Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Controversy Erupts Over Process of Allowing Non-Organics in Organic Agriculture

Rumblings over a new USDA policy about which synthetic (non-organic) materials can be used in organic agriculture sparked heated blowback on legal and political fronts during a four-day meeting late last month of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in Texas.

Those against the new policy believe it could make it more difficult for the NOSB to phase out allowable synthetic and non-organic materials from organic foods and therefore weaken organic standards.

Members of the Organic Consumers Association held a protest at the
recent National Organic Standards Board meeting in San Antonio, TX.

Attracting the most media attention was the April 29 arrest of Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, who was handcuffed and hauled away by the police. Banner waving and chanting against the change also marked opposition tactics during the meeting.

“It’s a terrible change to the process,” Baden-Mayer, who was charged with criminal trespass and released on a $1,000 bond, told a Capital Press reporter.

Then there was a letter fired off to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack several days before the meeting  by two members of Congress — the principal authors of the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act — expressing dismay over the new policy and asking USDA to review it.

Synthetics? What’s this all about?

But wait. Isn’t food bearing the organic seal supposed to be produced without the use of materials such as synthetic pesticides and factory-made fertilizers? The answer to that question is, “Yes, almost always — but not always.”

It turns out that some crops or livestock can’t be raised without synthetic materials. But that doesn’t mean farmers get a free pass to use them forever. Instead, these materials are put on a “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances,” which lists exceptions to the ban on synthetics in organic farming. After five years, under a “sunset process,” the material in question is to be automatically removed from the list — unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB votes to keep it on the list.

At least, that’s the way it’s been done for the past decade.

The underlying goal of the “sunset process” is to motivate the industry to find or develop organic alternative materials. This, in turn, fits in with the consumer’s desire to keep foods bearing the organic seal as “pure as possible.”

An important part of this process is the opportunity for interested parties such as farmers, processors, consumers and organic groups to submit comments during two public meetings.

A good example can be seen in what happened to hops, a key ingredient in beer. Previously, non-organic hops were allowed to be used in organically made beer. But, in 2010, the NOSB allowed conventional hops to sunset from the list, effective 2013. As a result, only hops that are grown organically may now be used in beer that’s labeled organic.

Although the system appeared to be working well, USDA reversed this policy last fall without going through a public process to do so. Now, even though the materials will still be reviewed, a synthetic material will stay on the National List unless a two-thirds majority of the board votes to remove it.

In other words, it’s going to be harder — some opponents say almost impossible — to remove these materials from the list.

“The land of the midnight sun,” is how Mark Kastel, co-founder of organic industry watchdog Cornucopia, describes this change to the sunset process. It matters, he said, because it’s about consumer confidence and the integrity of the industry.

“Organics is not supposed to be controlled by corporate interests or by minions at the USDA,” he told Food Safety News. “It’s supposed to be an alternative to conventional agriculture, and the lines between the two shouldn’t be blurred. The NOSB plays a key role in this. The NOSB meetings are where the rubber hits the road.”

Kastel said that the concern now is that a troubling number of current NOSB members are representatives of industry heavyweights such as Earthbound Farm, Driscolls, Whole Foods, CROPP Cooperative and Zirkle, although smaller-scale farmers and processors are also in this mix of members.

“It’s a power grab,” he said, referring to the larger companies and their increasing influence on the industry, which, at its beginning, was rooted in family-scale farms and operations.

But Laura Batcha, CEO and executive director of the Organic Trade Association, told Food Safety News that what’s referred to as “big food” or “big ag” sometimes involves large companies contracting with many small farmers and processors.

“It’s potentially misleading to draw bright lines between the two,” she said.

Why does this matter to you and me?

A lot of it comes down to who’s running the show. At the heart of the controversy is NOSB’s role in providing advice to USDA on which substances should be allowed or prohibited in organic farming and processing based on criteria under the Organic Foods Production Act.

Established in 1990, the 15-member citizen oversight board represents different sectors of the industry: growers, processors, retailers, consumers, environmentalists, a scientist and an organic certification representative. As such, it is not supposed to be in the grip of USDA, but rather an entity that the agency turns to for advice and counsel on this issue and others.

