|
The Clinton administration on March 9 unveiled regulations (click
here for complete report) for the fast-growing organic food
industry, bowing to public demand to ban biotechnology and irradiation
procedures on foods labeled and sold as "organic." The U.S. Department
of Agriculture's 650-page proposal aims to provide a nationwide
standard for food and clothing marketed as "organic" -- a label
that currently falls under a hodgepodge of state, regional and private
certifier standards, giving rise to confusion about its meaning.
A nationwide organic standard, which administration officials hope
will become final by the end of the year, would not only clarify
the meaning of organic for U.S. consumers but also for foreign nations
who are increasingly shying away from conventional U.S. growing
practices.
The proposal is the strictest organic standard in the world and
may force other countries to tighten their regulations. The proposal
bans food from crops that are genetically altered to fight off weeds
and pests, withstand droughts and floods and provide extra nutrients.
The move may help sell U.S. organic products in Europe and in Japan,
where consumers have objected to biotechnology, claiming that the
common U.S. practice can harm the environment and human health.
Also banned from the organic pool under the USDA proposal is food
irradiated by disease-killing electron beams and fertilized by sewage
sludge recycled by municipal waste plants. Meat produced from animals
that receive antibiotics could also not be labeled organic.
Once the proposal is finalized, consumers will be able to look
for a USDA shield, similar to the "USDA Prime" identification for
beef or the grade labels on egg cartons.
Products with at least 95 percent organic products will be labeled
"USDA certified organic." Food and clothing with between 50 percent
and 94 percent organic inputs will be able to claim that they were
"made with organic ingredients."
Any products made with some, but less than half, of organic materials,
can only make organic claims on the side label. The U.S. Organic
industry sold more than $6 billion of products, from food to clothing,
in 1999. It is estimated that organic sales will increase by another
20 percent this year.
There are currently 12,000 organic farmers in the United States
and that number is rising by 12 percent each year while other sectors
of farming are seeing a decline in producers.
But the industry said it needed standards to maintain the surge
in organic sales. Without guidelines, consumers will increasingly
question whether an organic label really means anything and whether
it is worth paying more for organic products, members of the organic
industry said.
TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING
The announcement came more than two years after the U.S. Agriculture
Department unveiled its initial organic proposal and a decade after
the U.S. Congress ordered the agency to develop nationwide organic
rules.
The USDA's first attempt in December 1997 prompted an outcry from
organic farmers, consumers and grocery stores that specialize in
organic food. The Agriculture Department received a record 275,603
comments from environmentalists, farmers, celebrities, consumers
and the entire Vermont Legislature.
The vast majority of the responses opposed putting the "organic"
label on foods grown using biotechnology, irradiation and sewage
sludge.
Organic farmers were also angry that the USDA at first proposed
charging fees to farmers to pay for the $1 million annual cost for
the organic program. Such fees could be too expensive for organic
farmers, many of whom harvest small plots of land and sell in the
surrounding county.
In its new proposal, the USDA said taxpayers will pay for the bulk
of the costs, at least for the first couple of years.
A massive, unprecedented consumer backlash in 1998 over the USDA's
first proposed regulations shook up the USDA and forced them to
back off on plans to degrade organic standards and allow biotech
and corporate agribusiness to take over the rapidly growing organic
food market.
US organic food sales this year will likely reach $8 billion --
a sizable bite of the $350 billion total annual sales of the nation's
supermarkets. At current growth rates organic production will constitute
10% of American agriculture by the year 2010.
Besides backing off on the "Big Three" (genetic engineering, sewage
sludge, and irradiation) the USDA bureaucrats bowed to grassroots
pressure and basically agreed that any product bearing the label
"USDA Certified Organic" will have to be produced without toxic
pesticides or toxic "inert ingredients"; that antibiotics, growth
hormones, and rendered animal protein can not be administered or
fed to animals; that factory farm-style intensive confinement of
farm animals will not be allowed; and that no synthetics or chemicals
will be allowed in organic production without the approval of the
National Organic Standards Board.
In addition the USDA basically agreed to leave the preexisting
system of private and state organic certifiers intact; to allow
accredited state and private organic certifiers to uphold higher
standards than the USDA; and for licensed organic certifiers to
be able to display their logos or seals on the front label panel
of organic products.
Finally the USDA backed off on their previous proposal to outlaw
"eco-labels" which might imply that a product was organic. Despite
major improvements in the current proposed USDA organic standards
over what was put forth in 1998, there are a number of problems
and shortcomings in the lengthy March 8 document. Among the most
obvious problems are the following:
* So-called "natural foods" with less than 50% organic ingredients
will be allowed to list their organic ingredients on their information
panel -- usually on the back of the package -- even though the non-organic
ingredients of these products may be genetically engineered, irradiated,
derived from sewage sludge, or produced with pesticides, growth
hormones, or antibiotics.
* Manure from factory farms will be allowed to be used as a fertilizer
on organic farms.
* Although the proposed regulations on organic animal husbandry
require "access to outdoors," no clear definition of what constitutes
"pasture" are offered, nor does the USDA delineate exact space or
spacing requirements for humane housing and outdoor access for poultry,
pigs, cattle, and other animals.
* Although the USDA claim they don't intend to impose economic
hardships on organic certifiers and farmers, the added costs of
USDA oversight will fall heavily on small certifiers and farmers.
The USDA should provide accreditation services to organic certifiers
free of change as well as subsidize the costs of any farmer who
wishes to become certified as organic. Beyond this the USDA should
allocate funds to pay farmers a premium price for their products
during their "transition to organic" phase as an added incentive
for the majority of farmers to begin making the transition to sustainable
and organic farming practices.
* Although genetic contamination of organic crops by "genetic drift"
from farms growing genetically engineered crops is one of the most
serious environmental threats to organic agriculture, no residue
limits for genetic contamination are delineated in the USDA's proposed
federal regulations. The USDA must hold biotechnology patent holders
and seed companies accountable and financially liable for the environmental
and economic damage inflicted on organic farmers and producers caused
by genetic drift.
| 