Hello to those interested in commenting on the Proposed Rule,
There are very real problems with the USDA's second proposed organic rule.
We speak of them below. For "organic" to be trusted by our customers, the
National Organic Program must conform to the Organic Foods Production Act, in
language and spirit. It is unacceptable for the USDA's Final Organic Rule to
undermine the 20 plus years of trust that now exists between the partnership
of organic farmers and customers.
Now and until June 12, 2000 is the time for organic farmers and organic
customers to partner again in making clear to USDA we must have the changes
listed below.
The accompanying file contains the same content as below in a more
user-friendly format, that is only 2 pages in length. The file can be
downloaded and copied for mass distribution to others as you see proper. The
file is in Rich Text Format or RTF.
Issued as a final document: April 12, 2000
Analysis: Eric Kindberg, certified organic farmer, Fairfield, Iowa with the
assistance and critique of many others. Erorganic@aol.com
This sheet is for public use and improvement. Anyone or organization may use
the accompanying file and following comment work sheet as their own or adapt
it as they see fit.
Best regards,
Eric Kindberg, certified organic farmer, Fairfield, Iowa
ORGANIC FOODS AND FARMING IN PERIL, AGAIN
Exercise Your Right for Pure and Unadulterated Food
This public comment work sheet on the Proposed Rule allows you to make a
direct
comment to USDA on many important issues. Just read the "How the USDA's
Proposed Rule Contradicts the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA)" and
circle your response. Complete, sign, print your name and return address.
Please
make extra copies for both your House and Senate representatives. Fold with
the
USDA address out, affix stamp, mail or mail in your own envelope. Sending a
completed work sheet will make clear to the USDA your position on these
issues.
Comment through the Internet at www.ams.usda.gov/nop/ or via fax at (730) 365-
0760.
Please reproduce and circulate.
Docket: TMD-00-02-PR
How the USDA's Proposed Rule
Contradicts the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and Can Be
Improved
National List:
Sec. 205.601 and 206.603, 205.204(c)(4)
Violates OFPA Section 2105, Section 2118(c)(B)(i). Allows for the use of
categories of active synthetic substances in organic crop and livestock
farming not
permitted by OFPA. The Proposal does not declare GMOs "synthetic," opening
the
door for use in organic farming and food processing. (OFPA designates the
categories of
substances for possible use in organic farming.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
National List/Livestock:
Sec. 205.603
Violates OFPA Section 2118(b). Allows categorical use of active synthetic
substances, vitamins, minerals and medicines in organic livestock production,
without itemizing by specific use or application as required by OFPA. (OFPA
mandates
itemization of each allowed active synthetic substance by specific use or
application.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
National List:
Sec. 205.601(m), 206.607(d)(1)(2) and (3
Violates OFPA Section 2118(b), (c)(1) and (A) and (B)(ii). The Proposal does
not provide a specific class of substances on the National List for synthetic
inert
ingredients (often used in botanical pesticides.) Does not establish a
National List
class that allows the use of non-synthetic, but not organically produced
substances
in up to 5% of processed organic foods. (OFPA mandates all synthetic inert
substances used in
organic farming and all non-synthetic, but not organically produced
substances used in processed "organic"
foods to be itemized on the National List)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
National List:
Sec. 205.600 and 205.605(b), 205.270(c)(3), 205.301(b)
Violates OFPA Section 2105 and 2107(b)(1)(C) and 2111(a) and (a)(1) through
(4), Section 2118 (b), (c)(1) and (A) and (B)(iii). The Proposal allows for
use
of synthetic food additives, processing aids, enzymes and ingredients
(incidental
additives) in processed foods labeled and sold as "organic." Potentially
undermines
consumer trust in "organic" and opens a backdoor to GMOs in organic food.
(OFPA
mandates no synthetic substances may be added during processing of organic
food.
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
National List:
Sec. 205.606
Violates OFPA Section 2105 and 2107(b)(1)(C) and 2111(a) and (a)(1) through
(4), Section 2118 (b), (c)(1) and (A) and (B)(iii). Allows for
non-organically
produced ingredients to be substituted for organically produced ingredients
at the
discretion of the certified handling operation. Another open door to GMOs.
(OFPA
mandates that the "organic" labeled product is always composed of organically
produced ingredients, with the
exception of those non-synthetics, but not organically produced substances
itemized on the National List.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Definitions:
Sec. 205.2
Violates OFPA. The Proposal creates definitions which are in conflict with
OFPA.
"allowed synthetic," "audit trail," "claims," '"commercially available,"
"excluded methods," "handling operation,"
"inspection," "livestock," "non-agricultural substance," "system of organic
production and handling,"
"unavoidable residual environmental contamination" and "wild crops."
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Applicability, etc.:
Sec. 205.100, 205.101(c)(2), 205.270(a)(b) and (c), 205.301(a),(e)(4),
205.302(a), 205.303(a)(1), etc.
Violates OFPA Section 2102(1) (2)(3), 2103(14), 2105, 2106(a)(1)(A) and (B).
The Proposal creates a new organic product-labeling category. Establishment
of
the term "100 percent organic" is not authorized under OFPA. A single term
"organically produced" or "organic," is authorized under OFPA and fulfills
consumer
expectation of identifiable organic labeling and integrity. USDA's
suggestion that
the term "organic" or "organically produced" is not the highest level of
organic
production and handling standards and integrity is misleading the consumer.
(One of
the purposes of OFPA is "to assure consumers that organically produced
products meet a consistent standard.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Labeling
Sec. 205.304, 205.305
Violates OFPA Section 2106(c)(1) and (2). The Secretary of Agriculture has
stated
there will be "zero tolerance" for GMOs in organic farming and handling.