Corncopia’s co-director Will Fantle said the board was created to be a buffer to prevent total control of the organic sector by USDA and big agribusiness interests.

However, as organics has grown from a “step-child” of agriculture to a full-blown powerhouse, with an expected $35 billion in revenues this year, some smaller-scale organic farmers and processors say “Big Ag” has jumped on board, many times buying smaller organic farms and companies. Fearing their voices are being drowned out, they point to the current NOSB membership as an example.

But Miles McEvoy, deputy administrator of USDA’s  National Organic Program, who sent out the memo about the new “sunset” policy, said in an email to Food Safety News that the reforms protect organic farmers and consumers by ensuring that any changes to organic rules, including adding items to the list of approved synthetic materials, are only made with the support of a strong majority of the board.

“We are also increasing public engagement and transparency with more opportunity for public comment,” he said. “We believe providing greater authority to the citizen advisory board and increasing public input are positive changes. USDA strongly supports organic agriculture, and is responsible for establishing a level playing field for all organic farms and businesses. Public participation and comments are vital to USDA’s work in organics. We encourage all members of the public to take part in future formal comment opportunities.”

Under the “next steps” listed in his memo is a bulleted item stating that streamlining the process involved in the “sunset process” should be continued.

OTA’s Batcha said this streamlining will free up staff to put more effort into other areas of concern to organic consumers such as animal welfare and enforcement.

“Consumers’ perspectives move quickly and the regulations also need to move quickly,” she said.

The new policy (“Sunset” Review of the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances) was put up on the Federal Register on Sept. 13, 2013, for public inspection and replaces the March 4, 2010, memorandum from the National Organic Program to the NOSB regarding the “sunset process.”

What about the list?

So what are some of the non-organic materials on the list? And what does this have to do with food safety?

One of them is as benign as baking powder. It’s there simply because there is no organic substitute for it.

But some others have raised controversy, with petitions against their use attracting tens of thousands of signatures or more.

One of these is carrageenan, which is used as a thickener and emulsifier in products such as ice cream and nut milks. The controversy stems from some studies that say it may be harmful to the intestinal tract; other studies dispute that. OCA’s petition to remove it from the National List has been signed by 15,050 organic consumers.

Another is methione, a synthetic feed additive that provides an essential amino acid needed by fast-growing chickens, which OCA says don’t have access to pasture and are being raised on a nutrition-poor diet of corn and soy. OCA’s petition demanding real outdoor access for organic chickens has been signed by 36,947 organic consumers.

During the recent NOSB meeting, some producers wanted to see the allowable amount increased that would be fed to chickens during certain stages of their growth, but the board chose not to vote on it.

Also on the National List are synthetic nutrient vitamins and minerals and also sausage casings from the intestines of non-organic animals, which opponents say are likely produced on “factory farms.”

USDA provides information here about the National List sunset dates.

Some good news on antibiotics

A significant move during the recent NOSB meeting came when members agreed not to extend the sunset deadline for ending use of the antibiotic streptomycin, which is used to control fire blight, a potentially devastating disease that can hit apple and pear orchards. Instead, the board voted in favor of the Oct. 21, 2014, expiration date.

Members went one step further and chose to stop the use of all antibiotics in organic agriculture. “USDA Organic is now 100-percent antibiotic-free!” states an article on the Organic Consumers Association’s website.

Politicians weigh in

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy  (D-VT) and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), in their April 24 letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack, described the new sunset policy as “a conflict with both the letter and intent of the statute (the Organic Food Production Act).” The letter also decries that “such a substantive policy was made without the benefit of full notice and comment.”

According to the letter, the new policy “turns the sunset policy of the Organic Foods Production Act on its head” and “is counter to the key principals of public involvement and oversight in the organic certification process as well as adhering to the highest standards possible for organic food production.”

The two senators urged Vilsack to reverse this policy change and add this suggestion. “. . .  if, after consulting with Congress and the full spectrum of the affected organic community, you still believe this change is necessary, we strongly recommend that you use the full notice and common rulemaking procedures to do so.”

As of May 11, Vilsack had not yet replied to the letter.

But, in an email to Food Safety News, McEvoy of USDA said that while the agency does not intend to revisit the new process, it has taken steps to notify various congressional offices about these changes.

