Organic View - March 2000

[Sprinkraft at aol.com]

This NOP analyses was done up by Jim Riddle who I have worked with as an 
organic inspector and etcetera, enter name of obscure organic association 
here.......

I don't always agree with Riddle, but he is one of the top five most 
qualified people who has anything to say yet on this. I can say this: we are 
going to have to get many thousands of people to comment again, comment 
coherently, and reference the LAW every time they do it. OFPA 1990.

The UMOFC ( mentioned below) is the Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference, 
which is going on in La Crosse Wisconsin right now. 1000 organic farmers 
standing around scratching their heads over the new Rule while they wait for 
the next seminar on Flame Weeding in Row Crops to start. 

UMOFC National Organic Program Update 

The USDA has just released the new proposed rule for a National Organic
Program. This information sheet is intended to provide you with information on
the proposed rules and to help you be able to submit comments to the USDA.

The USDA web site is very user friendly and features the proposed rule,
response to comments received on the last proposed rule, supporting documents,
and a side by side comparison of other organic standards. The web site address
is http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. The web site is the best way to see the rules
and to directly submit comments. You will also be able to see other people's
comments.

Background on the National Organic Program 

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, adopted as part of the 1990
Farm Bill, requires USDA to develop national standards and regulations for
organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that
agricultural products marketed as organic comply with these standards. The 
OFPA
and the National Organic Program (NOP) require that agricultural products
labeled organic originate from farms or handling operations certified by a
State or private agency that has been accredited by the USDA.

The OFPA requires USDA to develop national organic standards and establish an
organic certification program based on recommendations of a 15-member National
Organic Standards Board (NOSB). In addition to NOSB recommendations, USDA
reviewed State, private and foreign organic certification programs to help
formulate the NOP. The proposed regulations are similar to most of the
standards organic producers and handlers currently use, and are intended to be
flexible enough to accommodate the wide range of operations and products grown
and raised in every region of the United States.

In December 1997, USDA published a proposed rule and received 275,603 public
comments, explaining why and how the rule should be rewritten. As a result, 
the
USDA has revised the rule to reflect these comments.

The public will be able to submit comments on this revised proposed rule in
both written and electronic form for 90 days, until June 12, 2000. USDA will
then review and categorize the comments, make any necessary revisions to the
proposed rule, and submit a final rule for publication in the Federal 
Register.
Discussion of public comments will be included in the final rule.

What's in the proposed rule?

The new proposed regulation prohibits the use of genetic engineering, (defined
as “excluded methods”), irradiation, and sewage sludge for fertilization. The
proposed rule includes the following: definitions; production and handling
requirements, which address organic crop production, wild crop harvesting,
organic livestock management, and processing and handling of organic
agricultural products; a National List of Allowed Synthetic and Prohibited
Non-Synthetic Substances; labeling requirements for organic products;
compliance; residue testing; fees; State program approval requirements;
certification requirements; certification procedures; recordkeeping
requirements; accreditation requirements; and requirements for foreign
accreditation.

What are some issues of concern?

Despite major improvements in the proposed rule, there are a number of issues
of concern, where comments are needed to create a National Organic Program
which meets the needs and expectations of organic farmers and consumers. Among
them are the following:

