Sanet Post, Chuck Benbrook, November 19, 1996
Sal expresses the sense of frustration many in the organic community feel over the perilously slow pace in USDA in implementing the organic program passed in the 1990 farmbill. As Sal and others point out, it is indeed ironic to contrast the developments over the labeling of genetically engineered corn and soybeans, and the labeling of organic foods.
The 1990 farmbill passed so long ago that many people have forgotten why a majority of the organic community became convinced at the time that such a law was needed in order to foster the evolution and growth in organic food production and processing capacity. The reasons why a federal law were needed still exist, notwithstanding the problems USDA has had in moving ahead with the law's implementation. If this law/process collapses, it will be a costly set-back. While some may take temporary pleasure in offering "I told you so's...", the collapse of the effort is no grounds for rejoicing.
The market will then be much freer to return to the law of the jungle. As this happens, consumers will grow weary of trying to sort out conflicting, inconsistent claims and promotions. New players will find it easier to get into the organic market; established players like Sal, who have paid their dues (often more than once) will have to respond/fight back by pointing out the differences between organic production systems grounded in the principles the community has agreed on for years, in contrast to "industrial" model, newcomer, just follow the "list" organics. The industry, and community it supports, will suffer. The cost of manufacturing organic processed foods would rise, as different certifiers try to position themselves (cut corners) in the market and with their grower base. The organic law was crafted to assure a fairly level playing field, and consistency to protect the honest and committed organic grower from "fly by night" competitors; and to protect the legitimate, science and information-based certifier from "fly by night" certifiers that are willing to issue cut-rate certification statements on the thinnest of information and technical bases (if any at all).
I note these reasons why there was an organic law passed not to argue with Sal and his point; I simply want to remind people that sometimes care must be exercised to not throw the baby out with the bath water. There were reasons and need for a federal law which remain legitimate, despite the horrific delays and excessive costs associated with the effort to implement the law. Everyone should also remember, or be aware that the process has been slow and tortuous because there have been, and remain, many deep-felt differences of opinion, and values, within and across the organic community, and these have played out, in stereo and technicolor, throughout the tenure of the NOSB. The NOSB's and USDA's inability to move forward faster with the rules has reflected the stubbornness of many people/constituencies that feel vested in the movement, and have argued for their view of reality.
On the issue of organic standards, they will soon be published by USDA for public comment; they WILL NOT be adopted by edict, behind closed doors. The rule-making process in this country is open and relatively democratic. If many people object to the rules/standards, and present cogent arguments why what USDA is proposing is inconsistent with the act, too costly, too bureaucratic, whatever, USDA will alter the rules. If the comments are all over the map -- jump left, jump right, do the loop-d-loop --USDA will have a difficult time moving forward, and the rule revision process may take longer than the process to get them proposed. Note, e.g., that the second public comment period is just closing on EPA groundwater protection rules FIRST proposed in 1988.
FYI, the debate on genetically engineered soybeans has been interesting, and so we have captured it on the "Pest Management at the Crossroads" web page, www.pmac.net. Go to "Cutting Edge Science and Technology Issues," and then to Sanet discussion. There are now about two-dozen posts captured, and we will keep adding the ones that add new information/perspectives. If you have friends or colleagues that want to catch up on the debate, they can do so easily on the page. This is the third SANET discussion we have put on the page; you will also find the old soil quality debate that used to be on my defunct farmbill page; and the "potato debate" in the section "IPM in the Field." The PMAC web page has been substantially expanded and refined over the last two months, and now includes a significant volume of new material on the book, pesticide impacts on human health and the environment, media coverage, and biotech issues. We will keep building it as long as people keep using it.
chuck
Charles Benbrook 202-546-5089 (voice) Benbrook Consulting Services 202-546-5028 (fax) 409 First Street S.E. benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail] Washington, D.C. 20003
