<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Junk food: The Senate trashes organic standards]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by lisabell http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/ Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:55:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/1 The other side of the story

Congress' action actually restored the U.S. organic standards to where they were prior to the court ruling, with one exception.  A request to develop an "emergency procedures" section was added to address crop availability in times of disaster, such as a hurricane. It only applies to organic crops, NOT synthetic materials, and is limited to minor ingredients (5 percent or less) within a product.

This is truly a disaster type provision that would only be used in times of crop failure or other extreme market disrupting events. Example: Organic vanilla is a crop largely grown in Madagascar, and the vanilla crops in that country are historically wiped out by major storms every three-four years. A major crop failure would preclude organic vanilla from being available for a year or more. Vanilla is used widely in processed organic products, but is always considered a minor ingredient.

U.S. organic standards, implemented in 2002, were developed with input from industry, consumers, farmers and environmental groups, and were approved and implemented after over 10 years of discussion, two proposed rules, and over 300,000 public comments. These standards also reflect the recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), whose decision-making authority remains in place. The organic industry sought government regulation as a way to help guarantee the organic label for consumers.

Like organic standards used throughout the world (including the United Kingdom), the U.S. organic standards have always allowed specific synthetic materials that are essential to making numerous organic processed products. These are non-agricultural materials, including items such as baking powder and a type of pectin, that are necessary in certain production and processing practices and have been used in producing foods for decades.

The current labeling requirements of the USDA National Organic Standard includes a 100% organic category (fresh and processed products) as well as the organic category (95% or more organic ingredients), and the made with organic category (70% or more organic ingredients.)  Consumers have a choice in the products that they purchase because of these clearly defined labeling categories. If they want to purchase products that are 100% organic, they can do so.

]]> The other side of the story

Congress' action actually restored the U.S. organic standards to where they were prior to the court ruling, with one exception.  A request to develop an "emergency procedures" section was added to address crop availability in times of disaster, such as a hurricane. It only applies to organic crops, NOT synthetic materials, and is limited to minor ingredients (5 percent or less) within a product.

This is truly a disaster type provision that would only be used in times of crop failure or other extreme market disrupting events. Example: Organic vanilla is a crop largely grown in Madagascar, and the vanilla crops in that country are historically wiped out by major storms every three-four years. A major crop failure would preclude organic vanilla from being available for a year or more. Vanilla is used widely in processed organic products, but is always considered a minor ingredient.

U.S. organic standards, implemented in 2002, were developed with input from industry, consumers, farmers and environmental groups, and were approved and implemented after over 10 years of discussion, two proposed rules, and over 300,000 public comments. These standards also reflect the recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), whose decision-making authority remains in place. The organic industry sought government regulation as a way to help guarantee the organic label for consumers.

Like organic standards used throughout the world (including the United Kingdom), the U.S. organic standards have always allowed specific synthetic materials that are essential to making numerous organic processed products. These are non-agricultural materials, including items such as baking powder and a type of pectin, that are necessary in certain production and processing practices and have been used in producing foods for decades.

The current labeling requirements of the USDA National Organic Standard includes a 100% organic category (fresh and processed products) as well as the organic category (95% or more organic ingredients), and the made with organic category (70% or more organic ingredients.)  Consumers have a choice in the products that they purchase because of these clearly defined labeling categories. If they want to purchase products that are 100% organic, they can do so.

]]> Comment #2 by Tom Philpott http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/ Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/2 Industry vs. consumers

All respect to Lisabell, but she has essentially laid out her case in terms of the Organic Trade Association--the trade group representing such green-minded companies as Kraft and Dean Foods, known for squeezing "organic" milk from confined, corn-fed cows.

Indeed, her final three paragraphs were lifted verbatim from the OTA's recent press release applauding the Senate's action.

That's fine. I lean heavily on the Organic Consumers Association for information (though never for wording) on this topic; Lisabell prefers what she calls "the other side."

But the the consumer group seems to have the stronger argument. Lisabell writes that "Congress' action actually restored the U.S. organic standards to where they were prior to the court ruling, with one exception.  A request to develop an "emergency procedures" section was added to address crop availability in times of disaster, such as a hurricane."

