From The site of the National Cooperative Grocers Association
http://www.ncga.coop/news_announce.html
Organic Rider is Pending on Senate Appropriations Bill
THE ORGANIC TRADE
ASSOCIATION (OTA) IS ASKING CONGRESS TO CHANGE THE ORGANIC FOODS
PRODUCTION ACT
(OFPA) WHICH COULD ALLOW NUMEROUS UNREVIEWED
SYNTHETIC SUBSTANCES IN PRODUCTS LABELED "ORGANIC" AND LEAVE
UNRESOLVED THE USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN YOUNG DAIRY COWS.
The industry amendment to OFPA is being offered as a solution to the
recent court decision in Harvey v. USDA, yet the suggested law changes
could alter organic standards above and beyond the issues involved
in the lawsuit. The growth of the organic industry, which we have supported
for many years, is built upon acceptance by organic consumers who are
willing to pay a premium price in the marketplace for products produced
under exacting standards.
After rejecting efforts by members of the public interest and environmental
community to reach an agreement on these issues, OTA is pushing Congress
to quietly change the law. These amendments to change the organic food
law are being offered to the U.S. Senate, and may be considered as
early as Tuesday, September 20th as a rider to the Agriculture Appropriations
Bill. (H.R. 2744)
View the proposal being offered to Congress by OTA: (pdf-OTA amendment)
http://www.ncga.coop/files/OTA_Amendment.pdf
View an analysis of its contents: (pdf-Myth and Reality)
http://www.ncga.coop/files/Myth_and_reality.pdf
© 2002 National
Cooperative Grocers Association
http://grist.org/news/muck/2005/09/29/oranics/?source=daily
O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?
Fight over synthetic ingredients splits organics community
By AMANDA GRISCOM LITTLE
29 Sep 2021
What do xanthan
gum, an artificial thickener, ammonium bicarbonate, a synthetic leavening
agent, and ethylene, a chemical that accelerates
the ripening of fruit, have in common? These and other synthetic additives
commonly lurk behind that "USDA Organic" stamp of approval
you see on the organic products increasingly crowding the shelves of
big-box stores and boutique food shops alike.
Controversy over the use of these artificial substances in certified-organic
products has been simmering within the organics community for at least
three years, since the feds put national organic standards into effect
in 2002, and now it's finally coming to a boil.
Last week, the Organic Trade Association, which represents mainstream
producers of organic products, including Dole, Kraft, and Horizon,
as well as hundreds of smaller-scale farmers and producers, provoked
protest among community activists when it lobbied the Senate to attach
an amendment to the 2006 agriculture appropriations bill that would
make it legal for certain synthetic substances to continue to be used
in the preparation, processing, and packaging of organic products that
get the USDA seal. The OTA's proposed amendment would effectively cancel
out a recent federal court ruling that determined synthetics shouldn't
be permitted in the processing of certified-organic products -- a ruling
that industry reps argue could deal a huge blow to their bottom lines.
If adopted, the OTA amendment would officially green-light the use
of 38 synthetic substances (including the above-mentioned) that are
already being used in the production of organic products, and in some
cases would enable the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue adding
others to the list without getting feedback from the public or the
National Organic Standards Board, the independent advisory group that
crafted the first federal organic standards.
The Organic Consumers
Association, a network of 600,000 consumers of organic products,
is up in arms
over the proposed amendment. Ronnie
Cummins, the group's national director, is particularly concerned that
it would weaken the NOSB, which he calls "the primary thing that
stands between us and the corporate agribusiness takeover of the organics
industry." In the past two weeks, says the nonprofit group, its
members and grassroots allies have deluged congressional offices with
tens of thousands of emails and telephone calls opposing the amendment.
OTA's initial lobbying push fell short, resulting in a compromise
amendment to the Senate version of the appropriations bill that calls
for study of the issue. This week, as the Senate and House dicker over
a final bill in conference committee, OTA is continuing its efforts,
hoping to get its amendment added at the 11th hour.
Katherine DiMatteo,
executive director of OTA, says that while study "is
a good step," it would only prolong ambiguity in the marketplace
and harm organic producers. "Companies have to make decisions
soon about purchasing the organic ingredients they put in [next year's]
products," she says. "They will refrain from doing so if
it's unclear whether they can depend on the same standards that we
worked so hard to establish years ago."