“We have taken into account concerns raised by this process, and we are working on clearing up misinformation and educating consumers and organic stakeholders on this issue,” echoed Sam Jones-Ellard, public affairs specialist with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.

© Food Safety News
  • deserteeyore

    Just curious, without antibiotics, are sick animals made to suffer without treatment for infections like mastitis, wounds, pneumonia, etc.? To me that seems cruel.

    • John Mark Carter

      Sick animals are usually shunted off to non-organic operations, although they certainly suffer and sometimes die before they get there.

      • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

        This is completely and totally untrue.

    • http://www.isitorganic.ca/ Mischa Popoff

      That’s a great question. It turns out organic standards REQUIRE a farmer to resort to antibiotics when an animal falls ill. Otherwise it would qualify as cruelty to animals. Under most organic standards, these animals then have to be permanently removed from organic production, and are often culled. But some organic standards allow dairy cows to be re-admitted into organic production after a period of time has elapsed.
      In either case, the organic industry admits antibiotics are useful, but then rejects them.

    • Linda

      In conventionally raised cattle, antibiotics are fed to animals at every meal to make them grow faster. It has nothing to do with animal health.

  • http://www.isitorganic.ca/ Mischa Popoff

    While urban organic activists argue the issue of trace amounts of synthetic additives in organic food, there is still no organic field testing. As such, a whopping 43% of all organic food sold in America tests positive for prohibited pesticides. Isn’t that a much bigger issue that these people should deal with first?

    • PeterStiff

      Trace amounts? In products labeled as organic, 5% of the content in the finished product can be from ALLOWED and PETITIONED synthetic substances. In products labeled as “Made with Organic” 30% can be from synthetic substances. I’d say that’s a big issue. Much larger an issue than the prohibited substances you speak of, that are measured in parts per million (ppm). I’m not trying to say that pesticide residue on crops is not an issue cause it is, but don’t try to convince others to overlook the importance of the process for determining what synthetics can be allowed as ingredients, processing aids, and crop/livestock materials.

      • Michael Bulger

        You’re confusing pesticide residue levels with percentages for ingredients not Certified Organic.

        Mischa is so confused on this issue it makes responding to his untruths quite pointless.

        • PeterStiff

          Not confusing it, rather trying to make a point about the sunset process and how I feel it is just as important, if not more important than the residual pesticide issue. Mischa asserts that the residue issue is “a much bigger issue that should be dealt with first.” I disagree with him and feel that the NOSB sunset process has a much larger affect on organic integrity, because this sunset process and the actions of the NOSB is what will allow or prohibit synthetics that can be used in organic products at concentrations much larger (5% or 30% of a product’s composition) than those measured in parts per million (residues).

          • Michael Bulger

            Got it.

    • detroit58

      Mischa, please stop using this out-of-context snippet from the USDA pilot study. You diminish your effort by resorting to such tactics (and you will tire of me calling it out).

      The truth is that, yes, pesticides are found on organics – although 96 percent of analyzed samples were in compliance with the USDA organic regulations.

      “In the pilot study, 327 samples (57.3 percent) had no detectable levels of pesticide residue and 244 samples (42.7 percent) had detectable pesticide levels. Of the 244 samples with detectable pesticide levels, 21 samples had values that were greater than 5 percent of EPA tolerance levels and in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The values of the other 223 samples with detectable residues were less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance level. This outcome was consistent with the results from previous studies and reviews.

      “In this study of 571 produce samples from 6 commodities, 96 percent of analyzed samples were in compliance with the USDA organic regulations. However, it also identified several areas of the organic production and handling system that require additional scrutiny to prevent contamination.”

      http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101234

  • Chrys Ostrander

    The above article fails, as have most media accounts, to consider also
    the top-down meddling, interference and usurpation by the USDA of the
    entire NOSB procedural protocol (most notably the unprecedented
    unilateral assignment of Miles McEvoy as co-chair of the NOSB with undue
    power and influence over the setting of the NOSB agenda). This aspect
    is better addressed in the Cornucopia Institute’s coverage of the issues
    at hand during the meeting:
    http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/05/turmoil-shakes-national-organics-standards-board-meeting-texas

  • grifty

    It drives me nuts when I read something like this “Organics is not supposed to be controlled by corporate interests or by minions at the USDA”

    No..its that you want YOUR corporate interests to control the rules. Also, the USDA doesn’t have minions..it has employees and appointees.