Here is the language inserted by the Senate's action into organic code (source: the OCA):
(6) EXPEDITED PETITIONS FOR COMMERCIALLY UNAVAILABLE ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CONSTITUTING LESS THAN 5 PERCENT OF AN ORGANIC PROCESSED PRODUCT

THE SECRETARY MAY DEVELOP EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS THAT ARE COMMERCIALLY UNAVAILABLE IN ORGANIC FORM FOR PLACEMENT ON THE NATIONAL LIST FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 12 MONTHS.

That will indeed give the USDA secretary, currently an industrial-ag man from Nebraska (and no, the Democrats generally don't do much better), the power to approve artificial vanilla flavoring for use in organic products. Do we really need "vanilla"-flavored organic yogurt when there's a crop failure in Madagascar?

The organic agriculture movement started with high hopes of transforming industrial agriculture, of teaching the broader culture that delicious, plentiful food could be grown by respecting seasons and farming in harmony with, not against, natural processes.

The Senate's move strikes yet another blow in the opposite direction: the industrial food system is transforming organic agriculture, stripping it of its philosophical basis and turning it into a crude tool for shaking a few more bucks out of consumers' pockets.

Unlike most economic actors, farmers and processors serious about organic practices actually want more regulation. The lawsuit that sparked the Organic Trade Association to petition the Senate to water down organic laws came from an organic farmer. He successfully sued the USDA to make it more difficult for processors to use synthetic ingredients. When Lisabell/the OTA talk about "restoring" organic standards, they mean obliterating the tougher standards imposed by the lawsuit.

There's no reason to respect the Senate's decision or accept the OTA's agenda. Like Lisabell, I'll end by pasting in part of a press release, this time from the Organic Consumers Association.

If the USDA and the dominant companies in the OTA continue to ignore consumer and organic community expectations, especially the expectations of small and medium-sized farmers, retailers, and companies, we will set up our own label, certification, and accreditation system and point out to consumers that "USDA Organic" means "grade B organic," and that consumers looking for "grade A" will have to look for our new label.

There, I think, lies the way forward.


]]> Industry vs. consumers

All respect to Lisabell, but she has essentially laid out her case in terms of the Organic Trade Association--the trade group representing such green-minded companies as Kraft and Dean Foods, known for squeezing "organic" milk from confined, corn-fed cows.

Indeed, her final three paragraphs were lifted verbatim from the OTA's recent press release applauding the Senate's action.

That's fine. I lean heavily on the Organic Consumers Association for information (though never for wording) on this topic; Lisabell prefers what she calls "the other side."

But the the consumer group seems to have the stronger argument. Lisabell writes that "Congress' action actually restored the U.S. organic standards to where they were prior to the court ruling, with one exception.  A request to develop an "emergency procedures" section was added to address crop availability in times of disaster, such as a hurricane."

Here is the language inserted by the Senate's action into organic code (source: the OCA):
(6) EXPEDITED PETITIONS FOR COMMERCIALLY UNAVAILABLE ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CONSTITUTING LESS THAN 5 PERCENT OF AN ORGANIC PROCESSED PRODUCT

THE SECRETARY MAY DEVELOP EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS THAT ARE COMMERCIALLY UNAVAILABLE IN ORGANIC FORM FOR PLACEMENT ON THE NATIONAL LIST FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 12 MONTHS.

That will indeed give the USDA secretary, currently an industrial-ag man from Nebraska (and no, the Democrats generally don't do much better), the power to approve artificial vanilla flavoring for use in organic products. Do we really need "vanilla"-flavored organic yogurt when there's a crop failure in Madagascar?

The organic agriculture movement started with high hopes of transforming industrial agriculture, of teaching the broader culture that delicious, plentiful food could be grown by respecting seasons and farming in harmony with, not against, natural processes.

The Senate's move strikes yet another blow in the opposite direction: the industrial food system is transforming organic agriculture, stripping it of its philosophical basis and turning it into a crude tool for shaking a few more bucks out of consumers' pockets.