William Friedman
-- an attorney with the D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling
who is representing OTA, and a former vice chair of the NOSB -- argues
that OK'ing continued use of the synthetic substances that have been
allowed up to this point is "the only way for industry to continue
offering consumers the same certified-organic products that they are
purchasing today, and have been purchasing for the past three years
bearing the USDA seal."
Indeed, many organic producers have grown accustomed to using these
artificial additives in their processed products. Under the USDA's
current rules, the organic label can be applied to a product if at
least 95 percent of its ingredients are organic, and the remaining
five percent can contain certain synthetic substances.
But the court ruling
on "Harvey v. Veneman" earlier
this year determined that the USDA rule governing which synthetic
substances
are permissible contradicted the original intent of the 1990 law that
called for creating national organic standards. Arthur Harvey, an organic
blueberry farmer in Maine, stunned industry when he won on appeal against
the USDA, challenging the agency for allowing synthetics into processed
foods certified as organic.
Were the Harvey
court decision to stand, products containing the synthetic substances
that have
been allowed for the past three years would no
longer be eligible for the full-fledged "USDA Organic" label.
Instead, they could bear the claim "Made With Organic Ingredients," which
can be applied to products containing a minimum of 70 percent organic
ingredients. Some organic producers worry that such a downgrade for
their products would mean serious financial losses, because consumers
are willing to pay a premium for products with a stamp that certifies
them as organic, but would be less inclined to fork over so much dough
for those that merely contain organic ingredients.
Says Friedman, "Up to 90 percent of the multi-ingredient products
that today bear the USDA organic seal would have to be relabeled." Most
crackers, breakfast cereals, bread, milk, cheese, yogurt, tofu, bananas,
lettuce, and any products containing sugar would not be able to bear
the organic label, he says, because ingredients now used to make them
would be prohibited by the Harvey ruling. As a result, "entire
product lines would have to be eliminated," Friedman claims.
Urvashi Rangan,
director of the Eco-labels.org project of Consumers Union, the nonprofit
research
group that publishes Consumer Reports,
doesn't believe the blow would be so severe. "There has been lots
of pressure to weaken standards so companies can capitalize on the
synthetics market," she says. But many of the synthetic ingredients
at issue, such as leavening agents, ripening agents, and thickeners,
could have natural -- albeit somewhat more expensive -- counterparts,
as does the carbon dioxide that is used to preserve bananas and lettuce. "We
should be pushing the market to develop, cultivate, and adopt these
natural processing agents and ingredients, not their cheaper artificial
counterparts," she argues.
Many organic consumers
would seem to agree. Says Rangan, "According
to our research, 46 percent of all consumers buy organic-labeled food
products, and 85 percent of all respondents say they do not expect
food labeled as organic to contain artificial ingredients. In other
words, allowing synthetics leads to fraudulent labeling, plain and
simple, and erodes the credibility of the term organic."
Organic farmer
Cissy Bowman -- CEO of Indiana Certified Organic, a USDA-accredited
certifying
organization -- says she feels excluded
from the lobbying efforts of OTA, of which she has been a longtime
member: "I don't feel that they have been open and transparent
with their members about their efforts to push this amendment through
Congress, and I don't believe it represents my interests or the interests
of my clients." Bowman says her clients are working on finding
natural alternatives to synthetic substances. She suggests that the
USDA could clear up consumer confusion and help resolve the situation
by creating a separate official seal for products made with at least
70 percent organic ingredients.
Cummins characterizes
the OTA's lobbying as an attack on the definition of organic, and
likens
it to the USDA's past efforts to dilute organic
standards: "In 1997 and 1998, the department proposed that genetic
engineering, food irradiation, and use of toxic sludge be permissible
on organic farms," he says. And last year, the USDA made moves
to allow hitherto prohibited pesticides, tainted feeds, and antibiotics
in the production of organic goods.
In these cases, the organics community -- including both industry
groups and consumer-advocacy groups -- rose up in a unified force against
the USDA to beat back these rollbacks. What makes the current situation
different is that organic adherents themselves are warring.
"We're seeing the community split in two," said Cummins.
Jim Riddle, chair of the NOSB, echoed that sentiment: "I am very
concerned about the fractured state of the organic community."
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental
politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine.
Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in
publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.
Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary
©2005. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense
of humor®.