How the Media Missed the Organic Story

By Samuel Fromartz

The USDA's recent approval of 38 non-organic ingredients in organic food products was widely portrayed in media reports as evidence that the USDA was watering down organic standards.

This is a standard interpretation - that, at the behest of agribusiness, the USDA is constantly chipping away at the integrity of organic food regulations, making it easier for big companies to subvert what organic food is all about. They were doing so now by including these 38 non-organic ingredients in organic food.

The only problem was this was flat out wrong.

Why? First, because the USDA has no statutory authority over these non-organic ingredients. The body that oversees the so-called National List of these ingredients - and which stands as the final arbiter of what goes into organic food products - is a citizens advisory panel known as the National Organic Standards Board.

As section 6157 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which governs organic food, makes clear:

The National List established by the Secretary shall be based upon a proposed national list or proposed amendments to the National List developed by the National Organic Standards Board.

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 Proposed Amendments to the National List.

In other words, not even the Secretary of Agriculture can overrule the decisions of the NOSB with regards to what goes on this list. This was explicitly written into the law by Sen. Patrick Leahy in 1990 precisely to prevent the list from being controlled by the USDA (a point I explain more fully in my book).

So who sits on the NOSB? It is made up of certifiers, farmers, retailers, scientists, and food processors, including big and small companies and those with no industry affiliation at all. Now you can argue about the composition of the NOSB but it would be a gross misrepresentation to say the members are interested in watering down and subverting organic food regulations. If they were, we should all stop buying organic food now. But they aren't, so we shouldn't.

There have also been instances where the USDA has re-interpreted or put forth new regulations, leading to a political backlash from organic advocates that forced the department to reverse course. This was not what happened here, however.

Secondly, the approval of the 38 ingredients was actually a dramatic tightening of organic food regulations that resulted from a law suit brought by a small organic blueberry farmer from Maine, named Arthur Harvey. But I saw no headlines screaming, "Organic Food Regulations Tightened! Numerous Non-Organic Ingredients Disallowed."

In a recent public email, Jim Riddle, who trains organic certifiers and was one of NOSB's more outspoken (and radical) members during his tenure as chairman, explains:

I received a call from a reporter, informing me that 38 non-organic ingredients had been approved by USDA to be added to the National List. He did not mention that the USDA had approved the substances in an Interim Final Rule, which allows for 60 days of public comment. Since returning home, I have become aware of heated rhetoric on this issue, with charges of “Sneak Attack”, “Undermining the Organic Standard”, etc. I would like to say a few words to put this issue into perspective.

Previous to the Harvey ruling, (which became final on June 9, 2007), certifiers had allowed processors to use non-organic ingredients in up to 5% of an “organic” product, (which must contain at least 95% organic ingredients), if the processor could demonstrate a good faith, but unsuccessful, effort to source the ingredient(s) from organic sources. Hundreds, if not thousands, of non-organic ingredients had been allowed.

If all 38 minor ingredients are added to the National List, it will bring to 43 the number of non-organic ingredients that can be used in “organic” products, if the manufacturer can demonstrate to the certifier that organic forms are not commercially available. This is a significant narrowing from the previous, pre-Harvey situation. (emphasis added)

While I have serious concerns with a few of the petitioned items, including hops, fish oil, and “natural” casings ... I urge my colleagues to direct your concerns to the USDA. To exaggerate and/or misrepresent this issue in the press weakens confidence in organic foods, harms organic farmers, and undermines the growth of this ecologically-sound production system.

The only thing I would add to Riddle's comment is that every ingredient must be reviewed by the NOSB before it gets on the National List. There's rarely 100-percent agreement on these items, only consensus, reflected in votes by the NOSB. (You can read the transcripts of meetings at the NOSB's web site if you have a few hours. They are actually very informative. Or better yet, attend one of their public meetings). Now is the opportunity to comment, if you oppose any or all of the 38 items, though I think it doubtful that the USDA will force the NOSB to reconsider the matter.

Where the media erred was in trying to find evidence to fit the premise that organic regulations were being loosened. Had they looked more deeply into the matter they might have realized that the evidence led to an entirely different conclusion.

Comments

[jake lewin]

Recently, the Accredited Certifiers Association (http://www.accreditedcertifiers.org) put out an open letter to the organic food community regarding this situation and the recent media reports.
It is pertinent to this discussion and appears below:

To: An Open Letter to the Organic Food Community

From: Accredited Certifiers Association, Inc.

Dear Friends,
The Accredited Certifiers Association (ACA) is pleased to see that the USDA has published an interim final rule regarding additions to the National List (for nonorganic agricultural ingredients), and also extended the comment period for another 60 days. This will provide an opportunity for further review by the public and consideration of additional information by USDA.

We have become concerned that recent media coverage about the changes to the USDA organic regulations is missing the point that these changes are a tightening of the regulations. Although it would appear that the listing of 38 non-organic, agricultural “minor” ingredients to the National List is an expansion of what is allowed, it actually reduces the number of such ingredients that may be allowed. Section 205.606 of the National List provides a list of non-organic ingredients that may comprise up to 5% of the content of a product. These ingredients are permitted only when the organic equivalent is unavailable commercially.

