
>IN
>system home page at www.ars-grin.gov. For further information on
particip=
>ating
>on this international effort to grow and protect open pollinated plant
>varieties, please contact Mr. Haapala at <jhaap@pond.net> or Oregon
Tilth
>Research and Education, 30848 Maple Dr. Junction City, OR 97448 For
more
>information contact: JJ Haapala (540)998-3069.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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".
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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".