Organic Agriculture: Congress Weakens Organic Standards

---

Author and journalist Ken Roseboro has written extensively about genetically modified foods, GMO testing, non-GMO certification, and identity preservation. His articles have appeared in leading organic agricultural industry magazines, such as Acres USA. Ken is publisher and editor of The Non-GMO Report, a monthly newsletter providing Non-GMO news and views.

These articles stem from the attempt by one poultry producer to get around the organic feed requirement in the Organic Standards Act. If successful, it would have been the thin edge of the wedge for many similar incursions by the food industry. This would put the entire organic agriculture and non-GMO movement at risk by gutting the Organic Standards Act.

These events are a symptom of the strong anti-environmental, pro-GMO attitude prevalent in Washington. As an example, when the Organic Standards Act was being drafted, pro-GMO lobbyists tried hard to have GMO food admitted as organic.

GE labelling is another example (there isn't any). The end result of all the lobbying is that the burden is on consumers to know what's GMO and what's not. For instance, packaged food with some organic ingredients has the organic ingredients listed, but doesn't list ingredients that are GMO.

Big corporations have a lot of money at stake, and they won't just go away, especially now that they have a sympathetic administration. If we want the organic movement to continue growing strong, we need to be alert to anti-organic, pro-GMO efforts, and fight back. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending, but that wasn't luck; that was a lot of people yelling loud and long.

---

Article: Congress Weakens Organic Standards:

U.S. Congress recently passed a $397 billion spending bill that contains a buried provision, which jeopardizes the new U.S. organic standards. The provision, which was slipped into the bill at the last minute without debate, would permit livestock producers to certify meat and dairy products as organic even if the animals had been fed non-organic or genetically engineered grain. The provision would override the National Organic Program's requirement that 100 percent organic feed be used to produce organic meat products.

In a classic example of backroom political maneuvering, Georgia Republican Congressman Nathan Deal slipped a provision into a 3,000-page congressional spending bill that would override the requirement for organic feed. The last-minute, one-sentence provision attempted to gut twelve years of work to develop standards that were supported by the entire organic industry. Deal acted on behalf of his campaign supporter Fieldale Farms, Corp., a Georgia poultry producer that has lobbied to get the exemption for non-organic feed, claiming that not enough organic feed is available. However, if Tyson Foods, which is one of the world s largest poultry producers, can source organic feed, why can't Fieldale Farms?

The organic industry was furious The Organic Trade Association is outraged to see such underhanded methods used by those unwilling to play by the rules. This is an example of someone doing an end-run to manipulate the government, with disregard for the public's wishes, said Katherine DiMatteo, OTA executive director.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, who sponsored legislation in 1990 that established the National Organic Program, also called the provision an outrage and said he would introduce legislation to repeal it.

Fieldale Farms reprehensible action along with its government support demonstrates how corporate interests threaten the integrity of organic foods. Please contact your elected representatives and ask them to repeal Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that focuses on organic feed (Editor: Or any other legislative initiative you don't like):
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov

---

Momentum Builds To Repeal Controversial Organic Feed Rule

By Ken Roseboro

Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley joined a bipartisan group of 51 Senators co-sponsoring legislation to repeal a controversial provision in a spending bill that would allow livestock producers to label meat and dairy products as organic if the animals had been raised on non-organic feed. The Organic Restoration Act (S. 457), introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), would repeal Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which undermines the national organic standards.

Momentum is building to repeal the so-called Fieldale Loophole, named after Fieldale Farms, the Georgia poultry producer that lobbied for an exemption to the organic feed rule. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman expressed concerns about weakening the organic standards. It is important to maintain a strong organic program that ensures the integrity of the organic label placed on consumer products, she said.

Veneman expressed support for bipartisan efforts to repeal Section 771. The Leahy-Snow bill has ] attracted strong support in the Senate with 16 Republicans, including Grassley, saying they will back the legislation. Major food companies such as Tyson Foods and JM Smucker Company also support the Leahy-Snow bill. Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives and has attracted 33 co-sponsors so far.

Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal's clandestine attempt to gut the organic feed requirement created a furor. Newspaper editorials nationwide denounced Deal's action along with Fieldale Farms's self-serving attempt to rewrite the national organic rules. The St. Petersburg Times described Deal's action as a sleazy political favor. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette described it as a chicken end run. The Atlanta Journal Constitution said, Deal's exemption is a bad idea that ought to be repealed. Such bait-and-switch tactics don't belong in America's supermarkets or, for that matter, in the halls of Congress.

Ask your Congressman to co-sponsor Sam Farr's legislation in the House of Representatives. (Editor: Or any other legislative initiative you like):
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov

Organic industry aims to repeal controversial organic feed rule: USDA surveys show organic feed is available in sufficient quantities. The U.S. organic industry has launched a concerted effort to repeal a controversial rider in a congressional spending bill that would allow livestock producers to label meat and dairy products as organic if the animals had been raised on non-organic feed.

Legislation to repeal rider: Sixty-five U.S. Senators and 64 members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored legislation that would repeal Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which undermines the national organic standard on feed. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced The Organic Restoration Act (S. 457) in the Senate, while Congressmen Sam Farr (D-CA) and Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced similar legislation (HR. 955) in the House of Representatives.

Momentum is building to repeal the rider, which was introduced by Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal on behalf of Fieldale Farms, a Georgia poultry producer that has lobbied for an exemption to the organic feed rule. Deal slipped the rider into the spending bill without debate, causing a furor among organic proponents who claim the action guts 12 years of work to develop the standards. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman expressed concerns about weakening the organic standards and support for bipartisan efforts to repeal Section 771. Organic farmers and manufacturers as well as major food companies such as Tyson Foods and JM Smucker Company also support efforts to uphold the organic standards.

