As reported in Food Bytes #6 (Jan. 20, 1998) most public interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the U.S. have supposedly already gone on record as supporting a complete withdrawal of the USDA's proposed rules. On Jan. 15-16 the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture (NCSA), composed of 38 leading NGOs concerned about the rules, met in a closed-door session in Washington where consensus was reached that the rules needed to be completely withdrawn; that if necessary the battle needed to be extended to Congress to kill the rules - if the USDA refused to withdraw them; and that, as a final fall-back plan, an alternative non-governmental system of certification and labeling needed to be developed as soon as possible.

Unfortunately Food Bytes has learned this week that some NCSA groups and a number of influential "inside the Beltway" players are apparently starting to back-off from the demand for complete withdrawal. These "backsliders" are arguing that the USDA has changed their attitude, as evidenced by more conciliatory rhetoric coming from USDA Secretary Glickman and the appointment of the new National Organic Program Manager, Keith Jones. The "backsliders" argue further that the final rules will not incorporate the "big three" (biotech, sludge, and irradiation) and will generally be rules that we "can live with." Finally they argue that, if worse comes to worst, and the USDA issues unacceptable final regulations, liberal Democrats, such as Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont, will ride in on a white horse and make everything O.K.

Without naming the names of these "backsliders" for the moment, Food Bytes and the Save Organic Standards movement urges every consumer, organic farmer, and retailer in the country to be vigilant. Make certain that no "backroom" deals or "inside the Beltway" compromises are made in your name.

The USDA rules must be withdrawn, or else killed, period. Every NGO, natural food business, certification organization, and organic farmers group in the country needs to hear from the grassroots. Each of these groups, if they haven't already done so, needs to state their position on withdrawal in clear and unequivocal terms. And of course it is equally important for IFOAM and other international NGOs such as Greenpeace to clearly state their position on withdrawal as well.

With public disgust and anger over the scores of irregularities, illegalities, and downright totalitarianism contained in the USDA's standards, the strategic political question becomes: How can consumers and the global organic food movement force the USDA to completely withdraw these rules? How can public pressure 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 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 30.

But what if, in spite of receiving an anticipated record-breaking 50,000-100,000 official public comment letters, the USDA still refuses to withdraw the rules?

The Clinton administration and the USDA's public relations operatives are masters at manipulating public opinion and the media. We should anticipate that the USDA will very likely postpone the implementation of some of the most outrageous of its proposals so as to divide and conquer its consumer and natural food industry critics. It will likely put off for the moment completely giving the green light to genetically engineered foods (while nonetheless leaving the door open to the gene engineers by giving the O.K. to gene-altered enzymes such as chymosin, a cheese rennet, and Bt insecticide sprays produced through genetic manipulation); toxic sludge, and food irradiation.

But the final rules issued by the USDA in 1998 will undoubtedly allow all the other things that agribusiness needs to stage a hostile takeover of the natural food industry: intensive confinement of farm animals; factory farm-style production methods; toxic inerts in pesticides; use of antibiotics; use of non-organic feed; use of rendered animal protein (animal cannibalism); use of an expanded list of synthetic ingredients; elimination of small certifiers, farmers, and processors, and so on.

This type of compromise will pose a major threat to the resolve of our growing pro-organic coalition. What if some of the less reputable private certification groups, members of the Organic Trade Association, or giant companies like Whole Foods, Heinz (Nature's Best baby foods), and Cascadian Farm fall into the USDA's trap? What if some of the more naive and trusting in our ranks proclaim that minor USDA modifications are sufficient, that the USDA has begun to operate in good faith. What if others panic or lose hope and argue that we don't have any other practical choice other than to accept a set of compromised rules? What if even the National Organic Standards Board fails to achieve unanimous consensus at its upcoming meeting in mid-March at the Natural Products Expo in California to call for a total withdrawal of the proposed rules?

No matter what other minor compromises the Clinton administration are willing to make, we can be certain that the USDA's forthcoming final rules - unless they are withdrawn or killed--will contain the sugar-coated "poison pills" that agribusiness requires and fully expects the American natural food industry to swallow. Poison pill number one, the final rules will make it a crime for private organic certifiers to uphold standards stricter than the USDA's. Poison pill number two, the final rules will be worded so as to weaken and

Within 18 months from today we can expect to see bogus, relatively inexpensive, organic food bearing the USDA label flooding the nation's supermarkets. Small and medium-sized farmers, processors, and retailers who refuse to lower their standards will face unfair economic competition. Many if not most can gradually be expected to be driven out of business by the new green giants of Organic Inc.

More information:

email: alliance@mr.net

WWW: Purefood Homepage