1.      Subpart A - Definitions. Does not provide a definition of “organic
agriculture,” or contain a statement of “Principles of Organic Production.”
2.      Subpart A - Definitions. Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMO’s) are
defined by a new term “excluded methods” - see preamble discussion.
3.      Subpart A - Definitions. Terms defined, including “audit trail,”
“buffer
zone,” “compost,” “fertilizer,” and “inert ingredient,” need to be carefully
assessed for accuracy and applicability.
4.      Subpart B - Applicability. No transitional labels are allowed or
defined.
5.      Subpart B - Applicability. The $5000 small farm exemption, which under
OFPA applied to total farm sales, is extended to include “organic sales” and
handling.
6.      Subpart B - Applicability. Retail operations, including those with
delicatessens, salad bars, bakeries, and juice bars, are exempt from
certification.
7.      Subpart B - Applicability. Brokers, distributors, warehousers, and
transporters are exempt from certification.
8.      Subpart B - Applicability. No oversight or certification is
required for
operations using the word “organic” in the ingredient list only. (<50% organic
ingredients.)
9.      Subpart C - Production and Handling. No restriction on manure from
“factory farms” or industrial agriculture operations. (contrary to Codex and 
EU
requirements.)
10.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Allows use of Chilean nitrate
(contrary to EU requirements.)
11.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Contains no allowance for new 
herd
dairy clause, seriously inhibiting the ability of small dairy farms to convert
to organic production.
12.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Breeder stock could receive
parasiticides while lactating.
13.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Antibiotics are prohibited, but
antibiotics in vaccines and semen are not addressed.
14.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Stocking rates and space
requirements per animal are not addressed.
15.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Buffers for pastures are not
addressed. 
16.     Subpart C - Production and Handling. Concept of  “commercially
available” is applied to organic seeds only - not applied to minor ingredients
or livestock inputs.
17.     Subpart D - Labeling. <50% labels could contain non-organic 
ingredients
from “excluded methods” or produced using prohibited materials.
18.     Subpart D - Labeling. Does not address use of the word “organic” as a
modifier in a product name when the ingredient modified is not organic - e.g.
“organic cherry sweets”, where the cherry is a natural flavor, but not an
organic ingredient.
19.     Subpart F - Accreditation. Foreign equivalency deals only government 
to
government - no provisions are made for recognition of certifiers not under a
government program or accredited by the USDA.
20.     Subpart F - Accreditation. Peer review is weak - peer review “may” be
used; reviewers act as individuals; reviewers are prohibited from being
compensated.
21.     Subpart F - Accreditation. Evaluation of certifying agents occurs once
every five years - may not be compliant with international norms (ISO).
22.     Subpart G - Administrative. Confuses “State organic certification
programs” and “State organic programs”. e.g.: States can have additional
requirements without establishing certification programs - this is not clear 
in
the text.
23.     Subpart G - Administrative. Compliance 205.660 - does not address
investigation of non-certified operations making organic claims.
24.     Subpart G - Administrative. No penalties are assigned other than
suspension and de-certification.
25.     Subpart G - Administrative. Funding for investigation and enforcement
action is not addressed.
26.     Subpart G - Administrative. 205.670(b) states that residue tests
must be
conducted at the certifier’s “own expense”.
27.     Subpart G - Administrative. 205.671 sets maximum allowable residue
levels at “estimated national mean” without providing information on what 
those
levels are.
28.     Subpart G - Administrative. Provides no protection of organic 
producers
from chemical or genetic trespass; liability for damages is not addressed.
29.     Subpart G - Administrative. Does not set or propose any rejection
levels
for GMO contamination.

The above list is based on a preliminary review of the proposed rule, and is
not presented as a comprehensive analysis. UMOFC attendees are asked to read
the proposed rule, and submit their own comments to the address below.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this
proposal to: Keith Jones, Program Manager, National Organic Program,
USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So., Ag Stop 0275, PO Box 96456, Washington, DC
20090-6456. Comments also may be sent by fax to (703) 365-0760 or filed via 
the
Internet through the National Organic Program's homepage at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. Written comments to this proposed rule
submitted by
regular mail and faxed comments should be identified with docket number
TMD-00-02-PR. To facilitate the timely scanning and posting of comments to the
NOP homepage, multiple page comments submitted by regular mail should not be
stapled or clipped. Commenters should identify the topic and section number of
the proposal to which the comment refers. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Did you get this far?

In order to change things, very careful, thorough and documented ( 
referenced) replies have to go to USDA. Wait and see if one comes by that 
sounds like it meets with your approval and you can use it, or do your own.

Steve Sprinkel
Ojai Ecosystem Services
Organic Food Production
Organic Consultation

member
Organic Farmers Marketing Association ( board of directors)
Organic Trade Association
Independent Organic Inspectors Association