Happy New Year to all. Thanks for all that you do for NCAMP, the environment and the workplace. Best of health to you and yours in the new year. I also wanted to give to you the latest on the organic standard. The information below appeared in the December issue of NCAMP's Technical Report. I am sending it now so that you can distribute it to your networks (email and other). We really need to get people activated on this. The press so far has been very favorable toward our position, including an editorial in the New York Times on December 16 and the food section of the Washington Post on December 26. Of course, we need to help people focus their comments on more specific issues than outlined in these articles. We will try to help do that in early January. Best wishes, Jay.

Press Release

Washington, DC (December 29, 1997) - The U.S. Department of Agriculture on December 16, 1997 released for public comment its long-awaited proposed rule to implement the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). National Organic Program Proposed Rule, 62 Federal Register 65850-65967. The proposal, over 100 pages in the Federal Register, has been roundly criticized by many in the organic and environmental community who were a part of the coalition of organic farmers, processors and environmentalists who supported the adoption of OFPA. The act has been the subject of several years of meetings and hearings held by the National Organic Standards Board. Groups such as the Organic Farmers Marketing Association (OFMA) and the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) cite severe discrepancies between the OFPA and the proposal. The groups are advocating an outpouring of public comments to correct what they see as serious problems that will diminish and undermine the meaning of organic in the marketplace. The groups say that the proposal would, in violation of the statute, readily incorporate synthetic substances in organic production and handling.

The organic production and distribution community, which now encompasses a multitude of small to moderate size private enterprises, has grown at a rate of 23% per year for the last 5 years without any government support or encouragement and is now a 3.5 billion dollar industry.

According to OFMA, "Demand is skyrocketing because organic farming stands for respect of the environment, acknowledges the consumer-producer partnership, provides for humane care of livestock and protects the farmers and farm workers who put food on our tables and clothes on our backs."

While criticizing the proposed rule, the groups say there are some positive elements, such as the inclusion of organic fibers as a production sector and the process for establishing equivalency of foreign organic certification programs. But these attributes, the groups say, do not diminish the error of a proposal with little substantive content on, or guidelines for, organic farming and handling operation plans and such basic organic farming necessities as legume based crop rotations.

According to OFMA and NCAMP, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed rule:

1. Violates the general prohibition on the use of synthetic substances in organic farming and handling mandated in the Organic Foods Production Act. Proposing the use of toxins derived from genetically modified bacteria, Piperonyl butoxide (a toxic synergist), amino acids used as growth promoters, antibiotics used as pesticides, synthetic animal drugs and other animal health care substances, synthetic and genetically modified food additives and processing aids are radical deviations from the Act.

2. Violates the authority and role of the National Organic Standards Board's responsibilities and powers to limit USDA consideration of allowed and prohibited substances on the National List.

3. Violates OFPA requirements by allowing synthetic substances in organic farming that can not be considered for use under the National List procedures. The National List procedure only allows for the consideration of synthetic substances in10 specific categories. Consideration of such substances are subject to technical and scientific, health and environmental review and evaluation.

4. Violates the OFPA requirement to review and evaluate all pesticide product ingredients in botanical pesticides, including undisclosed "inert" but toxic substances. The proposal allows synthetic inert ingredients to be used on organic farms without review for toxicological concern that includes EPA's List 2, Potentially Toxic Inerts and List 3, Inerts of Unknown Toxicity.

5. Violates the Act by proposing new criteria that would allow wide use of synthetic substances in organic foods. The new criteria and definitions proposed by USDA are "non-synthetic," "extraneous additives," "unintentional additives", "incidental additive", "synthetic amino acid additives", "inconsequential additives," "non-active residue," "non-agricultural ingredient," "non-organic agricultural ingredient or product," "active ingredient in any other input other than pesticide formulations."

6. Violates the clear prohibition of using synthetic substances in processed organic foods. The proposal creates new illegal categories in the National List to allow synthetic processing aids, food additives, enzymes and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The National List process calls only for consideration of non-synthetic, but not organically produced ingredients in up to 5% of processed foods labeled organically produced.

