> USDA Prepares for an "Unfriendly Takeover" of the Natural Foods Industry
>>
>> July 9, 1997
>>
>> by: Ben Lilliston, Sustain: The Environmental Education Group (Chicago,
>> Illinois)
>>      Ronnie Cummins, Pure Food Campaign  (Little Marais, Minnesota)
>>
>> The Oxford American dictionary describes the word organic as "of or formed
>> from living things." Consumers generally define organic foods as those
>> produced naturally, without the use of toxic chemicals, drugs, or factory
>> farm techniques. But how the dictionary, organic farmers, or millions of
>> American consumers define "organic" will soon become a moot point. That is
>> because the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will soon be
>> defining in legally binding terms exactly what "organic" means. And not in
>> a pithy phrase, but rather in what is expected to be a 600 page document in
>> the Federal Register-and given the history of the USDA, many are worried
>> about the impact of these new federal regulations on the natural foods
>> industry.
>>
>> "This is the institutionalizing of the word 'organic' by the government,
>> and we should pay close attention," says Michael Sligh, Director of the
>> Sustainable Agriculture Program at the Rural Advancement Foundation
>> International (RAFI). Sligh is the former chairman of the National Organics
>> Standards Board (NOSB), an official advisory committee established by
>> Congress in 1990 through the Organic Food Production Act to make
>> recommendations to the USDA on organic standards and labeling practices.
>>
>> Despite precise recommendations from the NOSB to maintain strict organic
>> standards-policies basically in harmony with those advocated by IFOAM,
>> the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, and the
>> European Parliament-USDA officials have delayed as long as possible in
>> announcing federal regulations on organics. But now final rules are
>> expected to be published later this summer or fall, and will likely send
>> shockwaves throughout the natural food community. According to several
>> inside sources in Washington who have seen the proposed rules, the USDA not
>> only intends to disregard the NOSB's explicit ban on genetically engineered
>> food and intensive confinement of farm animals, but will actually make it
>> illegal for regional or non-governmental organic certification bodies to
>> uphold organic standards stricter than U.S. government standards. And of
>> course if the USDA gets away with this in the United States, their eventual
>> strategy will be to use the legal hammer of the GATT World Trade
>> Organization (WTO) to force European and other nations to lower their
>> organic standards as well.
>>
>> "I know for a fact that one of the internal hold-ups is genetic
>> engineering," says Katherine Di Matteo, head of the National Organics Trade
>> Association, "Some people in USDA are unhappy."
>>
>> The USDA is struggling with the connotations of the organic label which
>> indicates that no toxic chemical pesticides or fertilizers were used to
>> grow or process the food. The term "organic" is generally considered by the
>> public to indicate healthier food. Activist  organizations opposed to
>> unsustainable agriculture practices or genetic engineering have
>> increasingly advised consumers to change their food buying habits and to
>> begin purchasing organic foods.
>>
>> The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA have been staunch
>> defenders of genetically engineered foods and high-chemical input
>> agriculture. Both agencies have actively fought against the labeling of
>> genetically engineered foods despite scant scientific research done on
>> their potential human and environmental hazards.
>>
>> "Time and time again U.S. government officials have ignored citizens'
>> concerns and interests. The USDA understands that the public will never
>> accept chemically contaminated or genetically engineered foods if given any
>> real choice in the marketplace," says Ronnie Cummins, National Director of
>> the Pure Food Campaign. "But Monsanto and the agri-toxics crowd are
>> determined to undermine consumer choice and to cram their products down
>> peoples' throats if necessary. Our inside sources in Washington have warned
>> us that the new 'organic standards' dictated by the USDA will be bad news.
>> Bad news for the consumer, the natural foods industry, organic farmers, and
>> those farmers thinking of going organic. And bad news as well for farm
>> animals and the environment."
>>
>> The USDA finds itself in a quandary. Central to defining the word organic
>> is to admit that a host of agribusiness practices such as pesticide use,
>> intensive confinement of livestock, hormone injection, and genetic
>> engineering are somehow less healthy. Yet, the USDA, FDA, and EPA have
>> strenuously argued for years that these practices are perfectly safe.
