Page Title

[Here is an edited version of the Acres USA panel of December
9, 2005, 2 PM, at Indianapolis. The complete CD is available
from AcresUSA.com; click on Audio Tapes, then 2005
Conference. Here, a few passages have been expanded to
more fully explain something, while many passages have been
shortened to eliminate duplication or lengthy discussions about
dairy cows. ---A.H.]

Cissy Bowman:   Welcome to Indiana.   Fred Walters called me six months ago, said AcresUSA
was coming here again, and asked if I would give a presentation. That was right after the
Harvey lawsuit had been settled, we had a Federal Register notice coming out. I jokingly said to
Fred, "So you want to sue the USDA?" ---and he put it in the program!
When I realized what has happened in the aftermath, I said "I gotta have help." So I am thankful
to my team here who can tell you a lot more than I can. It's interesting what can happen when
you sue the USDSA. You might win. As they say, instant karma is gonna get you, and I think it's
come back and bit us. So we're going to talk about what has happened since the court decision,
the impact on organic regulations, and the impact on organic inspections.   All this has not been
told to farmers much. People have talked about it---industry, certifiers, government people, but
not to farmers. So I'm happy we're doing it. We'll start with the man who sued the USDA; then
Jim Riddle who just completed his term on the National Organic Standards Board, and finally
Margaret Scoles from the Independent Organic Inspectors Association.

Arthur Harvey:
The announced topic is, "So you want to sue the USDA?"   Well, if you do, you probably will give
up the idea as soon as you talk to a lawyer about how much it would cost. So I won't pursue that
any more here, although there might be one or two people in this room who are capable of
developing the qualifications for such an activity. If so, I would love to talk with them privately
later.

I speak today representing no group, but hopefully common sense. The leaders of most organic
organizations will not agree with me, at least not yet. I am convinced, though, that the majority
of organic farmers, plus nearly all organic consumers, will support what I propose. That is why
Congress, in 1990, approved the Organic Foods Production Act. Consumers and farmers were
united, and the input of manufacturers was minor. Now, however, things are different, and the
manufacturers are asserting their new-found power through the Organic Trade Association (of
which I am a member, incidentally).

Farmers and consumers, at this time, need to re-assert their role, and not simply leave it to the
manufacturers.A couple of weeks ago, an article by Grace Gershuny began to circulate on the
internet. If you don't know who she is, her article explains it. I have copies here on the table,
and my rebuttal is attached to it. This handout will give you a good overview, or at least an
introduction, to issues which are current in the organic movement today.

When I began inspecting organic farms, or more exactly when I began to pay attention at
meetings of the inspector's association, I noticed something strange. People were saying the
meaning of organic is not product-based, but process-based or system-based. Until I became a
farmer around 1976, I thought organic meant chemical-free foods, safer to eat, without chemical
residues, and maybe better tasting and more nourishing. When I started growing crops of
blueberries and apples, I saw another benefit from not exposing myself to poisons in the field.

In a general sense, soil and envioronmental health are also part of organic, although I think we
tend to exaggerate the benefits. For example, some organic soymilk is made from soybeans
grown in China. Regional governments in China act as consolidators and contractors for a
multitude of small growers. They also cut down ancient forests to get unpolluted land for their
organic exports. Whether it is Chinese soy or California salad greens doused in chlorine and sold
in Maine, we can too easily assume enviornmental progress which is not really there. But I
digress.

My love for organics is shared by millions of consumers at the first level, which is food safety. But
now, USDA which controls the organic rules, stoutly insists that the environment needs no
protection beyond what EPA provides, and consumers need no protection beyond what the Food
& Drug Administration and HHS provide. USDA has an organic seal for food merely to satisfy a
niche market of people willing to pay higher prices.

As most of you have heard, the Court of Appeals agreed with me that synthetic ingredients are
unlawful in organic manufacturing because the law passed by Congress in 1990 banned
synthetics added to foods after harvest. More recently, the Organic Trade Association succeeded
in amending the law to remove 2 out 3 such prohibitions in the law. Whether that accomplished
OTA's goal is anybody's guess.