Unlike most economic actors, farmers and processors serious about organic practices actually want more regulation. The lawsuit that sparked the Organic Trade Association to petition the Senate to water down organic laws came from an organic farmer. He successfully sued the USDA to make it more difficult for processors to use synthetic ingredients. When Lisabell/the OTA talk about "restoring" organic standards, they mean obliterating the tougher standards imposed by the lawsuit.

There's no reason to respect the Senate's decision or accept the OTA's agenda. Like Lisabell, I'll end by pasting in part of a press release, this time from the Organic Consumers Association.

If the USDA and the dominant companies in the OTA continue to ignore consumer and organic community expectations, especially the expectations of small and medium-sized farmers, retailers, and companies, we will set up our own label, certification, and accreditation system and point out to consumers that "USDA Organic" means "grade B organic," and that consumers looking for "grade A" will have to look for our new label.

There, I think, lies the way forward.


]]> Comment #3 by lisabell http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/ Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:18:42 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/3 Source clarification

The source for my information was the Organic Trade Association and was posted with their permission.

]]> Source clarification

The source for my information was the Organic Trade Association and was posted with their permission.

]]> Comment #4 by Tom Philpott http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/ Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:17:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/4 re: Source clarification

Lisabell,
I didn't mean to imply any wrongdoing on your part; I have no doubt that OTA approves of your using their material. But I do think it's always important to cite sources and use quotation marks when appropriate.

]]> re: Source clarification

Lisabell,
I didn't mean to imply any wrongdoing on your part; I have no doubt that OTA approves of your using their material. But I do think it's always important to cite sources and use quotation marks when appropriate.

]]> Comment #5 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/ Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:04:47 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/5 This Is A No Brainer

Congress has loosened the standards in favor of agribusiness, pure and simple.  Luckily, I live in California, where I can buy California Certified Organic and don't have to worry about the now phoney national label.

]]> This Is A No Brainer

Congress has loosened the standards in favor of agribusiness, pure and simple.  Luckily, I live in California, where I can buy California Certified Organic and don't have to worry about the now phoney national label.

]]> Comment #6 by paulhue http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/ Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:30:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/junk-food-the-senate-trashes-organic-standards/6 How about private Organic Certification efforts?

Let's leave the stupid government out of this. Who cares what the idiots in Congress have to say about what is, or is not, organic? Let's urge organic food manufacturers to create an independant Organic Certification corporation.

Wait, even better: let us  (or some other group of people) start our own private "Michelin" or "Consumer Reports" outfit, which awards stars (or whatever) to companies that produce healthful foods. Competing outfits would jostle to gain enough clout with consumers that the food manufaturers would attempt to win stars from, and advertise the fact, on their brands.

The internet makes this especially easy to get these sorts of efforts off the ground... certainly easier than "an act of congress."

Do any of us on these forums really think that it is possible for a group of people composing a government agency to make any sensible declarations about the healthfulness of any food product? The problems that we are complaining about seem to derive more from the intrusion of government (banning unpasturized products and tax subsidies for big ag, for example) than from lack of goverment efforts.

People like us can use our efforts to convince others to discard "USDA" ratings, and to instead heed the ratings of more sensible outfits.

]]> How about private Organic Certification efforts?

Let's leave the stupid government out of this. Who cares what the idiots in Congress have to say about what is, or is not, organic? Let's urge organic food manufacturers to create an independant Organic Certification corporation.

Wait, even better: let us  (or some other group of people) start our own private "Michelin" or "Consumer Reports" outfit, which awards stars (or whatever) to companies that produce healthful foods. Competing outfits would jostle to gain enough clout with consumers that the food manufaturers would attempt to win stars from, and advertise the fact, on their brands.

The internet makes this especially easy to get these sorts of efforts off the ground... certainly easier than "an act of congress."

Do any of us on these forums really think that it is possible for a group of people composing a government agency to make any sensible declarations about the healthfulness of any food product? The problems that we are complaining about seem to derive more from the intrusion of government (banning unpasturized products and tax subsidies for big ag, for example) than from lack of goverment efforts.

People like us can use our efforts to convince others to discard "USDA" ratings, and to instead heed the ratings of more sensible outfits.

]]>