OCA's Talking Points on Current Controversy over Attempt by OTA/Industry to Lower Organic Standards

Posted 9/28/05

OTA’s proposed rider to the 2006 Ag Appropriations Bill, now being discussed over the next few weeks in the House/Senate Conference Committee:

(1) Violates traditional principles of organic community consensus building, transparency, and public participation by reverting to a back door, “inside the Beltway” process for changing organic standards. OTA and industry food processors have refused to sit down and build consensus with organic consumers and the environmental community over proposed changes to the Federal statute governing organic standards, the Organic Food Production Act. OTA falsely claims that Congressional action is required to change organic standards to deal with the economic and regulatory impact of a June 2005 Federal Court decision (the Arthur Harvey case) that tightened up organic standards, when, in fact, these regulatory changes can be made through the traditional process of organic community consensus building, public rulemaking (proposals published in the Federal Register which are then subject to open, transparent public comments), and USDA regulatory changes. There is plenty of time to make these changes before the June 2007 deadline set by the federal court for changing/tightening up organic standards, via transparent, public participatory rulemaking, rather than “Sneak Attack” legislation and back door deals.

(2) Undermines the essential authority of the organic community and the National Organic Standards Board to decide whether or not hundreds of synthetic substances (synthetic ingredients, synthetic processing aids, and synthetic food contact substances) can be put on the National List and used in organic production. Right now 38 synthetic substances have been carefully reviewed and approved by the NOSB over the past ten years and placed on the National List. NOSB’s recommendation to the USDA was that all of these approved synthetic substances be sunsetted and re-reviewed after five years. (The USDA has ignored this recommendation and since 2002 illegally allowed synthetic processing aids and contact substances to be used in organic production, without these synthetics being reviewed by the NOSB). Eight more synthetic substances have been reviewed and approved by the NOSB and are awaiting USDA authority to be placed on the National List. The industry has requested that 517 more synthetic substances be approved. OTA’s definition of “synthetic” in the proposed rider (limiting this category to synthetic ingredients, and not including hundreds of synthetic processing aids and synthetic food contact substances) and their failure to propose strict NOSB review procedures for all substances allowed in organic production—instead leaving these decisions in the hands of the USDA, will seriously undermine organic standards. Of course the NOSB must be properly funded by the USDA (which it currently is not) if it is to rigorously review all of these synthetic substances.

(3) Undermines organic integrity by allowing individual organic certifiers and the USDA to decide whether particular organic ingredients are “commercially available” or not, without review by the NOSB. This means a processor can use a non-organic ingredient instead of an organic ingredient, without NOSB review and approval.

(4) In the broadest and most basic sense, the OTA rider takes away the organic community’s leading role in setting and monitoring organic standards for processed organic foods, and instead places this power in the hands of the USDA and industry.

Over the past week, OCA network members have sent 60,000 emails to Congress and made over 10,000 telephone calls to Save Organic Standards. OCA’s message to Congress is simple yet fundamental:

We the undersigned organic consumers call on Congress to:

(1) Leave the federal statute, OFPA (Organic Food Production Act) intact on organic standards.
(2) Leave control over policies governing synthetic ingredients/substances, animal feed, and commercial availability of organic ingredients in the hands of the National Organic Standards Board and the organic community, not the USDA.
(3) Fund and fully support appropriations for the NOSB, as well as appropriations to help farmers meet strict requirements for organic production.