Organic View - March 2000

[Sprinkraft at aol.com]

Well, there are 85 days left to comment on the USDA's National Organic 
Program Proposed Rule.

In the intervening time between now and mid-June, we will see a lot of stuff 
come down the pike. Mr. Cummin's concerns about labor practices and 
sustainability issues ( fuel) are sort of headline-borrowing. They are also 
not cogent to production practices.

The deal to focus on is that this Rule is an implementation program for an 
Act of Congress called the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. No typo-it 
has been ten years of hell.

Hell, because the Act is pretty straightforward, not perfect, but really 
pretty amazing, however all the private interest and organocrats have fouled 
the process up by not doing things as congress had determined. 

This USDA re-write is an improvement, but based on the earlier sewage-sludge 
stained, transgenic abomination, that was not too hard to do.

I am forwarding two recent analyses of the Rule. They are pithy. They 
reference a bunch of codes and senate-house confreree,Codex Alimentarius, 
falderol, but the bottom line is that the Rule must conform to the Act, which 
is also known as a PUBLIC LAW. No conformance means unlawfullness. 

If you go to http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
you will also see OFPA there. Read it. Then you will know what is at stake. 
For example, Organic is mostly about things we can and can not use, right?

This is the criteria for determining them, in the LAW:

(c) GUIDELINES FOR PROHIBITIONS OR EXEMPTIONS. (1 ) EXEMPTION FOR PROHIBITED 
SUBSTANCES. The National List may provide for the use of substances in an 
organic farming or handling operation that are otherwise prohibited under 
this title only if 

(A) the Secretary determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, that the use of such substances 

(i) would not be harmful to human health or the environment; 

(ii) is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural product 
because of unavailability of wholly natural substitute products; and 

(iii) is consistent with organic farming and handling; 

(B.) the substance 

(i) is used in production and contains an active synthetic ingredient in the 
following categories: copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from 
bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated 
seed, vitamins and minerals; livestock paraciticides and medicines and 
production aids including netting, tree wraps and seals, insect traps, sticky 
barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers; 

(ii) is used in production and contains synthetic inert ingredients that are 
not classified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as 
inerts of toxicological concern; or 

(iii) is used in handling and is non-synthetic but is not organically 
produced; 

HELLO. A synthetic substance can not be used in handling, which also includes 
processing. Nonetheless, this Rule has synthetic processing aids in it. I 
will let my friend Eric Kindberg continue since he has more stamina for this 
than I do at present:

The second proposed organic rule violates OFPA as stated below.  Implementing 
this violation would open the door to every kind of synthetic substance being 
used in processed organic foods and represents the potential to undermine 
trust between organic customers and organic farmers.  Moreover, because FDA 
has no consistent program of determining that derivatives of GMOs are NOT 
used in "minor ingredients" processing aids and food additives, there is a 
window of opportunity for such use in processed organic product.  

I strongly urge you to read the entire rule and critique my analysis as well 
as USDA.

Best,   Eric


From: Eric Kindberg, certified organic farmer

USDA is proposing to allow synthetic substances to contact or be part of 
"organically produced" processed foods and fibers.  Most damaging to organic 
integrity would be the proposed allowance under the USDA organic program of 
the 32 categories (each category containing multitudes of substances) found 
in 21CFR Ch 1, Food And Drug Adminstration section 170.3.  This listing 
includes and opens for NOSB consideration every possible chemical presently 
used in conventional processed food including synthetic colorings and color 
adjuncts, flavorings agents and adjuncts, fumigants, enzymes, processing 
aids, solvents and vehicles, surface-finishing agents, synhergists, 
texturizers. surface-activ agents, stabilzers and thickeners, sequestrants, 
propellants, aerating agents, and gases, pH control agents, oxidizers and 
reducing agents, nutritive sweetners, non-nutritive sweetners, lubricatns and 
release agents, leavening agents, humectants, flour treating agents flavor 
enhancers, firming agents, emulsifiers, and emulsifier salts, drying agents, 
curing and pickling agents, dough strengtheners, antioxzidants, antimicrobial 
agents, antcaking agents and free flow agents.

You can see USDA's proposal to violate OFPA in the first file you download 
from the AMS website: "definitions."    This issue having been one of the 
primier issues regarding the first proposed rule and now staring consumers, 
farmers and handlers in the face right at the beginning of the second public 
comment review provides great concern for th future of a sustainable organic 
marketplace.  

OFPA, the House-Senate Conferee, and Senate reports provide clear statements 
that no synthetic substance is to contact "organically produced" food in post 
harvest handling. 

Here are the two statements from the "definitions" proposed rule file on 
their website indicating USDA is proposing to violate OFPA.  

Should the organic consumer, farming and handling community immediately make 
clear to USDA that such a "standard" would stimulate distrust in "organically 
produced" products?  

