By Frederick Kirschenmann
If the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has its way, food now known as "organically grown" may be genetically engineered, fertilised with sewage sludge, and/or irradiated with nuclear wastes.
On December 16, USDA unveiled its proposed rule to implement the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). USDA's proposed rule would legalise practices that are presently unthinkable for organic farmers.
All across the country, organic farmers and advocates for organic foods have risen up in protest against USDA's proposal. If USDA prevails, the labelling of "organically grown" foods will become meaningless.
Producing food organically began with farmers who wanted to farm in harmony with nature instead of subduing nature by the use of toxic chemical pesticides and fertilisers. To identify such foods in the marketplace, private, independent, third-party certifiers emerged to provide assurance that the "organic" label actually means something.
As organic foods became more popular and commanded a premium price, some growers and manufacturers labelled their products "organic" even though they were not produced and processed in keeping with organic standards. This fraudulent use of the label led the organic food industry, organic farmers, consumer groups and environmentalists to ask for government regulation.
USDA's proposed rule, however, will not provide the needed assurance. Besides failing to prohibit sewage sludge, irradiation and genetically engineered organisms in organic farming and processing, the rule also:
- fails to specifically prohibit factory-style farms from being certified organic;
- fails to strictly forbid animal cannibalism in organically produced animals (believed to be the leading cause of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, like "mad cow" disease);
- fails to prohibit the use of other materials in the production and processing of organic food which have long been considered unsafe or inappropriate, such as piperonyl butoxide, arsenic, mono-and di-glycerides.
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 required the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a 15-member National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which the law empowered to make recommendations for establishing the national organic standard.
The law specifically gave the NOSB authority to establish the list of allowable materials that could be used in organic farming and processing. The law restrains the secretary from adding materials to the list. Since USDA's proposed rule adds materials to the list despite this prohibition, many see this as a deliberate attempt to challenge the authority of the NOSB, a citizen board.
The rule proposes other regulations that may have even more sweeping implications. The regulations, as proposed, would prevent producers and manufacturers from identifying products in the store based on production practices, thus ending the consumer's ability to "boycott" or "buycott" food products to support environmental goals.
The proposed rule gives some examples of the kind of labels that would be prohibited. They include: "produced without synthetic pesticides", "produced without synthetic fertilisers", "raised without synthetic chemicals" "pesticide-free farm", "no drugs or growth hormones used", "raised without antibiotics", "raised without hormones", "no growth stimulants administered", "ecologically produced", "sustainably harvested" and "humanely raised".
If they became law, these regulations would force many US companies and grower associations to refrain from marketing eco-labelled products that they currently produce. Several examples come to mind: Coleman's Natural Beef, which produces and markets a growth-hormone-free, antibiotic-free beef product; numerous companies and grower associations that are presently marketing products produced by reduced-pesticide practices.
Perhaps even companies using the "dolphin safe" and "SmartWood" labels to differentiate sustainable fishing and forestry products would be in jeopardy.
Additionally, the proposed rule would prohibit private organic certification companies from certifying or labelling products that distinguish "any farming or handling requirements other than those provided for" in the government's regulations.
This means that if the government insists on allowing sewage sludge, irradiation, genetically engineered organisms, piperonyl butoxide and other similar materials, then no-one can certify any product as produced or processed without those technologies.
Ironically, the proposed rule does not place such restrictions on imported products or on foreign certifiers. In effect, the regulations would allow foreign certifiers to certify that foods were produced without sewage sludge for import into the US, but US certifiers could not certify US products to that same standard for US consumers.
Other countries not only allow private certifiers to uphold and market higher standards than those required by government regulation, but some actively encourage it.
Who would benefit from this rule? It would be a boon for the conventional agribusiness food system, which has, for years, sought to eliminate any differentiation in the marketplace that threatens its market share. This rule would simultaneously erase most of the major distinctions between organic and conventional food, make it illegal to use any other eco-labels and prevent private certifiers from certifying to any standard other than the one proposed by USDA. One could hardly imagine a regulation that could bring more joy and comfort to the agribusiness food industry.
[From Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly. Like Green Left Weekly,Rachel's is a non-profit publication which distributes information without charge on the internet and depends on the generosity of readers to survive. If you are able to help keep this valuable resource in existence, send your contribution to Environmental Research Foundation, PO Box 5036, Annapolis, Maryland 21403-7036, USA. In the United States, donations to ERF are tax deductible.]