7. Violates the National List procedures by opening for public consideration the use of "ionizing radiation," "biosolids" (sewage sludge) and GMOs in organic farming and handling.

8. Violates the prohibition against use of synthetic medicines, antibiotics and parasiticides from birth for livestock, poultry and dairy animals whose products are sold as "organically produced," if the synthetic substances are not on the National List.

9. Violates the requirement of feeding only organically produced feed to livestock raised for "organically produced" meat, dairy and egg production.

10. Violates the requirement of feeding dairy animals organically produced feed for 12 months prior to producing milk and dairy products labeled as organic.

11. Violates the organic standards of providing organically raised livestock adequate space for movement and access to the outdoors.

12. Violates the legislative language and intent by proposing reliance on residue testing for synthetic substances rather than conforming to OFPA, which prohibits any use of synthetic substances that are not on the National List.

13. Violates the exemption granted when using the term "made with (certain) organic ingredients" for processed food from all requirements of the Act. Small businesses choosing to enter organic processing using only a limited number of organic ingredients are unduly burdened by such a proposal. Under the Act, products using the label language "made with (certain) organic ingredients" do not have to be processed, packaged or stored by a certified organic handling operation.

14. Violates the requirement for the certification of all handling operations that contract to process, package and store certified organic products by illegitimately proposing to exempt those handling operations that work for no more than three certified operations.

15. Violates the requirement to certify all handling operations, including restaurants and retail establishments, that process products and sell them as "organically produced," by proposing to provide an exemption from certification for these operations. Processing, as defined in OFPA, includes all the normal culinary arts, food manufacturing and packaging.

16. Violates OFPA by creating a new category of certification, the "certified facility." The language and intent of OFPA requires that farms and handling operations can be certified as utilizing a system of organic farming or handling. In the proposed rule, USDA is proposing to accept perpetual and intensive confinement livestock operations as an organic "certified facility."

17. Violates the intent and spirit of the Act to encourage and promote organic family farming and small businesses by proposing excessive fees and by promulgating a proposed rule wildly out of conformance with OFPA. The Act describes not just a system of farming and handling, but incorporates progressive concepts providing for the institutionalization of a public/private partnership based on mutual respect. The National Organic Program will receive virtually all its income from organic farmers, handlers and certifiers it serves and will not receive substantial annual operating appropriations from Congress. The NOSB needs to have oversight powers on spending and efficiency in the future.

Jay Feldman, executive director of NCAMP, an organization representing consumers, farmers, environmentalists and labor, called the USDA proposal "a disappointing effort that will have the effect of undermining organic farming practices, environmental protection and consumer support for the organic label in the market place. Rewriting this rule to conform to the Organic Foods Production Act is of critical importance to all those concerned about pesticide contamination and poisoning, environmental protection and safe food."

Cissy Bowman, certified organic farmer and Secretary of OFMA said, "If the proposed rule is adopted I will feel that the organic label will be terribly misleading and I will be selling the public a false bill of goods. Implementing the proposed organic rule as is, without radically rewriting it so that it conforms to the OFPA, will result in the devastation of consumer trust in the term organic. In response to this deplorable organic rule, consumers and organic farmers must form a solid, active and unyielding coalition to implement OFPA properly."

There is a 90-day period, ending March 16, 1998, for the public to provide email, postal or fax comment. The Federal Register is frequently available at public libraries. The proposed organic rule can be bought by calling 202-512-1800 or it can be accessed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

The Organic Farmers Marketing Association is now preparing a side by side comparison of the proposed rule with the Organic Foods Production Act.

Copies of the proposed rule, side by side and other relevant papers are available on the OFMA website at http://www.iquest.net/ofma/sdbysd.htm. For questions about the rule, contact NCAMP, 202-543-5450, email: ncamp@ncamp.org, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003, or OFMA, 8364 S SR 39, Clayton, IN 46118, 317-539-4317, email: cvof@iquest.net. At USDA, contact Michael Hankin, Senior Agricultural Marketing Specialist, National Organic Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, Room 2510-So., P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, 202-720-3252.

1/1/98