|
Free SV Reports!Testimonials"I gotta say again how much I love your website. It makes this new path so much easier and fun..." "Wow, thank you so much for your input, it was very thorough and more than I expected. You rock! :)" "I see you are passionate about this, that is why I know I came to the right person for advice." "Thanks for the great advice Judy! You're a life-saver!" "Thank you for the reports and encouragement ...all very much appreciated!" "I saw lots of vegetarian sites, and yours was one of the best." |
Organic Agriculture Standards Legislation, Part 3Previous: Congress Weakens Organic Standards Organic Industry Efforts to Repeal Controversial Organic Feed LegislationBy Ken Roseboro, editor and publisher, The Non-GMO ReportThe 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. USDA surveys show organic feed is available in sufficient quantities. 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. 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 ExemptionBy Ken RoseboroUS 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. Previous: Congress Weakens Organic Standards Articles and Reviews on Related Topics:"Ecological Organic Agriculture", by Francis Thicke: Farmers Backs Against The Wall Over GMO Organic Food; What Is It, And Why Should We Eat It? Rat Babies Died - Mothers Ate GE Soy, by Jeffrey M. Smith State of the Eco-Union, Joel Salatin Send a link, resource, book, recipe etc. to Savvy Veg |
What's New?Veg RecipesVeg Blogs:Veg Advice:Veg Articles: |
