On the Corner of Growth and Integrity

By Barth Anderson

"Behind closed doors and without a single debate, the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was amended at the behest of large food processors without the benefit of the organic community reaching a compromise. To rush provisions into the law that have not been properly vetted, that fail to close loopholes, and that do not reflect a consensus, only undermines the integrity of the National Organic Program." - Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Nov. 3, 2005

In response to pressure from the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and large-scale food manufacturers who sought to maintain the organic industry's 20% annual growth, Congress voted in October to address inconsistencies in the nation's organic food standards. The move touched off a firestorm in the organic community.

Some say OTA's legislation actually weakened the standards, while others say the industry as a whole is better off. But with long-time allies hurling venomous epithets and accusations at one another, there's little disagreement that the organic industry has never been more divided.

How did this firestorm start? Why would the OTA ask Congress to change the guiding law in organics - OFPA? Why would 350,000 organic consumers resist OTA and ask Congress not to change it?

First, a little history.

Memories...

In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods and Production Act (OFPA). This legislation was intended to compel the organic community to create a set of standards that the USDA could enforce.

Along with OFPA, Congress also created a group called the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). This board worked on every aspect of national organic standards and notably, created a list of allowable ingredients that could be used in organic farming and food manufacturing. They also created rules for what feed could be fed to organic livestock and how conventional dairy cattle could be converted into organic production.

A great deal of wrangling ensued over the next 12 years, so there was an overwhelming feeling of accomplishment and victory, when, in 2002, the standards were completed and the USDA organic rule finally went into effect.

But there was a sense of disillusionment among some in the organic community, as well - especially by a certain, angry blueberry grower.

Blindsided

As soon as the organic rule was passed, a certified organic blueberry farmer from Maine named Arthur Harvey filed a lawsuit against the USDA. On behalf of many small organic producers, Harvey contended that the USDA organic rule did not match up with OFPA - that is, the USDA's standards by definition weren't "organic."

The judge agreed with the organic blueberry farmer.

Because OFPA defined "organic" as agricultural products grown without synthetic chemicals, the list of allowable substances and food processing aids that had taken the NOSB 10 years and great consensus to create was immediately thrown out the window by the court.

Also, key allowances were struck down. Allowing up to 20-percent conventional feed in the first nine months of a dairy herd's conversion to organic was no longer permitted, and the court struck down allowances for feeding "conventional" grain grown on a converting farm to its cattle transiting to organic production.

In short, this was a big upheaval. The Harvey decision would make it harder for conventional dairy farmers to "go organic," it would take longer for them to earn the organic premium price, and most notably, it would be more difficult for large-scale manufacturers to create organic product and label it as "organic."

The So-called "Status Quo"

The lion's share of the industry agreed that Harvey v. Veneman was a stricter-than-necessary interpretation of the organic rule. International standards far stricter and more reputable than the USDA's, IFOAM's for example, have always allowed for some harmless synthetic ingredients and processing aids, after all.

So under court order, the organic industry had to decide how to repair the problems that Harvey pointed out. The most obvious path was to work within the process and have the NOSB slowly bring the standards into line with the Harvey decision through painstaking and incremental changes. This would take several years, at least.

The other option was more drastic, but quicker and easier, and in September 2005, the Organic Trade Association put forth legislation in Congress that would fix the problems by going in and changing the rules on which the USDA standards were based.

On the face of it, this made sense. Rather than taking years to re-approve substances that had already been approved and rewriting small snatches of policy to repair the dairy standards, why not simply go in and rewrite the "base code" of the law, the Organic Foods Production Act, and make that consistent with the standards as they existed before the Harvey ruling.

This is what the Organic Trade Association claims its intentions were. They say their legislation was intended to "return OFPA to the status quo," as it existed before Harvey v. Veneman, when the industry agreed on certain allowable synthetics and more lenient dairy feed and conversion rules.

The organic rule had worked for the organic industry for two and a half years, right? Who could disagree with a return to status quo?

The So-called "Sneak Attack"

Many, many people disagreed that this was a return to status quo.

According to Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst at the Consumers Union, Ronnie Cummins, the director of the Organic Consumers Association, Robynn Schrader, Director of Marketing and Communications for the National Cooperative Grocers Association, and Jim Riddle, current Chair of the NOSB, OTA's legislation would actually undermine the standards as they had existed back in 2002.

This is a crew of serious skeptics. For example, by nearly all accounts in the organic industry, Jim Riddle is perhaps the country's leading organic policy expert. According to Riddle, OTA's legislation opened loopholes that could:

• Fast track currently unapproved synthetic substances into use with organic food manufacturing.
• Allow synthetic hormones in organic dairy production.
• Allow the use of conventional feed in organic dairy production.

Apparently this group and others tried to persuade the Organic Trade Association to compromise on its position. But OTA refused to bargain, insisting instead that Riddle was wrong and no damage was being done to the standards. Indeed, the National Co-op Grocers Association, which helped build the very brands who were now seeking changes in the rule, were slammed by big manufacturers and other corporate-come-latelies to the organic game for questioning the legislation's motives.

In response to OTA, the Organic Consumers Association rallied an outcry, so sudden and massive that no senator was willing to put his or her name on the proposed legislation. Over the next month, over 350,000 letters were written in favor of keeping organic standards strong, and not returning OFPA to OTA's version of "status quo" without a legitimate public comment period.

The first round went to the skeptics, as senators put "placeholder language" in place of the OTA's legislation, and asked for a 90-day study on Harvey v. Veneman's impact on the organic industry. They recognized that there was vast disagreement in the organic community over the need for this legislation.

But ninety days was wishful thinking. A few weeks later, language representing OTA's point of view was inserted into the bill, literally behind closed doors. OTA's proposal probably went through - despite editorials nationwide, from newspapers like the New York Times, and a third of a million negative letters voiced on a type of bill that usually receives absolutely no protest from voters.

The End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

The question that the organic industry has always been faced with is, "How do I know it's really organic?"

OTA's rule changes highlight what has been true for years: If you purchase processed or manufactured foods of any kind, you're eating synthetic processing aids. Most of these aids are completely and utterly benign, they break down quickly in your body or in the environment, and they have almost zero health impact. Hydrogen peroxide for cleaning? It's far better than bleach, and would you really want to eat processed food that was made without proper sanitization? Does baking soda bother you? Xanthum gum? We're not talking about harsh chemical pesticides, we're talking about largely innocuous substances.

In the future, however, such substances may not be so innocuous, since it will become easier for the USDA to approve them for processing. And that's the dangerous terrain that OTA has entered. These changes cast a shadow of doubt on the organic label now, and they presume that the NOSB will always be made up of members who have the best interests of the organic consumer in mind. Furthermore, which manufacturers will use the new substances? For that matter, which organic milk producers will take advantage of the new dairy loopholes, and fast-track conventional cattle into dairy production? These are troubling questions.

If we can't be sure who is taking advantage of the rule changes, then it's best to buy from the farmers and producers who benefit most from strict rules and integrity: The ones we know personally. So, ironically, these rule changes may put a new emphasis on concepts that have gotten lost in the organic industry in recent years: local production and whole, 100% organic foods.

Look for Part 2 next issue: Organics at the Crossroads: On the Corner of Big Organics and Local Food