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.

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.

There were some positive proposals in the Rule such as the inclusion of organic fibers as a production sector and the process for establishing equivalency of foreign organic certification programs. But those attributes do not diminish the error of a Proposed Rule with little substantive content on, or guidelines for, organic farming and handling operation plans and such basic organic farming necessities like legume based crop rotations.

The rapidly expanding community of organic farmers, consumers, certification agents and handlers have expressed shock and horror upon reading the USDA's Proposed Organic Rules.

The USDA's Proposed Organic Rule 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 GMO 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 all radical deviations from the original Congressional act.

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

• 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 in 10 specific categories. Consideration of such substances are subject to technical and scientific, health and environmental review and evaluation.

• 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 List 2, Potentially Toxic Inerts and EPA List 3, Inerts of Unknown Toxicity.

• 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."

• 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. The National List process calls only for consideration of non-synthetic, but not organically produced ingredients up to 5% in processed foods labeled organically produced.

• the National List procedures by opening for public consideration the use of "ionizing radiation," "biosolids" (sewage sludge) and Genetically Engineered Organisms in organic farming and handling.

• the prohibition against use of synthetic medicines, antibiotics and paraciticides 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.

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

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

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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."

• 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 to 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.

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 90 days for the public to provide email, postal or fax comment. Copies of the December 16, 1997 Federal Register contain the Proposed Rule, frequently available at public libraries. The Proposed Organic Rule can be bought by calling 202-512-1800 or it can be accessed at 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

1/1/98