>>
>> In the case of genetically engineered foods, the issue becomes particularly
>> dicey because of the strong public support for labeling of these foods. A
>> February 1997 poll conducted by biotech giant Novartis found that 93
>> percent of American consumers want to see mandatory labelling of
>> genetically engineered foods. Seventy-three percent claim to "feel
>> strongly" about this. Consumers in Europe and other countries have
>> expressed similar views. Party as a result of this controversy, sales of
>> products labeled as "organic" have increased dramatically.
>>
>> Up until now, there has been little or no testing required on the potential
>> human health hazards of gene-altered foods. In spite of this lack of
>> regulation, several studies have shown that dangerous allergens and toxins
>> can be spread through bioengineered foods, and that nutritional values can
>> be degraded. Other studies have shown that antibiotic resistance genes,
>> commonly found in gene-altered food, can make animals and humans more
>> susceptible to dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria. In addition many
>> biotech crops are being engineered to resist specific herbicides, which
>> basically means that even more toxic chemicals will be able to be sprayed
>> on farm crops, ending up as residues on food products or pollultants in
>> drinking water. Besides these human health hazards, the increased use of
>> toxic herbicides and the spread of these herbicide resistant genes to weeds
>> and wild relatives of these plants pose a real threat to the environment.
>> And finally the "toxic trespass" of genetically engineered crops onto
>> adjacent farmlands threatens the economic livelihood of small farmers,
>> particularly organic farmers.
>>
>> Despite warnings from an increasing number of scientists, this year a wide
>> variety of genetically engineered foods will be placed, unlabeled, on
>> supermarket shelves. Literally thousands of products-including nearly all
>> non-organic processed foods-will soon include at least some genetically
>> engineered ingredients. Two dozen biotech foods and crops have already been
>> approved for commercialization in the U.S., with a small but expanding menu
>> of biotech foods already approved in Europe, Canada, Japan, and other
>> countries. Millions of acres of biotech crops will be harvested this fall
>> in th U.S.
>>
>> Because of these concerns, the NOSB passed a resolution in September 1996
>> which advised the USDA that "the class of genetically-engineered organisms
>> and their derivatives be prohibited in organic production and handling
>> systems."
>>
>> Genetically-engineered foods are "not historic to organic, do not have a
>> long track record, and do not seem to be vital," says Sligh, explaining the
>> NOSB's opposition.
>>
>> The USDA understands that it is politically impossible for them to dictate
>> that all genetically engineered crops can be labelled organic. Instead, the
>> proposed federal regulations will allow individual genetically engineered
>> products to be judged on a "case-by-case" basis. Under this
>> reasonable-sounding, yet ultimately insidious process, the NOSB would
>> evaluate individual genetically engineered products and either approve or
>> deny them. Those approved would be passed on the USDA, which would make the
>> final decision. Important to note, is that the USDA supposedly cannot add
>> anything to the "synthetic" list of approved inputs without NOSB approval.
>>
>> This is why Michael Hansen, of the Consumers Union, says that perhaps "The
>> worst case scenario is not that bad."
>>
>> According to Hansen, the members of the current NOSB have indicated that
>> they will be extremely strict in case-by-case decisions in regard to
>> synthetic chemical inputs. In the short term this may provide a saving
>> grace for organic food, but the membership of the NOSB can change quickly.
>> All current and future NOSB members are appointed by and subject to the
>> authority of USDA officials. Present USDA Secretary Dan Glickman is an
>> outspoken supporter of genetic engineering, GATT, and factory farming. Thus
>> Glickman or his successor in the USDA will have the power, if need be, to
>> stack the NOSB with members who support the agribusiness and biotech
>> agenda.
>>
>> The fear by many is that the new USDA rules will subtlely but decisively
>> degrade, through a dense and ambiguous 600 page plus document, the label
>> "organic." This will open the door for large-scale agribusiness to highjack
>> the consumer respectability that comes with the organic label.
>> Transnational food corporations will then be able to fill supermarket
>> shelves with products labeled "organic"-except that these pseudo-natural
>> foods will not really be organic. The result could be devastating to the
>> natural food industry.
>>
>> Di Matteo says she believes the organic industry will mobilize quickly if
>> the USDA rules run strongly counter to the NOSB's recommendation.
>>
>> "But it will be hard for the organic industry if the USDA offers a
>> compromise position," admits Di Matteo, who fears that such a compromise
>> could cause a split within the organics community.
