New National Standards Dissapoint

Eagerly anticipated since 1990, when the Organic Foods Production Act became law, the proposed Federal Standards for organic food production and processing were released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on December 16, 1997. This followed years of public hearings and work by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) -- composed of crop and livestock farmers, organic food processors, retailers, scientists, environmentalists and consumer representatives -- resulting in recommendations for the rule that is to implement the Act. Now consumers can be assured that a food labeled "organic" under the National Organic Program (NOP) rule was produced under a strict set of guidelines, right?

Wrong! Contrary to the recommendations of the NOSB, the proposed rule is soft on chemicals, undecided on ionizing radiation, and open to the use of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) and sludge, or reprocessed municipal sewage, in crop production.

And that's not all. "Organic" livestock will not always have to be fed 100% organic feed, have access to the out-of-doors or be antibiotic-free. No longer will you be able to find naturally raised chickens, for instance, that have a label stating "no drugs or hormones used" -- that label will not be allowed. Should the rule as it is written be approved for law, the result could be nothing short of disastrous.

What are we to do? We can write to USDA, now! Public comment has been invited through March 15, 1998. Here's a summary of the "hot spots," all of which were voted against by NOSB, and where in the Federal Register you will find them.

Ionized Irradiation: Processing Practices

Section 205.17 (page 65884)

The proposed rule is asking for public comment on the compatibility of ionizing radiation with the system of organic farming. This practice is prohibited by most existing organic certification programs.

When food is exposed to ionized irradiation, it is exposed to 300,000 rads of gamma radiation -- equivalent of 30 million chest x-rays -- in order to extend shelf-life and kill insects and bacteria. This amount is over 20,000 times the allowed annual exposure level for workers at a nuclear power site.

In a New York Times op-ed (12/5/97), Carol Tucker Foreman, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for the Food Safety and Inspection Service in the Carter Administration, presented a compelling case for caution regarding current Food & Drug Administration (FDA) support for ionized radiation as the "silver bullet" for a safer food supply. Foreman warns that while ionized radiation can sterilize meat, it cannot protect it from recontamination. Once naturally-occurring and harmless bacteria are killed, new contaminating pathogens have no competition. Foreman also warns of industry hopes that ionized irradiation may make new food safety programs and testing unnecessary. This is the industrial food industry from which so many consumers are turning to organic for an alternative. In addition, the ionized radiation process is known to produce new chemicals in the treated food called radiolytic products, some of which are known carcinogens or mutagens.

Genetically Engineered Organisms: Selection of Use of Seeds, Seedling and Planting Stock

Section 205.8 (page 65875)

The USDA would like to know whether GEOs should be prohibited, permitted, or allowed on a case-by-case basis.

The development of GEOs is a young but potentially lucrative field. The area includes development of food processing aids like lecithin, pesticide- and herbicide-resistant seeds, and transgenic crops, wherein certain genes (and therefore certain traits) are transferred between different organisms. The risks, both to health and environment, include drift of GEO pollen to uncultivated areas, allergenicity, accelerated pest resistance to both natural and synthetic pesticides, and herbicide resistance among weeds and wild relatives of crop plants. Scientists at Riso National Laboratory in Denmark recently found that genetically-engineered canola can, through pollen drift, pass on its herbicide resistance to weedy relatives. New superweeds may result, overwhelming natural ecosystems.

The European Union prohibits GEOs in organic foods and could refuse to import U.S. products if GEOs were accepted here.

Municipal Sludge: The National List of Active Synthetic Substances Allowed for Use in Organic Crop Production

Section 205.22 (page 65892)

The USDA asks whether the use of biosolids (municipal sludge) as fertilizer should be permitted or prohibited in organic production. The NOSB recommended that biosolids be classified as synthetic and inappropriate for use in organic crop production.

Over the years, the USDA, FDA and Environmental Protection Agency have endorsed the use of biosolids on land for the production of both fruits and vegetables and in household gardens. However, over 60,000 toxic chemical compounds can be found in sewage sludge. Experts have determined that the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer poses a more significant lead threat to the land than did the use of leaded gasoline. Federal agencies themselves have advised that, when using sludge, "steps must be taken relative to issues such as the amount of cadmium and lead that can be applied to the soil, the amount of PCBs in the biosolids, and the relative accumulation of heavy metals into edible parts."

Since copies of the Federal Register are in short supply, you must visit your library or the NOP website in order to view it (www.ams.usda.gov/nop). Or, you can use this article as a tool for writing your comment letter. Your letters may be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the NOP, and must contain the docket number (TMD-94-00-2) as well as topic and section numbers. Also, be sure to use the same terminology used in the proposed rules (for example, use the term "ionizing radiation," not simply "irradiation").