This is not an issue of small versus large operations, nor traditional versus newer companies. The
largest organic handler in my state of Maine supports the project to repeal the OTA amendment
(also called a rider). He is Paul Chartrand, of Chartrand Imports, an original OTA member, who
at one time resisted the "made with organic" label. This is largely what OTA is afraid of, since
synthetics are allowed in "made with organic" products that cannot carry the USDA seal.
Chartrand now believes consumers are better served by having a choice between "organic"
wine with no added sulfites, and wine "made with organic grapes" containing added sulfites up to
100 parts per million.

No, this is not a struggle between large and small; not a struggle between old-time purists and
modern entrepreneurs. It is between consumers and manufacturers. All manufacturers,
including me, have a financial interest in being able to use as many synthetics as possible, because
they are cheaper, more available, and less variable than the natural alternatives.

On the other hand, consumers expect organic foods to be all natural and 95% organic.   I have
resolved this conflict in my own business in favor of my consumer interest. So have many other
manufacturers. But a few of them, with deep pockets, reached down and financed a
well-connected lobbyist who reached the acting majority leader in the House of
Representatives---and Poof!, an amendment to the organic law, designed by OTA, became law.
Like that other amendment of ill fame, the Fieldale Farms allowance for conventional feed to
organic chickens, this OTA allowance for synthetic ingredients should be repealed.

There is, however, one fly in the USDA ointment, and the ointment of all those who say organic is
not about the product. Congress approved the organic law in 1990 based on the severe
restriction and eventual elimination of synthetic inputs in farming, plus an immediate ban against
synthetics added to food after harvest. That law begins its section on Standards by saying:
(Section 6504) "To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this
chapter, an agricultural product shall 1) have been produced and handled without the use of
synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided in this chapter;"

That is the practical, philosophical and legal foundation of the organic law. No one has come up
with an alternative foundation, without resorting to undefinable concepts like "wholistic",
"ecological" and "earth-friendly".   These are wonderful ideas, but they cannot give precise
guidance to a government agency with responsibility to create binding regulations. On the other
hand, the banning of synthetics in manufacturing is a clear guideline that cannot be distorted by
industry lobbyists---as the Court of Appeals has shown us.

Even after the crippling amendments fashioned by OTA, the organic law is still barely alive
because you cannot completely kill a well-designed law by ripping out one or two sections. But it
is no longer logically consistent, and could be twisted even more grotesquely by industry if they
can control USDA. So the question arises----has power over the future of organics passed totally
to the manufacturers? On the surface, it would appear that way, since 300,000 protest
messages failed to sway Congress to reject the OTA rider.

Just as shocking, in my view, were the compromise proposals from Washington-based NGO's,
who wanted to head off the OTA by conceding the main OTA demand---to legalize synthetic
ingredients--- in a different form. The one shining exception to the weak response of national
organizations, was Consumers Union which fully supports OFPA as originally passed by Congress.
Since CU is potentially more influential than the other NGO's, there is a basis for hope. But it is
discouraging that so few organic organizations can identify fully with the consumer viewpoint.

Even though the method of amending OFPA was bizarre, that is not the fundamental issue. The
exact changes are the real issue---especially the legalization of synthetic ingredients.

Repealing the OTA rider will not happen through massive email blizzards. It will require
old-fashioned legwork and education of hundreds of members of Congress. They will respond to
their own constituents back home. Very few Congresspeople know what was in that
appropriations bill. If and when they are fully informed and asked to repeal the OTA rider, most
of them will agree.

This is not a party issue. Although there are more Democrats on the organic caucus than
Republicans, and although I am a life-long Democrat and delegate to the state convention----I
have to say that the OTA rider could not have survived unchallenged in the conference report,
except that Democrats signed off on the report without knowing what was in it. That is how
deals are done in Congress. So we must not look at this as a party issue, or wait until the
November elections to push it.    Of course, if repeal does not happen in the next six months, then
it will become an election issue in some states, where there is enough public outcry.   Jim can take
it from here.

Jim Riddle:
I've known Arthur for quite a few years, and that's the first time he finished before I expected
him to.
I asked this morning if my term on the National Organic Standards Board runs through January,
or whether because of the new appointments, I'm done. Guess what---I'm done. [Laughter]
So that was nice to hear. I've been chair of the board for just this past year, but now I have a
sense of freedom I didn't have when I woke up this morning.