Allowing
the term "organic" to be used on any product that may contain GMOs, sewage
sludge, irradiation, added sulfites, nitrates and nitrites undermines
consumer trust,
and is inconsistent with the organic farming and handling. (The term organic
should not be
allowed as a label of any product that may contain GMOs.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be Zero Tolerance and delete 205.304, 305 and use of the term "made with
organic" ingredients.
Follow USDA
Applicability:
Sec. 205.101(b)(2), 205.101(1), (i) and (ii)
Violates OFPA Section 2103(10), 2105, 2107(a)(1)(A) and (B). The Proposal
provides an exclusion from certification for restaurants and retail food
establishments (that process and prepare food products and sell those
products as
"organically produced") and marketing and distribution businesses. (OFPA
mandates
every "organic" handling operation that "receives or acquires" product and
process, package or store must be
certified and defines handler as "any person engaged in the business of
handling agricultural products, except
that such term shall not include final retailers of agricultural products
that do not process agricultural
products.")
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Livestock:
Sec.205.236(3)
Violates OFPA Section 2105(2), 2110. Allows non-edible livestock products to
be labeled and sold as "organically produced" while not allowing non-
edible fiber crops to be labeled and sold as such. It is contradictory to
allow
livestock fibers like wool, mohair to be sold as "organically produced" and
not allow
crop fibers like cotton and flax, etc. to be sold likewise. (OFPA can
establish national
standards governing marketing of agricultural products.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Develop standards for cotton, flax, etc.
Follow USDA
Livestock:
Sec. 205.239(a)
Violates OFPA Section 2110(d)(2), (h). The Proposal does not mandate
pasture for poultry, hogs and other livestock. Allows for the intensive and
perpetual confinement depending on "stage of production." (Contrary to
overwhelming
public testimony on the last Proposed Rule and the USDA organic livestock
hearings. Final Rule needs to define
"stage of production" and "pasture.")
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Mandate pasture for all
Follow USDA
Production etc.:
Sec. 205.203(c)(3), 205.306(b), 205.670(b)
Violates OFPA Section 2113. Places undue regulatory burden on certified
organic farms by requiring each farm to conform to Code 317 compost
guidelines;
by requiring lot numbers on all "non-retail containers used for shipping or
storage
of produce/perishable products;" and proposes the residue testing of organic
farm
and handling operation "agricultural inputs." (OFPA does not mandate any of
these.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Production:
Sec. 205.290(a)(1)(2)(3), (b), (e)
Violates OFPA Section 2102, 2105 and 2106. Creates variances not allowed
under OFPA. Does not conform to NOSB emergency spray and feed
Recommendations. Allowing certified farms, processors and distributors to
seek
variances from USDA to allow the use of prohibited practices and substances
and
still label products as "organically produced" is not consistent with OFPA.
(Emergency
spray and feed variances were the only NOSB Final Recommendations to USDA.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Accreditation and Definitions needed:
Sec. 205.504(b)(5)
Violates OFPA Section 2107(a)(9). OFPA mandates USDA to: "Provide for
public access to certification documents and lab analysis." The USDA
Proposal falls short of the OFPA. ("Certification documents and
laboratory analysis" minus
"business related information" are required under OFPA to be supplied to all
seeking the information.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Fees:
Sec. 205.642
Violates OFPA Section 2107(a)(10). Does not establish "reasonable fees"
annually
for farm/site/wild crop production and handling operation certification.
Without
NOSB and USDA determination of what fees are reasonable, how can reasonable
fees be charged? A valid Regulatory Flexibility Act annual analysis cannot
be made
without the annual farm and handling operation fee projection. (OFPA
mandates
"reasonable fees" for all participants in the Program.)
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA.
Follow USDA,
Proposed Rule lacks details as prescribed by OFPA
The National List content, guidelines, procedures, requirements and
evaluation criteria rating system are not
explained. Criteria for determining equivalency of imported "organically
produced" products with US standards
and certification is absent. Fiber handling operations, honeybees, wild
aquatic and terrestrial animal standards,
requirements for "split operations" are not proposed. USDA has not accepted
the NOSB's Final
Recommendations for uniform organic farm, livestock and handling operation
plans and that limit ALL
prohibited substances in organic products to 5% of EPA tolerances.
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Be consistent with OFPA
Leave out
File 21302rflx,
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Effects on Small Businesses: Cost and
paperwork for farm and handler certification must be kept as low as
possible while still offering a quality certification program. Cost of USDA
accreditation to small certifier applicants can be reduced.
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Reduce costs
Follow USDA
These definitions are urgently need for a quality USDA/NOP.
"Production inputs," "specific use and application" regarding the National
List, "organic agriculture," "organically
produced," "conversion period," "botanical pesticides," "business related
information," "certification
documents," "critical control point," "farm," "farmer," "feed emergency,"
"fiber," "ionizing radiation," "manure-
green," "manure-raw," "manure-re-feeding," "marketing," "National List
categories," National List classes,"
"natural," "non-edible product," "non-edible livestock product," "organic
good manufacturing practices,"
"packaging," "parallel production," "parasiticide," "pasture," "perennial
crop," "product," "restricted,"
"seedling," "site," "split operation," "stage of production," "state organic
program," "treated," "untreated,"
"vaccine."
Circle whether the Final Rule should:
Develop
Not needed
Signature:
Date:
Print name and address below.
Send to:
Keith Jones,
Program Manager, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP,
Room 2945-So. Ag Stop 0275, P.O. Box 96456,
Washington, DC 20090-6456
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:09 EDT