From: Ronnie Cummins, Pure Food Campaign and Save Organic Standards (SOS), USA. Food Bytes 6/SOS

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is attempting to redefine organic foods to include foods that are genetically engineered, irradiated, factory-farmed, and grown on top of toxic sewage sludge. This represents nothing less than an "unfriendly take over" of the natural foods industry by agribusiness, chemical-biotech corporations, and giant supermarket chains.

On Dec. 16, 1997 the USDA announced their proposed national organic standards. These standards define what can be legally certified and labeled as organic. Following their final approval, it basically will be illegal for producers and retailers to uphold and promote standards stricter than the USDA allows.

Currently, when we shop for foods labeled "organic," we can be reasonably certain of what we're getting. But under the proposed USDA laws, there are no explicit prohibitions against:

• Synthetic Substances - Allowing a wide range of synthetic substances to be used in organic production, including chemical pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotic and parasiticides.
• Genetic Engineering - Using genetic engineering to produce foods.
• Factory Farming - Using inhumane, intensive confinement, factory farm style production methods on farm animals.
• Toxic Sludge - Spreading toxic sewage sludge and industrial wastes, so-called "biosolids," on farmlands and pastures where animals graze and food is grown.
• Animal Cannibalism - Feeding back diseased and waste animal body parts, offal, and blood to farm animals, the practice that has led to Mad Cow Disease in Europe.
• Food Irradiation - Using radioactive nuclear wastes to "kill bacteria" and prolong the shelf life of food products.

The Corporate Agenda

In an interview with the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Jan. 15, a spokeswoman for Monsanto, Lisa Drake, made it clear that Monsanto expects the Clinton administration to allow genetically engineered crops, such as their Bt-spliced potatoes and cotton, to be allowed, at least eventually, under the organic label. Monsanto's major concern is that there be no overt prohibition on genetically engineered inputs in the first set of final rules. According to Drake "We think biotechnology fits quite well (under the organic label)." Giant industry trade associations - whose members are heavy financial contributors to the Clinton-Gore administration - such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the National Food Processors Association, have also lobbied heavily for implementation of the controversial USDA proposals.

Everyone also seems to agree that the battle over these rules is a crucial battle, the outcome of which will decide, not only if the word "organic" will totally lose its meaning and integrity in the U.S, but, in the larger global picture, will determine to a significant extent if any alternatives to the globalized industrialization of agriculture will be allowed to legally exist, period.

If the Clinton administration succeeds in outlawing real organic standards and forcing mis-labeled agribusiness style "organic" food down the throats of American consumers, a global "race to the bottom" will surely follow. With literally no practical marketplace alternative to genetically engineered, chemically contaminated, and factory farmed food, consumers will almost inevitably become fatalistic and immobilized - with grave consequences for public health, biodiversity, small farmers, and economic sustainability.

If the WTO Gets Involved

Further, critics of the proposed rules expect that there will be contention (e.g. as in the case of bovine growth hormones) between the European Union (EU) and the U.S., if these proposed USDA rules are published with the above "aspects" included in their redefinition of "Organic" – much of which is not in the EU regulations.

"The worse case scenario is that before the CODEX guidelines for organics is finalized, the US could challenge the EU in a WTO action over import restrictions into the EU of US organic products. Current EU regulations require that third country imports must be equivalent to EU standards. If the case were to be taken up and ruled in favour of the U.S. with regards to differences between EU and U.S. regulations, this could establish the USDA rules as the dominant framework for global organic standards" states Ong Kung Wai, Sustainable Agriculture Office with PAN Asia and the Pacific.

"There is no indication for this 'worse case scenario' occurring in the immediate future. In any case, the decision on a framework or development of what is or is not organic, should not be negotiated at the WTO – and hence taken out of the hands of the organic movement," he stressed.

Never has the need to maintain the space for innovation, quality assurance and definition within the organic community been so clear. The Organic Movement is being challenged to be more cohesive than ever, to face off the intrusion and erosion of its founding principles and values, and be a s e be mobilized to force Agriculture Secretary Glickman and the White House to resubmit new rules which reflect traditional organic practices and values – rules which strictly adhere to the recommendations of the National Organics Standards Board and the internationally recognized standards of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)?

The obvious answer to this question is for concerned people all over the world to continue doing what they're already doing - to literally bury the Clinton administration in a mountain of protest letters, emails, and faxes during the official comment period which ends April 30th, 1998.Those living outside of the United States can tell the USDA that U.S. organic foods produced under sub-standard certification and labeling provisions, such as they are now proposing, will not be welcome or marketable in your country.

Important Addresses:

Please send all letters of concern and protest or comments on the USDA proposal to:

Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator,
USDA-AMS-TM-NOP,
Room 4007-So., Ag Stop 0275,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456.,
Comments also may be sent by fax to (202) 690-4632.

Letters to the USDA should be sent to:

USDA--National Organic Standards, Docket # TMD-94-00-2 Address:
USDA, AMS, Room 4007-S, AgStop 0275,
P.O. Box 96456 Washington, D.C. 20090-6456,
Fax: (Include Docket Number) 202-690-4632
email: see USDA web site

Additionally, comments may be sent via the Internet through the National Organic Program's homepage. See the "SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION" section for further details on submitting comments. Those with email addresses can subscribe to Food Bytes, the Pure Food Campaigns' free electronic newsletter, by sending an email to: majordomo@mr.net with the simple message: subscribe pure-food-action

Whose Organic Standards? USDA'S New Proposed Regulations Are Unacceptable

An Op-Ed Piece on the USDA's 16 Dec. 1997, Proposed National Organic Food Standards by: Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Pure Food Campaign/SOS

National Organic Standards: The Battle We Can't Afford To Lose

FOOD BYTES, News & Analysis on Genetic Engineering & Factory Farming Issue #7 (February 15, 1998), by: Ronnie Cummins, Pure Food Campaign USA

SOS: A Warning from the Save Organic Standards Movement

Food Bytes #7 SOS Special Issue, (February 15, 1998), by: Ronnie Cummins, Pure Food Campaign USA.

The poposed Rule Federal Register version (better for downloading and printing)

The Proposed Rule -- USDA text version

Paper copies of the proposed rule are available from:

USDA for $8, but reportedly there is a long delay: phone (202) 512-1800.

You can view the Federal Register version at many public libraries(December 16 issues).

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Recommendations

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990

Organic Trade Association (OTA) is a national association representing the organic industry in Canada and the United States.

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)--includes a bulletin board for comments on the rules.

"Proposed Rules for Evaluating the Organic Rule," Charles Benbrook and Fred Kirschenman.

The Rule Blues; Strategic Options. Mark Lipson

Comments Needed on Organic Rule, NCAMP, Jay Feldman

Organic Farmers Market Association, Side by Side Comparison