This was an interesting title, "So You want to sue the USDA?", and not one I've ever addressed
before. To answer that question---Be careful what you ask for because you might get it, and you
might unleash some sleeping demons.   Is your action best for the earth? Organic is an ecological
production standard. It's all about care of the earth, protection of the environment, soil and
water resources, sound livestock health, etc. You really have to think that through, and whether
or not it's the best thing for organic consumers. Will it help to portray truthfully the organic claim
to consumers?   And then, do you have the support---have you gone through an inclusive thouht
provoking process to build that support. If you're going to sue, is that action srategic; is it the
right time to do it, would there be a better time as part of a larger strategy?

There were some recent changes to the organic law. As Arthur pointed out, the original law
prohibited synthetic substances in the organic labeling category. That's the way the law was
written. It was ignored, by almost all of us, and I have been part of that, helping to write rules,
been through hearings, we've reviewed synthetic substances, and placed them on the National
List. There's 38 synthetic substances allowed in handling, in the processing of organic foods,
which is a very small list compared with the thousands of syntheticsw that are allowed in
conventional food processing. So you do need to keep that in perspectiove. You also ned to keep
in perspective that every other organic standard in the world---IFOAM standard, Codex,
Esuropean Unio, Japan, Canadian proposed standards---all of them allow some limited list of
synthetic substances used in the processing of organic foods.

The odd man out, so to speak, was the original US law.   The Organic Foods Production Act was
written to prohibit synthetics. And so when the court ruled that Arthur was right about synthetics
in the organic category, that created a huge panic , especially in the multi-ingredient,
multi-national corporations that have invested heavily. George Siemon showed a slide last night
that showed kind of a spider-web of all the corporations and a few big dots showing all of these
brands, Cascadian Farms is really General Mills now, these companies want to use the organic
claim ; they don't want to go down to the "made with" category, and they want to be able to use
the USDA Organic seal. And they felt very threatened, economically, by this change in the rules.

And so , those corporations formed what they themselves called the pay-to-play group---you
pay, you play. You pay the money for these lobbyists, thousands of dollars an hour, this is the
wife of the acting majority leader Roy Blunt from Missouir, his wife was one of the lobbyists
working on this. These people don't come cheap. It took money from Smuckers, Dean Foods,
Kraft, Altria, Stonyfield, Organic Valley, to drive this. They formed the pay-to-play group; they
were really the ones calling the shots on the conference calls. It happened that OTA's name was
used, but even the Executive Director of OTA hadn't seen compromise language that had been
shared with the pay-to-play people.   There has to be truth, accountability about how this
happened.

Also, the language to change the law was developed in secret. There were meetings ever since
the court ruled---in April and May, amongst OTA, their lobbyist and lawyer, and public interest
representatives, to try to come up with a unified strategy. We looked hard at how the rule could
be changed to accomodate and minimize the impacts on the entire organic sector , from these
changes, from the court ruling. Public interest groups were taking the lead on the regulatory
side of it. The OTA lawyer was supposed to take the lead on any proposed language to change
OFPA.

Nothing was ever put on the table. There was no inclusive, open discussion of changing the law,
until it was actually introduced to members of Congress, and then it saw the light of day.   The
public interest groups started reacting to that, but it was already a train on the tracks .
Attempts to reach compromise language were rebuffed because they weren't part of the
winning strategy of using the Republican majority .   It was an appropriations bill which should not
have had policy language, but these days in Congress that's how these things happen. The
conference committee met, Republican and Democrats, didn't discuss this organic rider, and they
adjourned. The Republican majority slipped the language in. There is no author on it, so there's
no accountability, there's no legislative history becuase there was no debate, which is I think a
weakness in the law itself.

It's very disturbing that the law was changed without an inclusive process. (The conference
report is not open to amendment after it comes back having been signed off in committee.) I
would like to read a quote from Sen. Tom Harkin: "These changes have not strengthened or
improved OFPA in any way.   They have only retained the allowance for synthetics that previously
existed in the regulation, added a potential loophole for non-organic ingredients, added
ambiguity on the issue of processing aids, removed authority from the NOSB ." Numerous other
traditional allies of the organic movement in Congress were not allowed to be engaged in this
process.

