Conscious Choice: Democracy Rules in Organic Food Fight

March 1999

Democracy Rules in Organic Food Fight

by Jim Slama

"If you can’t see me, here is the target." As he held up a red bullseye in front of his chest, USDA employee Keith Jones indicated he was ready to take the flack at the recent Ecological Farming Conference (Eco-Farm) in California. He was there to talk to movers and shakers in the organic movement about the new proposed standards for organic food production. With all the criticism the USDA has received for their recent attempt to regulate organic food, Jones’s courage signalled a turnabout. The agency was ready to work with the organic community.

For fans of democracy, the battle over these organic standards has been a textbook case of citizen advocacy winning over the twin evils of government ineptitude and special interests. Over the past 18 months, organic supporters have contacted the government in numbers rarely ever seen. It’s no wonder Jones felt like a bullseye.

You may remember USDA’s first proposed rule for organic. It stirred international controversy last year by proposing to include food that was genetically engineered, irradiated, or fertilized with sewage sludge to be labeled organic. These came to be known as the "big three," and they symbolized the USDA’s inability to develop a standard that would protect the integrity of the term organic.

Producers and consumers were outraged over the possibility that their cherished organic food might be tainted and responded with a force previously unknown to the USDA. Rallying to the battle cry "Let’s Keep‘Organic’ Organic" 275,000 people sent in comments to the government, nearly all of them highly critical. It was an incredible groundswell of furor directed at the agency, topping the USDA’s previous record number of comments by more than 250,000 letters.

In response to the public’s uproar, the USDA sought out Jones to come to their rescue. Jones had made his name in the organic community as the head of Texas’s organic certification programs, working under the tutelage of then-agriculture commissioner Jim Hightower. While in Texas he helped build one of the largest and most successful state certification programs in the country. With his passion for organic food and background in dealing with bureaucrats, Jones was a good fit to lead the USDA’s National Organic Program.

Little did he know what a job he had ahead of him. The organic community rightfully felt betrayed by the horrendous rule the USDA had put forth. In addition to the big three, there were dozens of other provisions that were completely out of line with the high standards that organic had developed over its history. By proposing such an anomaly, the USDA jeopardized its already tenuous relationship with organic advocates which had begun in 1990 when Congress passed the landmark Organic Food Production Act (OFPA.) This law was developed in part to respond to the many organic producers who went to the government in 1989 to request national standards for organic food production.

A significant component of this act was the creation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). This body was formed to represent the primary stakeholders of the organic movement (farmers, certifiers, consumers, retailers, processors, etc.) in the process of creating and maintaining national organic standards. One of the key provisions of this law gave the NOSB regulatory authority to approve the materials used by organic producers.

Over the course of the 1990s the USDA did little to implement the provisions which were mandated under OFPA. "There was still a mindset within the agency that organic farmers and producers were not grounded in science and not relevant to commercial-scale agriculture," says Bob Scowcroft, Executive Director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation. This mindset is best summed up by former Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz, who was reputed to say, "When you hear the word organic, think starvation."

In the meantime, the demand for organic food skyrocketed. Annual growth during the decade exceeded 20 percent and organic food became a $4 billion industry. "With such rapid development the urgency for a national standard was tremendous," says Katharine DiMatteo, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association. "Yet the agency was moving at a snail’s pace, without much initiative or direction."

In December of 1997 the USDA finally put forth the proposed rule which became such a lightning rod for controversy. "After all the time and effort we invested in the process of developing standards, it was a shock and a surprise to read something that was nearly unrecognizable," says DiMatteo. " It was hard to believe that years of hard work could be unraveled by special interests and government bureaucracy."

Lack of leadership within the USDA was the root of the problem. At the time, the National Organic Program was foundering without a manager. As a result the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA, and other bodies inside and outside of the USDA made mincemeat out of the proposed standard. This was fueled both by a lack of understanding of organic agriculture as well as by special interests who saw an opportunity to insert language beneficial to their industry into the standard.

Many feel that the government inadvertently did the organic movement a big favor by putting forth such a debacle, because it truly unified them into one voice against the USDA. "This process has been a catalytic experience for the organic community," comments Michael Sligh, of the Rural Advancement Fund International and past President of the NOSB." Many elements of the organic movement developed and came of age as a result of the USDA’s poor proposal."

