Rick Weiss
The Washington Post
May 1, 1998

Intense pressure and criticism from tens of thousands of citizens have pushed Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to decide that genetically engineered and irradiated food, and crops fertilized with sewage sludge, should not be allowed to be labeled "organic," according to an administration official.

That decision, still not formalized but described by the official as all but inevitable, would remove three of the more contentious issues threatening to derail an effort to codify for the first time a federal definition of organic food.

But several other elements of the USDA proposal remain controversial, including the rule's relatively liberal allowance for the use of antibiotics, nonorganic feed and long-term confinement of animals in the production of organic meat.

An estimated 150,000 people flooded the Agriculture Department with cards and letters during the four-month comment period on the proposal that ended yesterday -- more comments than the department had ever received on any single rule.

The proposed rule had left open the question of whether gene-modified, irradiated or sludge-fertilized crops could be deemed organic. The vast majority of comments opposed those ideas. Moreover, most were personal and passionate, as opposed to mass-produced form letters from interest groups -- an indication of the American public's increasingly fervent hunger for "natural" foods.

In the end, Glickman didn't have "much choice" but to rule out the three most contentious categories of food, at least for now, said the official, who is close to the decision-making process and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He's a realist," the source said. "It has to be a rule that everyone is able to embrace. And the other side has been too compelling."

Representatives of the organic industry said yesterday that even those concessions would be insufficient. Indeed, given the large gap between what they had envisioned and what the USDA had proposed, they already have begun to create an alternative, independent national system for certifying organic farms and food. That system, they said, would be more in keeping with the stricter standards now in place in several states and European countries.

"We see at least 66 major deal breakers in this proposed rule," said Michael Sligh, who until last year chaired the National Organic Standards Board, created by Congress in 1990 to oversee the creation and implementation of an organic food rule.

"USDA must rewrite this rule," Sligh said at a news conference. "That's the only way to regain public trust."

Glickman said he could not comment specifically on how the department would respond to what he called the "extraordinary" wave of public opinion generated by the proposed rule, but he did promise "significant modifications" in a final rule that he hoped would be approved by the end of this year after allowing for additional comments.

He said he had never considered the proposal perfect, but given the enormous delays that had plagued the rule-making process since Congress demanded standards in 1990, he was proud to get the process going.

"We knew there were areas that were not complete and there would be controversy," he said. "But rather than work on it for another seven years, we said, 'Let's get the rule out and get started.' "

Pressure on Glickman rose this week when dozens of members of Congress signed letters criticizing the proposal. Even agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. declared in a letter to Glickman last week that it favored delaying any effort to include genetically engineered foods on a national list of approved organic products -- a move some saw as a defensive effort to preclude a permanent ban.

Philip Angell, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based Monsanto, said the company decided to press for a delay in consideration of genetically engineered foods so the company could examine the issue more closely. "We are in the process of developing extensive data showing the sustainable agriculture benefits and the other benefits of some biotech crops . . . that are in keeping with the concept of organic," he said.

Beyond clarifying the meaning of organic for consumers, a federal definition could have significant economic implications domestically and internationally. The $4 billion U.S. organic industry is growing by more than 20 percent a year, spurring many of the nation's bigger food conglomerates to try to cash in on the word's cachet. But the lack of federal standards for the term organic -- which generally means "free of synthetic chemicals and pesticides" but also encompasses broader concepts of environmentally sound food production -- has threatened to undermine consumer confidence and sales.

Sligh and others representing the organic food industry said they were especially troubled by a provision in the proposed rule that gives the agriculture secretary authority to add products to a national list of approved organic foods. Organic industry advocates argue that Congress granted those powers only to the National Organic Standards Board.

If Glickman insists on retaining that authority in a final rule, advocates said, a lawsuit is likely to follow.

5/5/98