Organic advocates decry new USDA substance review protocols
WASHINGTON,
Sept. 26, 2013 – A seemingly innocuous change to organic substance review
protocols by USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is drawing fire
from some in the organic industry, who say the modification will dramatically
decrease the likelihood that certain synthetic materials could be banned from
use in USDA-certified organic foods.
Prior to a Sept.
16 announcement
in the Federal Register, synthetic
substances listed as acceptable by the National Organic Program (NOP) were
reviewed every five years as part of the “sunset” process. That process
included a public meeting and eventually, a vote by the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB). If two-thirds of the body’s members voted in favor of
the substance, it remained on the accepted list.
Examples of
synthetic but permitted substances include products like baking soda, which do
not have an organic equivalent but have been deemed necessary to the production
of otherwise organic products, like pancakes and muffins. But the list also
includes substances like methionine, which is used in organic poultry productions
at levels specified by NOSB.
Now, USDA will
allow that substance process to reverse. Two public meetings, rather than one,
will now take place as a substance review. Then the board will vote whether to
take the substance in question off the list, rather than whether to allow it to
stay on. If two-thirds do not vote to remove the substance, it will remain on
the list.
The entire
process is meant to incentivize the creation of new, organic compounds to
replace the synthetic ones. In 2009, for example, NOSB removed soy lecithin
from the list after Clarkson Soy Products LLC created an organic alternative.
But that
procedure, some organic and consumer groups warn, is threatened by USDA’s new
guidelines.
A coalition of
organizations, including Food & Water Watch, Beyond Pesticides, Consumers
Union and the Center for Food Safety, say the process first “lowers the bar for
much of the organic market” by failing to continuously ensure the purity of the
organic label. That would make it easier for producers who also grow
non-organic products to simply substitute a few ingredients to create a
certified organic product, while leaving permitted synthetics in the supply
chain.
If industry does
not continue to push new alternatives, argues Food and Water Watch’s Patty
Lovera, consumer trust in the “USDA certified organic” label could erode.
Removing synthetic materials from otherwise organic foods is “a big piece of
the integrity of the [industry],” she said.
USDA and its Agricultural
Marketing Service, which oversees NOSB, might beg to differ. In its Federal Register announcement, the department
said its new process “ensures NOSB proposals are exposed to robust public
comment” through the two public meetings involved in each substance review.
USDA also says
the new process is more consistent with the Organic Food Production Act’s
demand that the sunset review process use a “decisive” two-thirds vote. Additionally,
the department says on
its website that the new procedure provides the entire organic industry with increased
“stability” by making it “as difficult to remove a previously approved
substance from the list as it was to add it in the first place.”
The next step for
the procedure’s opponents might involve a legal battle. Mark Kastel, co-founder
of the pro-organic Cornucopia Institute, called the USDA’s decision to change
the procedure evidence of “terrible, dictatorial, corporate-favored influence”
in the department, and he would “be surprised if this doesn’t end up in court.”
“We’re just
doing the legal research now,” he said, and promised that his group would take
up the case if it thought it could win.
#30