Victory for Organic Consumers & Farmers:
The USDA Surrenders
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has apparently decided
to call off its food fight—at least temporarily—with the nation’s
10 million organic consumers, 6,000 retailers and 10,000 organic farmers.
On March 8, the USDA formally surrendered to the organic community
by
releasing a completely revised proposal for national organic food standards
and labels. The new 663-page proposal (see www.ams.usda.gov/nop)
incorporates most of the recommendations made by the National Organic
Standards Board and organic activists, including a prohibition on genetic
engineering, sewage sludge, irradiation and other industrial-style agriculture
practices.
A massive, unprecedented consumer backlash in 1998 over the first proposed
regulations shook up the USDA and forced them to back off on plans
to
degrade organic standards and allow biotech and corporate agribusiness
to take over the rapidly growing organic food market. U.S. organic
food
sales this year will likely reach $8 billion—a sizable bite of
the $350 billion total annual sales of the nation’s supermarkets.
Organic production is expected to constitute 10 percent of American
agriculture by 2010.
Besides backing off on the "Big Three" (genetic engineering,
sewage sludge and irradiation), the USDA bureaucrats bowed to grassroots
pressure and basically agreed that any product bearing the label "USDA
Certified Organic" will have to be produced without toxic pesticides
or toxic "inert ingredients"; that antibiotics, growth hormones
and rendered animal protein can not be administered or fed to animals;
that factory farm-style intensive confinement of farm animals will not
be allowed; and that no synthetics or chemicals will be allowed in organic
production without the approval of the National Organic Standards Board.
In addition, the USDA basically agreed to leave the preexisting system
of private and state organic certifiers intact; to allow accredited
state and private organic certifiers to uphold higher standards than
the USDA; and for licensed organic certifiers to be able to display
their logos or seals on the front label panel of organic products. Finally,
the USDA backed off on their previous proposal to outlaw "eco-labels" which
might imply that a product was organic.
Despite major improvements in the current proposed USDA organic standards
over what was put forth in 1998, there are a number of problems and
shortcomings in the proposal. Among the most obvious problems are:
• So-called "natural foods" with less than 50 percent
organic ingredients will be allowed to list their organic ingredients
on their information panel, even though the remaining ingredients may
be genetically engineered, irradiated, derived from sewage sludge or
produced with pesticides, growth hormones or antibiotics.
• Manure from factory farms will be allowed to be used as a fertilizer
on organic farms.
• Although the proposed regulations on organic animal husbandry
require "access to outdoors," no clear definition of what
constitutes "pasture" are offered, nor does the USDA delineate
exact space or spacing requirements for humane housing and outdoor
access
for poultry, pigs, cattle and other animals.
• Although the USDA claim they don’t intend to impose economic
hardships on organic certifiers and farmers, the added costs of USDA
approval will fall heavily on small certifiers and farmers. The USDA
should provide accreditation services to organic certifiers free of
change as well as subsidize the costs of farmers who wish to become
certified as organic. Beyond this, the USDA should allocate funds to
pay farmers a premium price for their products during their "transition
to organic" phase as an added incentive for the majority of farmers
to begin making the transition.
• Although genetic contamination of organic crops by "genetic
drift" from farms growing genetically engineered crops is one of
the most serious environmental threats to organic agriculture, no residue
limits for genetic contamination are delineated in the USDA’s
proposed federal regulations. The USDA must hold biotechnology patent
holders
and seed companies accountable and financially liable for the environmental
and economic damage inflicted on organic farmers and producers caused
by genetic drift.
Industrial Agriculture Takes Over the World: Must Organic Remain a Niche
Market?
The main problem with "USDA Certified Organic," as outlined
in the proposed rules, is not so much what the government says, but
rather what it deliberately ignores or fails to say. There’s not
a word in the new organic standards about the ever more obvious dangers
of industrial agriculture and genetic engineering. Not a word about
the 80 million cases of food poisoning every year in the U.S. resulting
directly from the filth, disease and chemical contamination inherent
in factory farming and industrialized food processing. Not a word about
rampant pesticide contamination and hormone-disrupting chemicals in
our food supply. Not a word about tons of antibiotic drugs on factory
farms being routinely fed to animals to make them grow faster, which
end up as residues in non-organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products—giving
rise to dangerous drug-resistant strains of pathogens.
In the USDA proposal there’s no mention of the billions of pounds
of pesticides and nitrate fertilizers contaminating more and more of
the nation’s municipal water supplies. There’s nothing about
the nation’s food and water-related cancer epidemic, or the even
deadlier toll resulting from heart disease and obesity—directly
related to Americans’ overconsumption of junk food, meat and animal
products. Ignored is the growing international call, endorsed by the
British Medical Association among others, for a global moratorium on
genetically engineered foods and crops. Instead, the U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, once more repeated the "Big Lie"
of biotechnology and corporate agribusiness on March 7: "Let me
be clear on a very important point. The organic classification is not
a judgment about the quality or safety of any product. Just because
something is labeled as organic does not mean it is superior, safer
or more healthy than conventional food. All foods in this country must
meet the same high standards of safety regardless of their classification."
