Larry Waterfield
The Packer
March, 1998

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Department of Agriculture is finding out there are some things you just don't do: Don't tug on Superman's cape and don't rile organic growers and marketers.

A wave of negative comments, the most in USDA history, swept in during the extended comment period on the department's proposed rules for organic produce and other foods. So far, 150,000 comments have been received.

The Washington Post reported the USDA plans to redraft the rules by eliminating the key objections, but a number of organic groups say that is not enough. The USDA has yet to say anything official about its plans.

"We've identified 65 objections to the rule," said Roger Blobaum of Organic Watch, an advocacy group.

He said even if the USDA withdraws plans to consider genetically modified organisms, irradiation and municipal sludge as being compatible with organic production, that only covers three of the objections.

Blobaum said organic groups object to plans for extensive testing of organic produce. He said organic producers have never claimed organic produce is free from all pesticide residues, and they make no claims that organics are safer or more nutritious than other produce.

"We don't make product claims," he said. "All we say about organics is that it is a production method."

Blobaum said extensive government testing is not needed and is not acceptable. He conceded that many consumers do have the perception that organic produce is cleaner, safer and more nutritious. However, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman repeatedly has said the new organic standards do not say that organic produce is safer.

Michael Sligh, chairman of the organic committee for the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, warned that if the USDA doesn't fix its proposed rules, "the organic community will establish its own consistent national standard, backing it up with accredited certifiers and real enforcement."

Sligh, who is former chairman of the National Organics Standards Board, Washington, D.C. said the USDA must rewrite the proposed rules, resubmit them for public comment and draw more on the recommendations of the organics board and consumer input.

He said the rules as now drafted "threaten billions of dollars in organic trade, exports, thousands of jobs and thousands of small farms." He added the rules must not jeopardize the integrity of organics.

Not everyone dislikes the proposed standards. A number of conventional food groups supported the proposals.

Stephen Ziller of the Grocery Manufacturers of America said there is no scientific basis for excluding genetically engineered plants from organics. The organization also called for inclusion of irradiation.

The Environmental Media Services, which commissioned a nationwide poll of 1,006 adults, found that 85 percent of those polled want organic labeling and standards but oppose including food that has been irradiated or genetically altered.

The poll also found strong support for labeling of produce that has been irradiated or genetically modified - 79 percent favor such labeling.

The poll found that one-third of Americans buy organic foods regularly, and 40 percent purchase organic food at least a few times a year.

Organic industry groups, including the Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, Mass., estimated the organics industry has reached $4 billion is sales and is growing 20 percent a year.

Last Updated on 6/15/98
By Karen Lutz
Email: karen@hillnet.com