Search www.satyamag.com

Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues

 

April 2000
Organic Standards Revisited: Beyond the USDA Proposals

By Ronnie Cummins

 

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.

 


© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC.
All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.