In a matter of a few months, advocates developed a huge grass roots campaign to educate the public about the threat to the integrity of organic food. Consumer groups, retailers, environmentalists, the organic industry, farmers, and other organic advocates all participated. They created flyers, web sites, posters, national advertisements, messages on milk cartons, yogurt lids and telephone bills, and plenty of other innovative ways to educate consumers about the problems with the standards and how to respond to the USDA.

It culminated with the record-setting response from the public and a media vilification of the USDA that was nearly unanimous in its condemnation. As a result, soon after the comment period was over, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman took full responsibility for the agency’s mistake. "If organic farmers and consumers reject our standards, then we have failed," he said. Glickman also made it clear that sewage sludge, genetic engineering, and irradiation would be banned from any future rule and that the USDA would completely rewrite the standard to reflect the concerns of consumers and industry.

As head of the National Organic Program, it became Keith Jones’s job to mend fences with the organic community and rewrite the organic standard. Yet, with the unprecedented public response and intense media criticism of the initial proposal, he is in the unenviable position of having to create a nearly perfect rule to satisfy the USDA’s critics. This was made clear recently when the agency published position papers on three key areas of concern to organic producers. Even though the papers weren’t highly publicized, they received over 10,000 comments — most of which were again highly critical. One can only imagine the outcry if the revised rule doesn’t meet expectations.

Eco-Farm gave Jones and the agency the chance to make serious concessions to the organic community. With over 1,000 farmers, activists, manufacturers, retailers, distributors, journalists and other organic insiders in attendance, the 19-year-old event put on by the Committee for Sustainable Agriculture offered a unique opportunity to reach the right audience. Held at the Assilomar Conference Center on the central coast of California near Carmel, the idyllic setting, organic food, and sunny skies created the right atmosphere for the historic announcements to come.

The USDA jumpstarted the process the week before the conference by announcing that beef, pork, and poultry products could be certified and labeled organic, ending a fifteen year stand-off between the agency and organic livestock producers. It was a huge victory for organic proponents, because the lack of such labeling remained symbolic of the ongoing animosity towards organic within the depths of the USDA. By approving this, it became clear that organic had shifted to a more respectable level within the agency.

The move is expected to create a huge market for meat and dairy products from animals that are fed with organic grains, humanely raised, and hormone and antibiotic free. "Retailers and consumers are already excited about this new opportunity," says George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley, a $37 million organic farmers’ cooperative, that sells dairy products, eggs, meat, and vegetables.

Basking in the glow of favorable press from the meat announcement, Keith Jones kicked off his presentation at the Eco-Farm with other significant shifts. Foremost was the announcement that the NOSB will have complete control of the list of synthetic ingredients allowed in organic food production.

Other than the big three, this issue drew the most response from commenters in the first round. The organic community had always assumed that the NOSB would have control of this list, yet saw this jeopardized in the proposed standard. "When the USDA unilaterally added ingredients it was a breach of the letter and intent of the law," says Robert Anderson, Chair of the NOSB. "By giving this critical oversight back to the organic community, the agency has taken a major step in ensuring that the final standard will be rigorous."

Jones then further tightened up the appeal of organic meat, dairy, and poultry products by promising that the new rule would completely ban antibiotic use in livestock production and require all animals to be fed 100 percent organic feed. In addition, he vowed that the agency would not ban any eco-labels, such as pesticide-free or free-range, from use by food producers.

The USDA is also taking steps, albeit baby ones, to open up its billion dollar research program to programs looking at organic issues. In a keynote address at Eco-Farm, USDA Deputy Secretary, Richard Rominger, emphasized that the agency was committed to organic research and encouraged universities, farmers, and other institutions to apply for grants.

The fact that the number two person at the USDA was at this conference and making such a strong statement concerning organic research was another testament to the shift in attitude at the agency. A 1997 report by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), Searching for the O-Word, indicated that in recent years this commitment has not been present. The study evaluated all research conducted by the agency and found that they devoted less than one-tenth of one percent of their research budget to organic issues.