Likewise, Michael Phillips, executive director for food and agriculture
of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, says: "There’s
been no research to give consumers any confidence that paying twice
as much for their [organic] food is giving them any enhancement in
safety
or nutritional value."
On the sustainability front, there’s not a word in the proposed
organic regulations on reducing "food miles." Not a word on
how the average over-processed, over-packaged, chemically and genetically-contaminated
food product in the U.S. has traveled 1,500 miles (burning up incredible
amounts of non-renewable energy and releasing toxic and climate disrupting
chemicals into the atmosphere) before arriving at your supermarket.
There’s no mention of the fact that recent statistics indicate
that the single greatest cause of global warming and climate destabilization
may be industrial (i.e., non-organic, non-sustainable, non-locally produced)
agriculture. Likewise, there’s not a word in the new National
Organic Program about the urgent necessity of preserving biodiversity,
in terms
of food crops, animal breeds and wild species.
The U.S. and Global Farm Crisis: Organic Niche Markets Are Not Enough
Finally, the proposed organic rules have little or nothing to say about
the economic crisis confronting American farmers and rural communities.
Likewise, the USDA is silent on the frightening implications of the
further industrialization and globalization of agriculture for the
world’s
two billion small farmers and rural villagers. The bottom line is that
no one today is making any money in agriculture except for the transnational
corporate giants which control farm commodity prices, agricultural input
prices, seeds, patents and retail food sales. In other words, Wal-Mart,
McDonald’s, Monsanto, Dupont, Cargill, Coca-Cola, Tyson, Con-Agra,
Kraft and Archer Daniels Midland are making billions while family farmers
in the U.S. and all over the world are going bankrupt.
The implicit assumption in USDA agricultural policy is that the 10 percent
or so of American small farmers who eventually switch to organic production
over the next decade will probably survive and even, in some cases,
prosper. The remaining 90 percent of U.S. farmers will either be forced
to sell their land or consolidate their operations into giant biotech
and chemical intensive factory farms, leaving them the option of becoming
tractor drivers or tenant farmers. Applied on a global scale, this chemical
and genetically engineered driven model of agriculture will be literally
catastrophic, with negative implications for public health, biodiversity,
the climate and the environment.
Food Agenda 2000: Transforming American Agriculture
The growing U.S. and global citizens movement against genetic engineering
and corporate globalization can draw inspiration from the fact that
America’s organic community woke up, got organized and forced
the USDA to maintain strict organic standards, at least for the moment.
This is an important and historic victory for citizen action, comparable
in significance perhaps to the U.S. anti-nuclear movement stopping
the
building of new nuclear plants in the late-1970s. Our common victory
in this Save Organic Standards campaign underlines the effectiveness
of mass public education and mobilization in this era of computer-based
information and global Internet communications. But of course, this
unprecedented rebellion is just the beginning.
The challenge over the next months and years will be to see if organic
consumers, environmental organizations, farm activists, churches and
public interest groups can build upon this tactical victory and begin
making headway in the bigger battle—driving genetically engineered
crops off the market all over the world, beginning to phase-out the
most dangerous practices of industrial agriculture and jump-starting
the conversion of the majority of the world’s agriculture to organic
methods as soon as possible. To do this means we’ll have to organize
a mass base of support in every local area and state, form national
networks and coalitions and then link up with our counterparts all over
the world. We and our allies, from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth
to the Consumers Union and the National Family Farm Coalition, have
already started to do this, but we’ve still got a long road ahead.
If we’re going to see 30 percent or more of American agriculture
go organic before the end of the decade we’re going to have to
build up a powerful nationwide network of organic consumers. If we’re
going to drive Frankenfoods off the market and clean up the mess of
chemical-intensive agriculture we’ll need a lot of political clout.
Proposed Rules Versus Final Rules: Consumer Action Required
Although organic consumers and farmers should be proud of the fact
that our collective grassroots efforts have forced the government to
adhere to high standards in these proposed rules, we need to keep in
mind that the March proposed rules are not final regulations. After
a 90-day official comment period—which ends June 12—the USDA
could bow once again to pressure from corporate agribusiness and the
biotechnology industry and issue a set of weaker final rules, filled
with legal loopholes and exemptions. For this reason it is important
once again to flood the USDA with thousands of comments—which can
be sent either by Email (see the USDA website listed above); by fax
(703-365-0760); or regular mail (Keith Jones, National Organic Program,
USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So., Ag Stop 0275, PO Box 96456, Washington,
DC 20090-6456). When sending comments by fax or regular mail identify
your comments as referring to docket number TMD-00-02-PR. Please demand
that the USDA deal with the five problems we’ve noted above, but
stress first and foremost that the USDA should not weaken the provisions
outlined in the March proposed rules in any manner whatsoever.
Ronnie Cummins is Director of the Campaign for Food Safety/Organic
Consumers Association. For information call 218-226-4164, Email: alliance@mr.net.
Visit the CFS/OCA website at www.purefood.org to keep up with developments.
This article is an adaptation of the CFS/OCA electronic newsletter BioDemocracy
News (#25). It is reprinted with the kind permission of the author.
To subscribe, send an Email to majordomo@mr.net with
the word ‘subscribe’ in the body of the message.