>>
>> These are boom years for the U.S. organic industry. Since 1990, sales of
>> organic food have jumped 20 percent a year, reaching $3.3 billion in 1996,
>> and are projected to grow to $6.5 billion by the year 2000. Total organic
>> cropland has more than doubled since 1991. Sales of organic dairy products
>> are increasing by more than 100% annually.
>>
>> Currently, "certified organic" indicates that the farming methods employed
>> were verified by one of the approximately 40 private or state certification
>> programs nationwide. Genetically engineered foods cannot be currently
>> labeled as "organic."
>>
>> Many certifiers are concerned that the proposed USDA federal regulations
>> will make it illegal for them to uphold stricter standards than what the
>> USDA allows. Currently, organic standards vary among certification boards.
>> California and Oregon have tough standards, while several states such as
>> Illinois, have vague or nonexistent standards.
>>
>> The call for national organic standards was largely pushed forward for
>> international trade purposes. But if the USDA decides to allow even some
>> genetically engineered crops on a case-by-case basis, such as those which
>> supposedly reduce pesticide use, it could cause serious repercussions
>> internationally, where there is increasing opposition to genetically
>> engineered food.
>>
>> "It would have a huge impact and be viewed by utter dismay by the rest of
>> the world," says Ken Cummins, of the International Accreditation Services,
>> part of the International Federation of Organic Movements.
>>
>> The Codex Alimentarius is designated by the World Trade Organization as the
>> officially-recognized rule-making body for international trade issues
>> related to food. The Codex has been holding a series of ongoing meetings to
>> define the term "organic" internationally. Thus far, the majority of
>> national representatives participating in the Codex meetings have resisted
>> the inclusion of genetically engineered foods under the organic label,
>> although the U.S. government delegation and the biotech industry have at
>> times lobbied for weaker international standards.
>>
>> Besides the biotech foods controversy, the USDA proposed federal
>> regulations will attempt to allow meat, eggs, dairy, and other animal
>> products to be labeled "organic," even if the animals have been kept in
>> intensive confinement. This runs directly counter to NOSB recommendations
>> as well as the guidelines of organic certification bodies across the world.
>> Humane farming advocates are outraged at the possibility that intensive
>> confinement feedlots, factory-style dairies, or giant corporate hog and
>> chicken installations would be allowed under the new federal regulations to
>> label their products as organic.
>>
>> "It has historically been a signature of organics to respond to the natural
>> behavior of animals," says Sligh.
>>
>> "We must organize and fight against an 'unfriendly takeover' of the organic
>> food movement by Monsanto and the giant food cartels," says Ronnie Cummins.
>> "We must not allow the destruction of organic standards by Washington
>> bureaucrats and Corporate America."
>>
>> "If the Clinton Administration and the USDA try to tell us later this year
>> that genetically engineered foods and factory farm animal products can be
>> labelled organic, and try to prohibit state and regional organic standards
>> from being stricter than USDA standards, we must go on the offensive,"
>> Cummins says. "Every food co-op, natural food store, buying club, and
>> organic farm must turn itself into a center for activism-educating and
>> mobilizing its members, workers, and customers to write letters, send faxes
>> and emails, and to make telephone calls to elected public officials. Unless
>> the USDA and politicians feel the heat, they seem hell-bent on destroying
>> the alternative food system which we have so laboriously built up over last
>> 30 years. So the time to begin organizing a nationwide grassroots
>> communications and action network is now."
>>
>> ###
>>
>> For updates on food issues and the battle to preserve organic standards,
>> see the Pure Food Campaign's website at:
>> http://www.geocities.com/athens/1527
>>
>> If you are willing to help organize a Live Wire communications and Organic
>> Food Action Alert network in your community, please send an email to:
>> [log in to unmask]



Aloha,   Dave.          Think for Yourself.             Question Authority

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Computer Dave" Hartley   (808) 879-7997  VP Suntronix Computer Telephony
email:  [log in to unmask] website (work in progress) www.computerDave.com
Interests: Computer/Telephony Integration, Windows NT, Web Publishing,
~~  Alternative Medicine  ~~   www.Eckankar.org   ~~  www.healing-tao.com