EARTHKEEPING NEWS A NEWSLETTER OF THE NORTH AMERICAN COALITION FOR CHRISTIANITY AND ECOLOGY Volume Seven, Number Three March/April 1998 Call to Action: Protect Organic Foods From USDA's Proposed Organic Rule Excerpts from "Organic Agriculture Endangered", by Dr. Frederick Kirschenmann, an organic farmer and Board member of the World Sustainable Agriculture Society, in Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, published by Environmental Research Foundation, PO Box 5036, Annapolis MD 21403; January 29, 1998. If the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has its way, food now known as "organically grown" may be genetically engineered, fertilized with sewage sludge, and/or irradiated with nuclear wastes. USDA's proposed rule to implement the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 would legalize practices that are presently unthinkable for organic farmers. The practice of producing food organically began with farmers who wanted to farm in harmony with nature, instead of subduing nature by the use of toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers. An increasing number of consumers want to buy food grown by these more natural methods. They created a need to identify such foods in the market place. Private, independent, third-party certifiers emerged to provide assurance that the "organic" label actually means something. These certifiers also establish audit trails so that consumer products can be traced back to farmers' fields. It is this third-party certification that give the words "organically grown" their meaning. As organic foods became more popular and commanded a premium price, some growers and manufacturers labeled their products "organic" though they were not produced in keeping with organic standards. This fraudulent labeling led the organic food industry, consumers and environmentalists to ask for government regulation. The proposed rule does not provide the needed assurance. The rule: Fails to prohibit sewage sludge, irradiation and genetically engineered organisms in organic farming and processing. Fails to prohibit factory-style farms from being certified organic. Fails to forbid animal cannibalism (believed to be a leading cause of transmissible "mad cow" disease) in organically produced animals. Fails to prohibit use of unsafe chemicals in production and processing of organic food. Prevents producers and manufacturers from identifying products in the store based on production practices, thus ending all eco-labeling and destroying an important market-based tool for environmental protection. Prohibits private organic certification companies from certifying or labeling products that distinguish "any requirements other than those provided for" in the government's regulations. The proposed rule takes the power of preference away from consumers, limits the market opportunities of producers, restricts commercial free speech, and leaves chemically sensitive and allergic people without any reliable choices in the marketplace to protect them from possible harm. Who benefits from this rule which threatens the shopping and marketing rights of citizens? It would be a boon for the conventional agribusiness food system which has for years sought to eliminate any differentiation in the marketplace that threatens their market share. What can we do? We can inform ourselves on the issues. We can submit comments to the USDA, following the prescribed process so our comments will be heard. We can contact our congressional representatives urging them to support the right to label products based on point of origin or production practices. The proposed rule can be downloaded from the World Wide Web at www.usda.gov/ams/nop, or you can find it in the Federal Register. Additional information is available at www.ccof.org, and www.csa-efc.org. The USDA is accepting comments on the proposed organic rule until May 1st. Comments should be addressed to: Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator, USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 4007-S, AG Stop 0275, PO Box 96456, Washington DC 20090-6456. Comments can also be faxed to 202/690-4632. Home     Table of Contents