Now to the content of the pay-to-play amendment. There were three changes in OFPA.
Formerly , dairy farmers could transitiion to organic by feeding up to 20% conventional feed for
9 months followed by 100% organic feed for thye final 3 months. The court ruled, based on
Arthur's objections, that that was not legal. There was broad support for changing the Act so
it's three years with no prohibited substances for the land, and during that third year you can
feed that to your animals so that by the end of that you can be selling milk as organic. It's a very
reasonable change to the law in my opinion.

Next is synthetics in organic food, and that's what really is the driver. The dairy transition was
kind of tied on to bring in some farmer support to this effort, but the panic was over this "no
synthetics". Big investments, big brand names, big players. And even big name lobbyists. Well,
Arthur and I have both pointed out how OFPA was written to prohibit synthetic ingredients and
procesing aids in the organic category, which has to be 95% organic content, period. It's that
little 5% we're arguing about, what can be in that. Now, the amendment changed the law to
allow synthetic ingredients. And they chose the word :"ingredients". I was arguing for the more
inclusive word "substances", so that it covered processing aids and ingredients. There was no
compromise on this. They chose to attach the synthetic allowance to the word "ingredients". So
that means the ingredients will need to be petitioned and reviewed by the board, and placed on
the National List, using what's called notice-and-comment rulemaking, which means it goes out
for public comment, those have to be taken into consideration by USDA, then eventually it could
be allowed.

The problem here, is that the word "ingredients" has one of two impacts. First--- a huge
oversight on the part of the pay-to-play group--- is that any synthetic processing aids continue to
be prohibited. That, to me, is the most likely legal interpretation, because the law (at 6504) still
prohibits chemicals being used in handling , "except as otherwise provided".   And now the law
authorizes synthetic ingredients. But ingredients have a definition---they are the things that
appear on the ingredient statement.   Not the processing aids. They are invisible; they are
allowed but they don't appear as an ingredient. It's very likely that the legal interpretation will
say that those processing aids are not allowed, if they are synthetic.

The second possibility is , they could be allowed without having to be on the National List. So you,
as an organic farmer or consumer, wouldn't know this at all, because invisible processing aids
don't have to appear on any ingredeint statement. So that is really up in the air, how that is
going to come down.

I do know, however, that the pay-to-play group did not want the inclusive word "substances"
because
they wanted the list of what is now over 540 synthetics called "food contact cubstances"
---wanted them to be allowed without having to go through the review process---that was the
motivation. Last night, George Siemon showed the spider-web of corporations, and said he's
never known any of these corporations to try to weaken the standards. I know otherwise,
because I have been on phone calls with their lawyer, and it was pointed out to me that they did
not want these processing aids and food contact substances to have to be reviewed. Which is a
weakening of the standards. That was the intent of this law change. But I do think they made a
serious legal error in attaching it to the word "ingredients" because I don't think there's an
allowance for those under the law now, as noted above. To be continued.

The third change to the law really doesn't address the issue that Arthur broiught up, on the
commercial availability of organic aricuclutural ingredients. Right now, if a processor wants to
add an y agricultural ingredient in the organic category---well, first they have to have 95%
organic, then in that remaining 5% , say thyey have a spice or some minor agricultural ingredient
they can't get from an organic supplier, Their certifier has been allowing them to make a
good-faith effort, just like a farmer has to try and use organic seed; the processor has to show a
good-faith effort to source organic, and then the certifier can allow them to use non-organic.

The court said no, any non-organic agricultural substance has to be on the National List. There's
a part of the National List called 205.606 which lists off non-organic agricultural ingredients.
There's only five substances--- cornstarch, unbleached lecithin, pectin, gums and kelp. And
certifiers were allowing who knows how many---there's no tracking of how many allowances
were being made. But now it's gotten narrowed, dramatically, by the court decision.. That was
not changed in the amendment. . What happened was to give the Secretary of USDA the
authority to write new rules for emergency allowances, so that a processor---one of those major
corporations---could go to USDA, state their case to the Secretary, that organic vanilla is not
available because of the typhoon that hit Madagascar; whatever. And then the Secretary could
place it on the National List for one year.

Now, you have other options besides suing the USDA, if you have concerns about this program.
Anyone can file a complaint,   if you feel that an operation is fraudulent, is cheating, is using
prohibited substances.   If you feel that a certifier is not upholding the regulations you can file a
complaint about a certifier. I just recently learned that one of the accredited certifiers, Quality
Assurance International, certifies a number of retail stores. And even though there are hundreds
of stores in the chain, there is only one organic system plan, with spot inspections of just a few
stores. To me, that's a cause of concern, because there a tremendous opportunity for
commingling, contamination, and fraud, in any of those individual stores. So that's an example of
an issue someone might have, and you can file a complaint . You need to document what those
concerns are , and present that evidence to USDA Compliance Division for them to follow up on.

There also are two states that have enforcement authority for the organic regulation and those
are California and Utah. You also can, in any state that has a truth-in-labeling law, if you feel
that the word "organic" is being used fraudulently, you can file a complaint with your attorney
general's office under a different statute, under a truth-in-labeling law.

Also, if you feel that some of the substances on the National List should be removed, or if you
think you've got a good product you'd like to have added, you have the right to petition the NOSB
to have that substance added or removed. The Board has authority over the National List. The
Secretary cannot add or remove any substance without a 2/3 vote of the Board. So the Board is
a very open public process.

The Board gives lots of advice to the Secretary on the standards themselves. You can comment
before the NOSB. The board has public hearings, two or three a year, and some of the hot topics
under discussion are pasture requirements ---whether pasture is indeed required for organic
ruminants or not.    The rule says it is, but there are big corporations, some of them on George's
spider-web,   that are not following the law, the rule, and are not providing pasture to their
ruminants. Once again, I'm seeing some of those cheap-food corporations trying to bring that
cheap-food mentality and cheapen organics, and produce products either by weakening the
regulations or not following the regulations that are in force. So the Board is making some
recommendations to strengthen the pasture requirement, make it unequivocal, that organic
means pasture for ruminants. There will continue to be hearings on that. Also the issue of
outdoor access for all species, especially poultry . There are confinement poultry operations with
tens of thousands of birds; they never get outdoors. That will continue to be a topic of
discussion, especially in light of the whole avian influenza issue.

And then there's the five-year sunset on items on the National List. We're in the first round of
those reviews, and there will continue to be NOSB meetings and a need for public input on those
substances. So there are six appointees, announced on Wednesday. The certifier's seat, a seat I
have filled for the past five years, goes to Joe Smillie from Quality Assurance International .
There were two farmer seats open. Jeff Moyer is with the Rodale research farm for 27 years in
Pennsylvania; Kevin Engelberg is organic dairy farmer in New York. Three consumer/public
interest seats were open. One went to Dan Giacomini, a dairy nutritionist from California;
Jennifer Hall who's with Chef's Collaborative in Wasington State; and then Katrina Heinz who is
the director of regulatory affairs for General Mills.   I learn things every day---I didn't know
General Mills was a consumer/ public interest group. We all eat, I guess, is how we qualify as
consumers.

We should look beyond this lawsuit, or how to file complaints. To me, one of the things I learned
about these changes to the Act was there really was no farmer voice. There were ad hoc
groups; but we have to have a serious discussion about the need for a national farmers union of
organic farmers to have a voice at the national level. we just don't have that and I think it's time.

And then, look at funding. The USDA budget for 2004 was 82 billion dollars. Now, if organic is 1%
of the food dollar---it's between 1 and 2%---you'd think., if we got our fair share, we'd be
getting about 820 million. Or if we got 2%, we'd get 1.64 billion.   That would be a fair share of
the USDA budget. But the reality in 2004 was 11.9 million, which is one one-hundredth of a
percent of USDA's budget. That's a lot of room for growth. And that covered all the various
organic programs, not just the NOP. That's where the various parties that have been arguing
during the past few months, have a chance to mend some fences and work together.

We also need to expand research and outreach at all levels. Universities and various grants,
private non-government organizations such as Organic Farming Research Foundation, all need to
expand. We need to build more alliances. Food as medicine, working with health care
professionals, the chefs, people worried about food security---it's gotta be organic and local. I
don't want toxic local food ; I want organic local food.    Working with parents and educators,
getting more organic food in school systems, do preventaqtive health care, and a chance for
more kids to learn where their food comes from.

Fair trade, social justice groups are natural allies , as well as the various animal welfare groups,
environmental organizations; I'm seeing more and more emphasis on biodiversity on norganic
farms, and it's one of the mnost exciting things to me right now. and then also working with the
consumer groups, because the consumer is always right. And that is something I think was so
blind, by the people pushing this, not listening to and working hand in hand with consumers.
Because if we lose consumers, it's all for naught.