    Also this “One of these is carrageenan, which is used as a thickener and emulsifier in products such as ice cream and nut milks. The controversy stems from some studies that say it may be harmful to the intestinal tract; other studies dispute that.”

    Ok…but the organic program makes no health or safety claims. Its NOT a health or safety program. Its a marketing program. Or so says the USDA, WHOSE PROGRAM IT IS.

  • Lab perspective

    What do you do for a living?

    If you worked at a food safety lab that analyzes thousands of samples, most of which are conventional produce you would most likely know there is no such mandate for organic field testing other then for certification purposes or by customer request to prove it is indeed organic.

    Unfortunetly what Mischa says is accurate in the real world even though it might not be what the studies or legislation says.

    The most organics we see is when we buy our weekly blank sample to generate our calibration curve which are supposed to have no pesticide residues so we buy them from whole food’s. In reality this is not the case, at least 50% of the organic produce we buy has residues of chemicals that are not approved for organic use or that are out of compliance.

    Not sure if this is true for all whole foods, but the one we buy our blanks from is regularly selling “organic” produce that is in fact conventional grade when regarding pesticide residues.

    You can either believe what you want to hear if you want, im not stopping you, but if you did your own study I guarantee it would not match the USDA

    • Michael Bulger

      (I’m posting here on my own time, and not in any capacity as an employee).

      Today, I worked directly with farmers and even practiced a little organic ag myself. I work for a hospital that has made food a major part of its healthcare approach.

      The published and public data available consistently shows organic produce has lower rates of pesticide residue.

      I hope you realize that the combination of published studies, regulations, and government data, seems like a much better indicator than does your anonymous internet comments.

      If you’d like to explain your statements further, maybe they will seem more credible. What kind of lab do you work in that you routinely measure pesticide residues? Can you explain the nature and purpose of this “calibration curve”? Honestly, if you really are producing all of this data, why not put it up to peer-review and publish?

      Regardless, Mischa makes the simple claim that field testing is not mandatory. In fact, it is mandatory. His figures on residue have been debunked in previous comment sections. The lone study that Mischa uses as evidence specifically warns that its data is not supportive of such figures.

      • residue truth

        Same here my opinions in no way reflect what my company does. I would like to remain anonymous and would like my company to remain anonymous as well. It is a small industry everyone knows everyone.

        I work for a food safety lab we are a service provider to the agriculture industry and all of our results are completely confidential and only go to the customer who is paying for the sample. I have a confidentiality agreement and shouldn’t be commenting at all even though i am not disclosing anything specific but i see things everyday that would surprise most Americans and directly contradict the studies done by the USDA regarding pesticide residue compliance.

        I agree that we typically see lower residue concentrations and less pesticides on organic produce that we test. What is astonishing is how little organic produce we test and how little the major west coast organic producers test their product. Also it is crazy that Whole Foods doesn’t require a residue test in order for produce to make it to their shelves.

        If you have access to a law that states it is mandatory to test produce for pesticides I would be very interested in reading it. Are you sure its not just a recommendation?

        As far as i know there are laws stating what you can and can not have on your produce, however I have seen no such law requiring a grower to test their produce.

        • Michael Bulger

          As part of organic certification, the USDA requires that the third-party certifiers periodically test for pesticide residues.

          (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101236)

          Don’t mistake my comments for a satisfaction with the status quo. I would agree with anyone who calls for more residue testing. I think mandatory testing should cover conventional produce as well.

          What led me to comment is that Mischa has seen the above link and yet continues to say there is no requirement for organic produce. He is similarly oblivious to any corrections on his other (oft-repeated) talking points.

          I really wonder why he doesn’t try to be more accurate with his statements. I believe it would be more effective to approach the issue with statements that stand-up to simple fact-checking. Running about yelling, “Fraud!”, when you can be so easily proven wrong does not seem like the path to safer food or increased organic label integrity.