Prior to the new interim rules publication, organic processors could use ANY nonorganic agricultural ingredient they needed, at less than 5% of an organic product, provided they could document that it was not commercially available in organic form. These new rules actually greatly restrict the possible use of non-organic ingredients in processed organic food. While 38 new items on the list may sound like a lot, it is a very short list compared to the thousands of possible ingredients that are now prohibited.

The new limitations on non-organic ingredients occurred as a result of a court order issued in January 2005. Since this time, certifiers, organic farmers, organic food processors, and other organic community members have worked hard to meet the strong consumer demand for organic products. Perhaps the most formidable challenge facing the organic community involves increasing the supply of organic agricultural commodities. Does listing of an ingredient under 205.606 give organic food manufacturers a green light to use nonorganic ingredients? – absolutely not! As certifying agents accountable to the public, we require manufacturers to document their efforts to source organic ingredients when using the non-organic forms that are approved, and monitor their progress in obtaining organic sources as they become available. The ACA is currently working on a project to standardize the criteria for determining commercial non-availability, to assure that the commercial-availability requirement is strictly upheld, and to develop a system of notification that provides incentive for development of organic sources.

We are concerned that only having part of the story of the proposed changes to the National List may create doubt about the integrity of the organic label and, in turn, reduce the demand for organic products, and ultimately damage the livelihood of all organic producers, surely not a outcome that benefits organic consumers or the environment. Clearly all of us in the organic community are vitally interested in preserving the prestige of organic labeling, which is why we stress the need to share full and accurate information when discussing organic standards. This latest change in the regulations should not be cast as a basic “weakening” of the standards, but rather explained as what it is, a new limitation that actually strengthens the standards for processed organic food.

Although segments of the organic community involved in the production and certification of organic products have been working on the changes to 205.606 since January of 2005, it is clear from the recent comments that many consumers were not aware of the impending changes. The ACA is pleased that the USDA is expected to address concerns over the proposed regulatory changes prior to their final implementation. To date, those concerns have come from a diverse group of interests in the form of comments to the USDA, numbering over 1225 even in the short 7 day comment period for the proposed changes. It is inspiring and encouraging to see such attentiveness, concern, and care expressed for the organic standards that we daily work to protect and properly interpret. It is good that the USDA has allowed another 60 day comment period from the date the interim final rule change was published on June 27, 2007.

Each of us has an important role to play in upholding the credibility of the organic standard. An informed public is one that can participate fully in the inevitable debates that arise. These are a healthy and integral part of the acceptance and continuing success of organically certified food.

We believe that it is important to review the organic labeling requirements as established by the USDA. These regulations permit organic food products to be sold and labeled in three distinct categories:

As “100% Organic” – which means just that, all ingredients in the product must be certified organic.
As “Organic” – which means that at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining ingredients must be included on the National List (part of the USDA regulations) either as a food additive or as a non-organic food ingredient. All non-organic ingredients must be produced without the use of genetic engineering, sewage sludge or irradiation.
As “Made with Organic Ingredients” – which means that at least 70% of the ingredients must be certified organic, only additives that appear on the National List may be used, but may contain other non-organic food ingredients. All non-organic ingredients must be produced without the use of genetic engineering, sewage sludge or irradiation.
Only products that are “100% Organic” or “Organic” may carry the USDA green and white organic seal. All organic ingredients must be identified in the ingredients list for each product. Consumers concerned about use of non-organic ingredients have the option to search for, and reward producers with their purchase of 100% Organic products.

The Accredited Certifiers Association (ACA) is a non-profit organization founded in 2004 that is dedicated to ensuring the integrity of organic products. The ACA counts 31 USDA accredited certification agencies as members. The ACA plays a key role in fostering communication among certifiers, which is a crucial element in the ongoing effort to maintain our high standards – as well as the public’s respect for the certifications we provide. We have a keen interest in ensuring the accurate, complete, and responsible exchange of viewpoints, among ourselves and with the community at large. As accredited certification agents, our primary responsibility is to protect and ensure the legitimacy of the organic label. Our professional standing, which rests on USDA accreditation, incurs immense privilege and responsibility; and we take our role extremely seriously. Chief among our obligations is maintaining the public trust and, in the course of fulfilling our commitments, we strive to consider the public’s interests, rights, and wishes.

Accredited Certifiers Association, Inc.

PO Box 472
Port Crane, NY 13833 USA
607.648.3259 phone / fax
www.accreditedcertifiers.org
certifiers@accreditedcertifiers.org

[Sam Fromartz]

Jake, Thanks for posting. There is a need for greater transparency so that people have a better understanding of these issues. This letter furthers that goal. (Jake is with California Certified Organic Farmers, one of the nation's oldest organic certification agencies).

[Andrew Barnet]

Oh, wow. I had no idea. Thanks so much for correcting my misunderstanding of the matter. I'll make sure to get my facts straight in the future.

-Andrew, of the Eat Well Guide

[Joe Smillie]

Thanks Sam..once again for getting it right...like ecology organics regulations are complicated and require complex responses, democratic consensus building and respect for all opinions..ideologues ( sic?) just don't get it right as Uncle Abe Maslow said "when all you have is a hammer all problems look like nails"