USDA/Organic

[awerbalo at calpoly.edu]

Here's the latest from Sec. Glickman. 

May 18, 1998

USDA Bows to Pressure on Organic Standards After receiving more than
200,000 comments from farmers, environmentalists, consumers and others,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it is backing
down on its proposed national organic standards. The standards would 
have allowed farmers to use a wide range of toxic, synthetic substances,
and left open the possibility of allowing use of genetically engineered
organisms, sewage sludge and irradiation in organic production. Almost
all comments submitted to USDA criticized the standards for being far
too weak and for compromising the integrity of the organic label. 

"If organic farmers and consumers reject our national standards, we have
failed," said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "Our task is to
stimulate the growth of organic agriculture, ensure that consumers have
confidence in the products that bear the organic label, and develop
export markets for this growing industry." The agency announced that 
it will evaluate the comments submitted in response to its proposal and
submit a revised proposal for public comment later this year. The
revised proposal will prohibit use of genetically engineered products,
irradiation or sewage sludge, according to Glickman. 

Organic industry and advocacy groups, including the Organic Trade
Association and the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), were
pleased about the agency's announcement, but said that there is still
work to be done. "We will continue lobbying the USDA, Congress and the
White House for a federal label for organic that maintains the rigorous
standards already established by the organic industry," said Katherine 
DiMatteo, head of the Organic Trade Association.

 According to Bob Scowcroft, executive director of OFRF, Secretary
Glickman's statement that USDA's job is to "stimulate the growth of
organic agriculture," marks a significant change in the agency's
attitude. "Hopefully, this reflects a long-lasting change of heart,"
said Scowcroft. "It means that now it's safe for mid-level researchers
at USDA to express an interest in organic without risking their
careers." 

Since issuing its proposed standards in December, USDA has been flooded
with critical comments from a broad range of consumers, activists and
industry groups, including mainstream agricultural organizations such as
the California Farm Bureau, the Produce Marketing Association and
various state Departments of Agriculture. The California Senate and 
Assembly issued a joint resolution stating that the rules, "would
threaten the integrity of the organic process in our state." In
addition, 32 U.S. Senators and 48 House members wrote a letter to
Secretary Glickman urging him to rewrite the organic rules or face
action that would block them in Congress. 

International groups also submitted comments, including the
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), which
stated in a press release the proposed standards were so bad that they
could hurt "our movement everywhere."

Observers have remarked that USDA was stunned by the force and volume of
negative comments. According to a spokesman for Secretary Glickman, "for
anybody who thinks of organic farming as some fringe element . . . this
has really proved them wrong." He stated that organic farming is "very 
mainstream, it's very national and it's very big." 

                  
The Boston Globe, May 9, 1998; Reuters, May 8, 1998; USDA