In conformance to OFPA, when synthetic substances contact or a part of a food 
product that contains "organically produced" ingredients, the correct 
labeling is "made with organically produced" ingredients.

(16) A commenter recommended adding the word, "synthetic," immediately 
preceding the word, "substances," in the second sentence of the definition of 
"system of organic farming and handling." We disagree with this suggestion 
because "substances" as used in this definition could be synthetic or 
nonsynthetic. A few commenters requested deletion of the word, "extraneous," 
as a modifier of "synthetic additives" in the definition of "system of 
organic farming and handling." The commenters stated that use of the word, 
"extraneous," implied that synthetic additives can be used in organic 
processed products. Synthetics may be used in processed products if the 
substance is included on the National List. Additionally, the word, 
"extraneous," modifies the word, "processing," in the definition, and we 
consider use of extraneous processing to be inconsistent with organic 
handling. For these reasons, we have not removed the word, "extraneous," from 
the definition. We have, however, amended the term, "system of organic 
farming and handling," by deleting "farming" and inserting "production." The 
definition for the term, "system of organic production and handling," is 
unchanged. We have taken this action to make the term consistent with the 
language of this proposal. Additional information on this issue can be found 
at subpart C, Production and Handling (General), Changes Requested But Not 
Made, item 1.

(2) We have amended the definition of "allowed synthetic" by replacing "for 
use in organic farming" with "for use in organic production, or handling." 
This correction was necessary because the National List includes synthetic 
substances used in organic production and handling.

Legal reasoning:

OFPA

§2105 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION.  To be sold or labeled as an 
organically produced agricultural product under this title agricultural 
product shall    
(1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, 
except as otherwise provided in this title;    

§2107 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
(b) DISCRETIONARY REQUIREMENTS.  An organic certification program established 
under this title may    
(1) provide for the certification of an entire farm or handling operation or 
specific fields of a farm or parts of a handling operation if 
 
(C) appropriate physical facilities, machinery, and management practices are 
established to prevent the possibility of a mixing of organic and nonorganic 
products or a penetration of prohibited chemicals or other substances on the 
certified area; and   


§2111 HANDLING.    
(a) IN GENERAL.  For a handling operation to be certified under this title, 
each person on such handling operation shall not, with respect to any 
agricultural product covered by this title 
(1) add any synthetic ingredient during the processing or any post harvest 
handling of the product; 


Senate Committee Report with the OFPA bill:

Finally, the National  List is designed to cover ingredients used in 
processing. The bill allows that up to five percent of processed food labeled 
"organically produced" may contain non-synthetic ingredients which are not 
organically produced if those ingredients are included on the National  List. 
The five percent figure was arrived at after consulting with various organic 
food processors as the amount of flexibility necessary in processed food. The 
Committee intends that the guideline for processed food ingredients on the 
National List be that some ingredients are difficult or impossible to obtain. 
An example might be certain spices that are unavailable at this time from an 
organic farm It may also include items that are not technically organically 
produced such as yeast.

Senate-House Conferee Report at passage of OFPA:

(9) Contents of National List

The Senate bill provides that the National List may include prohibitions on 
natural substances which otherwise would be allowed under this title but 
which the National Organic Standards Board and the Secretary determine to be 
harmful to human health or the environment and inconsistent with organic 
farming.   The Senate bill provides further that the National List may 
include exemptions for substances otherwise prohibited but which the National 
Organic Standards Board and the Secretary determine are harmless to human 
health and the environment, are necessary because of the unavailability of 
wholly natural substitute products, and are determined to be consistent with 
organic farming practices. Such exemptions, however must meet one of the 
following three criteria:
 (1) the substance is used in production and contains a synthetic active 
ingredient in the following categories: copper and sulfur compounds; toxins 
derived from bacteria; pheromones, 
Page 1179

detergents; horticultural oils; treated seed; fish emulsions; vitamins and 
minerals, livestock parasiticides and medicines; and  production aids 
including netting, tree wraps and seals, insect traps, sticky barriers, row 
covers, and equipment cleansers; 
(2) the substance contains synthetic inert ingredients; or 
(3) the substance ; is used in processing and is non-synthetic but not 
organically produced. (Section 1625)   The House amendment contains a similar 
provision with three differences: 
(1) there is no allowance for production aids on the National List
(2) there is no allowance for products with synthetic inert ingredients on 
the National List; and 
(3) the Secretary is required to consult with the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services and the Administrator of EPA regarding the contents of the 
National List. (Section 1495Q)     
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment that 
adds production aids to the category of synthetic I active ingredients and 
the category of synthetic inert ingredients not of toxicological concern to 
the Administrator of EPA as possible exemptions on the National List. The 
Managers note that in the future it may be necessary to further develop a 
list of categories for processed food exemptions and therefore encourage the 
Secretary, working with the National Organic Standards Board, to recommend 
such a list to the Congress as soon as practicable in order to facilitate 
implementation of the national standards by October 1, 1993