"We expect that the agency will follow through on Rominger’s edict," says OFRF’s Bob Scowcroft. "Organic farmers deserve their share of America’s agricultural research dollars. Since organic is now one percent of the agricultural economy, at least one percent of the resources in each department’s budget should be allocated towards organic projects. For example, the current annual research budget is $1.5 billion, thus organic should receive $15 million of it."

The USDA has a long way to go. According to Scowcroft, they have only spent $1.5 million on organic research over a five-year period. Yet, he is optimistic for the future. "People at the USDA no longer have to fear for their jobs if they advocate for organic projects. As a result, there are some positive developments in various departments of the agency to support the information needs of organic producers. With continued pressure by organic advocates this trend will continue to grow."

Despite the encouraging announcements from the USDA, there was still a strong undercurrent of distrust towards the agency at Eco-Farm. Much could be attributed to lingering resentments from the first proposed rule. In addition, a few unresolved issues were lurking that have the potential to unravel the process.

Foremost of these is the role that organic certifiers will play under the USDA’s proposal. There are dozens of state and private certifiers who oversee organic food production. The certifiers monitor both farmers and processors to ensure that they stay within a set of guidelines that spell out what organic is. Each certifier currently has its own set of principles by which it assesses a product’s worthiness to receive the organic seal.

Under the Organic Food Production Act, certifiers will be obliged to evaluate products based on the organic standard that is finally put forth by the USDA. Katherine DiMatteo sees one problem with this element of the law. "It has the potential to diminish the systems approach taken by certifiers because of its restrictiveness," she says. "Each farmer has a unique situation that calls for a slightly different approach. Certifiers need to be able to respect that."

Another concern is that certifiers must have the power to promptly decertify a product if evidence indicates that it doesn’t meet the organic standard. "There needs to be a swift and immediate process to make sure such a product is not sold as organic," claims DiMatteo.

For its part, the USDA points out that it doesn’t have the regulatory authority to pull a product from the shelf, even in the case of deadly meat contamination such as E-coli or listeria. Keith Jones goes so far as to claim, "There are significant constitutional questions regarding this issue. We don’t have much wiggle room given the language of the law."

This area could carry considerable political baggage if the USDA fails to meet the needs of certifiers. Congressman Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, recently stated, "If the final standards are not beneficial to the industry, I will not hesitate to offer an amendment to block funding to implement the federal organic program." As an original sponsor of the Organic Food Production Act, DeFazio’s threat to kill the program has to be taken seriously by the USDA.

There are other potential "deal breakers" still up in the air. The fees charged by the USDA to farmers, processors and certifiers to participate in the organic program are also a point of contention. "In the initial rule, small and mid-size organic producers would have been assessed fees that could have driven them out of the organic market," says Roger Blobaum, a long-time organic consultant and activist. "If the USDA repeats this in the future, it will alienate many of the pioneers who made organic what it is today."

To its credit, the issues of fees, enforcement, and certification are now on the docket of the National Organic Standards Board. "This is an example of how things have shifted since Keith Jones took over the organic program," says the NOSB’s Robert Anderson. "They are much more willing to engage in dialogue and work with the organic community to find solutions."

The agency also gets high marks for its use of the world wide web in the rulemaking process. They posted each and every comment received on the initial proposed rule and on the subsequent position papers on the National Organic Program web site. "Electronic democracy opens up anonymous rule makers to accountability," says OFRF’s Bob Scowcroft. "This was a historic use of the web for democracy and sets a great precedent for other issues affecting the public interest."

This fact was emphasized by Deputy Secretary Rominger at Eco-Farm when he said, "To my knowledge, this has been the most open and public debate ever entered into by the department. And it has been a milestone for using cyberspace as a public forum. You can call it what you will: lengthy, exhausting, comprehensive, but the process has been eminently democratic."

In the end, democracy may be the ultimate victor in the battle for organic standards. With 275,000 voices loudly making themselves heard, the prospects for a standard that truly represents the integrity of organic food looks surprisingly bright.

Resources

Campaign to Keep "Organic" Organic

Committee for Sustainable Agriculture, 831-763-2111

National Organic Program

Organic Farming Research Foundation, 408-426-6606

Organic Trade Association

Pure Food Campaign

Rural Advancement Foundation International

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: