As the House author of the legislation mandating national organic food standards, I would like to comment on a particular aspect of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) proposed organic standards rule. I will be submitting further comments on the proposed rule.

I am extremely concerned with the USDA's interpretation of the authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the National List of allowed synthetic materials. The USDA's interpretation of Section 6516 (d), Procedure for Establishing National List, threatens the integrity of a national organic label and discourages public comments. It is my understanding that the USDA has interpreted this section as giving the Secretary the authority to add items to the National List rejected by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The law was never meant to grant the Secretary this authority.

The intent of the law was to give the NOSB sole authority to place items on the National List. The Secretary is granted the authority to remove items from the NOSB's proposed national list. However, the Secretary was not given the authority to add items to the National List because it would completely undermine the authority of the NOSB. In fact, the fear of the Secretary being granted too much power over the National List was the reason part two of the procedure for establishing a National List was added. Section 6516 (d) (2) states, "The Secretary may not include exemptions for the use of specific synthetic substances in the National List other than those exemptions contained in the Proposed National List or the Proposed Amendments to the National List." If the title of part two, "No Additions," was not clear enough, surely the explanation removes any doubt.

Public input was a major factor contributing to the success of the organic industry. The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 was based on the historical practices of the organic industry. A national organic label was meant to be developed as a public/private partnership with minimal influence by the Secretary. It is not much of a partnership if the Secretary can undo all of the input of citizens by adding items to the National List that the pubic has already rejected. This interpretation says to the public, "comment all you want, in the end the national organic label will be whatever the Secretary wants it to be." I cannot think of a better way to destroy the organic industry than to ignore the input of the organic growers and consumers, as this interpretation clearly does.

If the USDA continues to stand by this interpretation, it is very likely that it will be challenged in the courts. It would be ironic if the organic industry has to go to court to protect the national label from abuses by the Secretary. The possibility of deceit, fraud and abuse of organic labels was one of the main reason the industry sought a federal law requiring a uniform national label.

The USDA's interpretation of the law threatens the future of the organic food industry. Even if the current administration has the best intentions toward the organic industry, future administrations may not. Unfortunately, even this administration has used this authority to add items to the list that the public has already rejected.

Failure to address this problem now will render any other changes to the proposed rule worthless. The USDA's interpretation of the power yielded to the Secretary can easily undo any changes to the proposed rule that the public demands. I sincerely hope the USDA will keep the future of the national organic label where it belongs, in the hands of the people.