So I applaud Arthur; I didn't support his lawsuit. But he stood up and he walked his talk; and
that's what I think all of us need to do. We're here talking at the Acres conference; it's the first
time I've had the honor of attending to speak. But we're not eating organic food. I invite you to
come to the upper midwest organic conference at LaCrosse at the end of February . About 1800
people wer ethere last year, and they ate organic food every meal. I think at every organic
conference we need a priority to eat organic food. I've been here since Saturday and we had
wonderful organic food at the inspector training. We had about 30 people for 4 1/2 days, and we
were eating on disosable plates. I'm not criticizing anyone, but we need to think of the whole
system, not just the food, just the label; but ecological goals we're trying to achieve. But stay
involved. It's up to you to protect the standard. There are forces that will try to weaken it.
There are tremendous opportunities to strenghten it.

Marageret Scoles
I was sitting here thinking a lot about how much bad feeling there is in the organic community
right now. And how bad that is----in a way, there's good and bad----how I am a part of that
community. Because to give you an idea of how diverse the Independent Organic Inspectors
Association is---you just received a paper by Grace Gershuny, with a rebuttal by Arthur Harvey.
Both are members of our association, as is Jim.

We have members on all sides of this question, and it's good and bad. It's been kind of ugly the
last couple of months. A lot of us felt , ---and you heard George Siemon last night which is
different from what you are hearing here---we've had a lot of division within us because as lot of
us felt betrayed. We didn't really know a law could be changed that easily. We didn't know that
we could learn that the law was going to be changed on Thursday, and have the law basically
changed within a couple of weeks. That was a stunning lesson for me,   being a US citizen .

But It's nice to be part of this group, this organic community, which is all of us, the Grace
Gershunys and the Arthur Harveys. It's the people that really disagree with eachy other. It's
nice to be part of a community that has such an intense feeling of democracy about it. I think we
need to work together, but it's also nice that evrybody can say exactly what they think. A lot of
people didn't really support Arthur. A couple of years ago when he sued the USDA, he was an
alternate on the IOIA Board of Directors. I remember that feeling of "Oh my God, we could have
the IOIA Board suing the USDA" It's kind of hard to work with the National Organic Program
when you're suing them. But anyway, he was a very active member. Deep down, I always
thought he would win. A lot of people didn't take Arthur seriously enough, in fact, most people.
But the only reason he won is that he was right. He didn't have a lot of money to spend. He was
simply pointing out that the rules that we, the organic communioty wrote and got the USDA to
approve, were not consistent with the original law. That's all he did. And the court looked at the
law and looked at the rules and said, he's right---they weren't consistent.

There was never any allowance for the 80/20 dairy conversion in the original law. Arthur simply
pointed out it wasn't there, and the court said, you're right, it isn't there. And what has
happened now is a reaction to that summary judgement that came out this summer.

It would have been extremeley expensive, I think, for of these food companies to change all
their labels. And they would have had to change their labels. The same materials that were
allowed by the rules in organic products would no longer be allowed. They would have to change
their labels to "made with organic"; and they couldn't use the USDA seal. So that was a big
driving force behind----OTA is a membership organization of food manufacturers. I'm really
appreciating what Jim just said about farmers. We don't really have a national organic farmers
organizaation.

It was really funny, because we had two sides at total opposite viewpoints. Both using press
releases that said "Save organic standards".    If Congress was confused, I don't blame them.
We all thought we were saving organic standards, with two totally different viewpoints.

It's good that people can effect such a change, and there are not many places in this country
where that can happen.    It's an infant industry. It's a community where we still all know each
other, and that's a really strong thing about us.
The bad thing is the effect on the consumers, who are not always that well informed. If
consumers hear that organic has been weakened, oir that organic doesn't mean anything---that
hurts all of us. We have to be honest, but we have to remember how it impacts people who don't
know all the pieces.

Most of the uproar was about synthetics. But I think most people here are farmers, so probably
you're more interested in how it affects you as farmers.    I would add a slight correction to what
Jim said. When we talk about the big dairies not having to have access to pasture for their
cows--- It wasn't exactly what they were claiming. They let them out when they're not
lactating. It's a stage of production . There's a place in the rule where you can allow
confinement appropriate to the stage of production. So they are certified because the stage of
production which allows confinement is--- they're lactating. [Question from   Mark Kastel: May I
inject one word, the rule says "temporary confinement".]   Right, thank you Mark .