Support in House more difficult: Organic Trade Association executive director Katherine DiMatteo says building support in the House of Representatives to repeal the rider has been challenging. In the House, there is a sense that the rider is only temporary, or they want to wait until the USDA report (on feed availability) comes out, she says. It s been much harder to get movement there, but we are keeping up the pressure. Both Senate and House bills must be approved to repeal the rider. It is not yet clear when the two congressional bodies will vote on the bills because legislation must be attached to another spending bill, which may not be introduced for several months.

Organic feed still required: While repealing the rider is challenging, implementing it is not easy either. First there is a time limit. Because the rider is attached to a spending bill, it only applies to the time period associated with the bill, which is until September 30, 2003 when the next appropriations bill is scheduled. According to Jim Riddle, an organic consultant and member of the National Organic Standards Board, a key point is that the rider does not allow livestock producers to use non-organic feed. It does not amend OFPA (Organic Foods Production Act) or change the National Organic Standards. One hundred percent organic feed is still required, says Riddle. The rider simply prohibits the U.S. Department of Agriculture from spending funds to enforce the organic feed requirement.

Surveys find organic feed is available: The rider takes effect only if a USDA study finds that organic feed is not available in sufficient quantities and costs twice as much as conventional feed. Commercial availability was Fieldale Farms main bone of contention. According to Terry Hollifield, executive director of the Georgia Crop Improvement Association, Fieldale could not source adequate quantities. I know for a fact that Fieldale signed contracts with the largest supplier of organic feed and the supplier couldn t deliver, says Hollifield. I don t believe there is an adequate supply of organic feed.

Mary-Howell Martens, who along with her husband Klaas produces organic grains in New York state, disputes Fieldale s claims. We know of several suppliers who offered to supply Fieldale with all the grain they needed, but Fieldale wanted to get it for conventional prices, she says.

Organic agriculture experts conducting the USDA studies also dispute the lack of availability. There's a lot of feed out there and it s not double the price of conventional feed, says Joanna Green, senior extension associate at Cornell University, who was contracted by the USDA to determine the availability of organic feed in the Northeast region. Green s survey found that 75 farms produced 6,453 acres or 392,451 bushels of organic feed crops, specifically corn, soybeans, oats, wheat, and other feed crops. The survey also showed that three out of four organic feed grains suppliers report that they have not experienced any significant problems in meeting the demand for organic grains for livestock feed in the past two years. Three out of four also do not anticipate any problems in meeting the demand for 2003-2004. Green also found that organic feed acreage will increase 44 percent in 2004 to 9,309 acres.

Kathleen Delate, organic crop specialist at Iowa State University, surveyed farmers and grain buyers in the Midwest, which produces the most organic grains in the U.S. The survey found that acreage contracted for organic corn and soybeans in 2001 ranged between 79,550 and 135,750. From these acres, there was between 2.0 and 3.5 million bushels of corn and 1.58 and 2.7 million bushels of soybeans available from grain buyers in 2002. In addition, buyers also could supply 1.45 million bushels of wheat, 1.42 million bushels of organic amaranth, and one-half million bushels of organic barley.

Larry Rayhons, president, Integrity Certified International, an Iowa-based organic certifier, says location is important. If you are a giant consumer of organic feed located hundreds of miles from the corn and soybean belt, you may make an argument that supply is short, he says. However, if you are in the middle of the corn and soybean belt it would be hard to convince anyone that there is insufficient supplies.

Dick Krengel, a consultant with Petaluma Poultry Processors, a California-based producer of organic poultry also says availability is not a problem. We don t have a problem (sourcing organic feed), he says. When you calculate the acreage and yields it's available.

Main point: According to DiMatteo discussions about availability and price of organic feed are secondary to a bigger problem. These issues are beside the point, she says. The fact of the matter is that after 12 years of public comment and process, the organic rules shouldn't be rewritten through the legislative process. DiMatteo says a repeal of the rider is necessary to avoid future attempts to weaken the organic standards. A repeal would be the strongest message we could send, she says. Otherwise, says DiMatteo, the credibility of the organic industry is shot to hell.

---

Congress Repeals Controversial Organic Feed Exemption

By Ken Roseboro

US Congress repealed a controversial rider passed in February that would have severely weakened the organic standard requiring that animals raised to produce organic meat, poultry, and dairy products be raised on organic feed. The Supplemental Appropriations Bill approved in April by both the House of Representatives and Senate included an amendment repealing the rider. The quick action to repeal the rider came as a result of a major push by key senators and representatives supportive of organic agriculture and practices, as well as the Organic Trade Association, its members, associated groups, and consumers.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), backed by 51 Senate co-sponsors, introduced the repeal amendment. The swift and strong groundswell of opposition to that rider has been an eye-opener for many in Washington, says Leahy. This fight to keep the standards strong is another watershed moment for organic agriculture. Congress has done the right thing to repeal Section 771. The organic industry and consumers can breathe a sigh of relief and rejoice that this issue has been put to bed in a timely fashion, said Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, the business association for the North American organic industry.

In February, Representative Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) added the rider to Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 that would have allowed livestock producers to use non-organic feed if the US Department of Agriculture determined that insufficient supplies of organic feed were available. Deal acted on behalf of Fieldale Farms, a Georgia poultry producer that has lobbied for an exemption to the organic feed rule.

---

Articles and Reviews on Related Topics:

Ecological Organic Agriculture EPA's Dirty Air Agreement Farmers Backs Against The Wall Over GMO Food Revolution Review Got Local Organic Milk? Mad Cow Disease In The US Organic Consumers Association Rat Babies Died - Mothers Ate GE Soy, Jeffrey M. Smith State of the Eco-Union, Joel Salatin

---

---

---