Organic Farmer Arthur Harvey Speaks Out on the Threat to Organic Standards

Web Note: Arthur Harvey is an organic blueberry farmer from Maine whose victorious federal lawsuit against the USDA has begun to set in motion a tightening up and stricter interpretation of organic standards. Here Harvey comments on potential Congressional revisions of the 1990 federal statute governing organic standards, the Organic Food Production Act.

Analysis of Changes Proposed to Organic Standards

by Arthur Harvey
Sept. 23, 2005

Regarding Organic Trade Association (OTA) proposal:
(1) In June, [2005] a federal court ordered USDA to create new organic rules within 12 months to replace invalidated rules which currently allow synthetic ingredients in manufacturing organic-labeled foods.

Earlier this month, the OTA tried to find a Senator to sponsor their amendment to OFPA (Organic Foods production Act of 1990) that would eliminate the ban against synthetic ingredients. OFPA says that organic foods with the USDA seal must contain all natural ingredients, and be at least 95% organic.

Although no Senator was willing to sponsor that amendment, the Senate did add to the ag appropriation bill a requirement that the federal Organic Program, within 90 days, prepare an impact assessment of the court order upon the industry. This would partially frustrate the timetable for rule-making set by the court. The small organic staff at USDA has just obtained a new program manager, and is engaged with other matters such as the sunsetting of hundreds of materials on the National List.

Any impact study at this stage is not appropriate because the impact of the new rules would be a dominant factor. Those rules will not be known until after notice and comment and publishing of the new rules. After that, the court established a further 12-month period to phase in the new rules. At that point, an impact study could be based on more than just speculation and feelings.

(My lawsuit challenged only certain uses for 28 out of 38 synthetics in CFR section 205.605(b). How the surviving uses and materials are listed and annotated by USDA will determine the impact of the court's verdict, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and chlorine.)

OTA's September 19 call to its membership to support OFPA revision, is built mostly on false information. To wit: the court ruling "effectively blocked the common use of harmless substances like baking soda, pectin, ascorbic acid, vitamins and minerals, etc". The fact is these remain on the National List and were not affected by my lawsuit, except (possibly) ascorbic acid. Pectin was removed only in its synthetic form, and remains in its natural form.

To wit: "it disallowed the procedure implemented by the Secretary's organic certifying agents for recognizing the commercial unavailability of organic agricultural products." The fact is the court ruling did not affect commercial availability---it dealt only with the need for NOSB review of the National List.

To wit: "It required the rules relied upon by small dairy farms transitioning to organic management practices be revised, with the unintended result that making the change will be significantly more expensive after the ruling." The fact is that even if either OTA's or the Working Group's proposals are added to the regulations, the expense will also be significantly higher, because GMO feed will no longer be an option during the 12-month
conversion period.

To wit: "The Court preserved the status quo for one year to allow Congress to remedy the problem." The fact is, such an argument was never presented to the Court. It was only my insistence that there be a 24-month phase-in period, that overcame USA's preference for a free hand. The status quo ends in June 2007, not at the end of this year as OTA falsely says: "The businesses that produce and market the majority of America's certified organic farm products will have to drop product lines or re-label them without the USDA seal by the end of 2005."

If there was ever a trumped-up effort to create panic, this is it.

Regarding Working Group of Campaign for Sustainable Ag proposal:
(2) Another proposal, from the Working Group of NCSA [National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture] would create 7 categories of allowed synthetics in organic manufacturing: "leavening agent, pH control agent, nutrient supplements, firming agents, filter aids, clarifying agents, or a cleaner, sanitizer or disinfectant used in direct food contact."

The problem is that OFPA is built upon a clear distinction between farming and manufacturing. Reviewed synthetics are allowed in farming, and none in manufacturing. The moment any synthetics are allowed in the law---not to mention entire categories---then the framework or philosophical basis of OFPA becomes ambiguous. Ambiguity in a law is an invitation for USDA to fashion its own organic system. If history is a guide, USDA will give manufacturers what they want---largely because they have lobbyists in DC.

I began my lawsuit because USDA was moving steadily away from organic integrity as envisioned by people who got Congress to approve OFPA in 1990. At present, organic eggs are dipped in bleach before packaging. Whole chickens are being sealed in plastic bags containing up to 10% by weight of water containing up to 200 ppm of chlorine. These same chickens have never been outdoors or exposed to direct sunlight. As a consumer, I would not have suspected any of these facts which I learned as an inspector. USDA may not even know about some of them---and I cannot report specifics because of confidentiality. At a certain point, I have to choose between denouncing organic food as a fraud, or try to change the regulation. I chose the latter.

As a consumer, I have a right to believe that an organic-labeled product has 100% natural ingredients, and at least 95% organic. I am willing to pay the extra cost for such products. Both the OTA and Working Group proposals take away this faith.

By Arthur Harvey, 1197 Main St, Hartford, Maine 04220 207 388 2860