From: Edna M Weigel <eweigel@juno.com>
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 11:46 AM
Subject: Organic Standards
.> About decertification, I am torn between the need to let a
>certifier withdraw certification (and maybe even recall product) as soon
>as violation is discovered and the need to provide "due process" in case
>some certifying agent has an axe to grind (or maybe even accepts a bribe
>from a competitor). I have no idea how to handle this administratively.
Eric comments:
Let me begin by stating that it is completely insufficient for USDA/National
Organic Program and USDA/Office of General Counsel to not supply a clear
administrative plan for handling both the authority to certify and to
decertify and the authority to stop the sale of products mislabeled
"organically produced" (whether mislabeled "organically produced" on purpose
or mislabeled because a "substantial" violation of the requirements for the
farm or handling operation to be certified organic have been identified and
confirmed).
We, as organic customers are concerned about being deceived or mislead when
purchasing "organically produced" products. We, as certified organic farmers
and organic handlers are concerned about unfair competition that occurs when a
farm or handler in fact is "substantially" not meeting requirements to label
and sell products as "organically produce," and yet is allowed to continue
labeling as such
The USDA/OGC and NOP proposal for perpetual certification is contrary to the
existing organic certification norm. However, "due process" as you point out,
beyond limiting liability for the USDA, also provides a certain security to a
certified farmer and handling operation from pernicious decertification, a
security that does not now exist in private and State certification.
However, to me as a certified organic farmer and consumer of "organically
produced" products, what is most important to me is bringing swift action on
stopping mislabeling "organically produced" purposefully mislabeled or in the
face of "substantial" violations of a certification program.
But, there are solutions, don't ask me why USDA with all its staff and
interagency contacts can't figure them out and present a coherent program
First, on the State level, there are laws against mislabeling that cover
"organic." We are only now finding their usefulness and much needs to be
explored.
Second, on the Federal level, there is FDA compliance labeling officers and
programs that cover consumer labeling of processed food products, dairy, fish,
shell eggs and animal feed. There is FSIS compliance labeling officers and
programs that cover consumer labeling of meat, poultry and processed eggs.
Each of these agencies is required to respond to citizen complaints and
investigate mislabeling. In international trade equivalency, regarding
imported "organic" products; there is the Ag Marketing Service, the Foreign
Agricultural Service and the Federal Trade Commission to take action.
In other words, there already exist ways to enforce labeling of "organically
produced."
I am extremely concerned that 7 years after the USDA/NOP staff and the NOSB
began work, we still have no public policy development for enforcement of
domestic and imported labeling of "organically produced" products.
> I have lots of sympathy for the argument that big government
>should stay out of the organic certification business and the
>criminalizing of certifying to higher standards is absolutely repulsive
>to me.
Eric:
The statement from USDA has been and is that under OFPA there is a single,
consistent and uniform standard and requirements for labeling and selling a
product as "organically produced" in the US, whether domestically produced or
imported.
Under OFPA with the ascent of the USDA, any certifier, any one, can certify
that any practice is being performed by any organic farm or handling
operation. What a certifier cannot certify under OFPA is that the standard
used on a farm or handling operation is a "higher" organic standard than the
national organic standard.
The reason is clear, OFPA, an act of Congress, mandates a single, uniform and
consistent national organic standard. It think in theory that is fine. What
do you think?
There are a number of ways to raise the OFPA organic standard,
-the NOSB recommendation process,
-the Congressional legislation route, and
-the petition for amendment of the Code of Federal Regulations.
There are also additional Federal Statutes that offer legal redresses for
burden's on farms and businesses created by the implementation of agency
"rules."
However, if I understand the enabling legislation correctly, it
>would literally take another act of congress to change either of these
>two things and I don't think we have the lobbying clout to make it
>happen. I believe our best bet is to stand up and be counted when they
>(the USDA influenced by various lobbyists) try to water down the
>standards.
> I hope to see some discussion on these subjects, especially the
>decertification process and the length of time animals should be withheld
>from organic production when they require medication.
Eric:
The issues you mention above are important to be continually monitored. The
only effective way to monitor them is to understand the details of OFPA and a
proposed/final organic rule.
The major lobbyist seeking to water down OFPA are organic handling operations,
which are some existing organic processors and marketers.
The issue is simple. Some organic handlers, processors and some large private
supermarkets want the NOSB and USDA to consider to allow the use of the same
synthetic food additives, processing aids, colorings, preservatives,
flavorings, enzymes and in some case synthetic ingredients now used in
conventional food products in products labeled and sold as "organically
produced."
The Organic Trade Association's processing, manufacturing and labeling
committee made up of a many certified organic handlers backs the use of
synthetic substances in processed organic foods.
This is in direct contradiction to OFPA which states that once the
"organically produced" product leaves the farm, no synthetic substance shall
contact or be part of "organically produced" products.
At the most recent NOSB meeting in DC, Kathleen Merrigan, a member of the NOSB
proposed that probably the only legitimate way to allow the use of synthetics
in processed "organically produced" products is to amend OFPA.
Very large numbers of the 285,000 comments on the Proposed Rule rejected
synthetics in "organically produced" processed foods.
It is up to interested citizens to assert their right to pure and
unadulterated food and fiber products.
Best regards, Eric Kindberg
>Best regards, Edna Weigel
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".