It's really fun to bash the USDSA. Right now is a really bad time to do it. We have finally just now
got a really good man at the National Organic Program in Washington. Mark Bradley is the deputy
administrator---is that his title?   He's somebody that has actually come to our organic inspector
trainings, spoken at our annual mneeting, he's a real person, a thinker. I would have a hard time
bashing him even if I disagreed with what he said.
We're really fortunate to have a good man there.

Cissy Bowman: We've set aside the rest of this time for questions and answers.

Dave Engel:   Margaret, your comment about the changes not affecting farmers, except dairy
farmers. As somebody that represents dairy farmers, and new ones coming on, the effect is
extreme. It has been said, about synthetics, if processors go from an "organic" label to "made
with organic", the effect on crop farmers will be extremely significant. As I understand the
current rule, a dairy farmer can become certified if you feed 80% certifiable or transitional feed.
And you were talking about third-year transition, were you talking about the present, or future,
because I have heard both.

Answer by Jim : I agree with you that currently, that 80% could be either fully certified or
certifiable, grown under an organic system plan---that's the language in the regulation. What
Arthur objected to, and what the Court cited, was the allowance of 20% conventional. That's
what's clearly not allowed. Puiblic interest groups have proposed changing the regulation to
allow that transitional feed while getting rid of the 20% conventional. I don't think we neded to
go to Congress to get this change. But it got tagged on as kind of an inducement to get more
support, by the pay-to-play group.

One comment on the indirect effect on farmers, if products fell from a 95% organic claim, to
"made with organic" which is a minimum of 70% organic ingredients---- There is no independent
market analysis to show that the "made with" products are not selling just as well as the "organic
" products, with just as high a premium in the marketplace. Those products are selling whether
the front panel says "organic" or "made with organic".

If companies are not really committed to the organic agriculture vision, and they are only looking
at bottom line, then those companies might go to the lowest denominator of 70%, and that could
hurt some organic farmers. But the data is that we have a shortage of just about every organic
product the farmers are producing right now. I don't think there is any economic data to verify
a negative effect. In theory it could have , but there is nothing to substantiate that claim
presented to Congress.

Arthur: In my original complaint to the court, there were only five words I objected to---"a
minimum of eighty percent".   The court in its decision discussed the issue in relation to a number
of questions, But in their final decision,   they didn't disallow the entire section in the rule. The
court found in my favor, and all I asked for was to delete those five words. Of course that section
contained several other provisions, having to do with what is called transitional feed, and the last
third of gestation. Whether those other parts of the regulation are left in or not, is not affected,
in my view, by the lawsuit, although Barbara Robinson and some people in USDA have verbally
taken a different position in the past. Rule-making is the only way we will discover USDA's actual
intentions.
But anyway, when 80/20 was introduced, fifteen years ago, I was part of a group in MOFGA
that considered this question. I voted in favor of it. That was at a time when the 20%, which is
grain, would not have been genetically modified. At the present time, that 20% is almost certain
to be genetically modified, and it seems to me it discredits organic milk.

.    As to how many unlisted ingredient may be in use under .606, that's an intersting question. If
you go into an organic retialer such as Wild Oats, there are apparently more than 100. The OTA's
recent bulletin estimated up to 1500 substances may be petitioned, but I'm not aware of anything
like 1500 that are in use.

As to whether synthetic ingredients are authorized under the new amendment, that's open to
question. The OTA amendment did not deal with all of the references in OFPA to synthetics. It
dealt with only two out of three. Therefore OFPA is now ambiguous on synthetic ingredients.
The USDA staff are in a real tizzy about this. Barbara Robinson stated in a public meeting the
other day that they are planning to go back to the court for clarification on the impact of the OTA
amendment on the court's final decision. I spoke with the US Attorney this morning and asked if
that has happened. He said no, and didn't think it likely. I believe even if such a request were
made, the court would probably decline to get involved.

Questioner: When advertising shows an intact chicken, their beak hasn't been cut off, on a
green pasture;   and, we're serving organic chicken here, or eggs. And you find out later that
they are on one square foot of dirt per chicken, and their beaks were cut off because of the
crowding. People have to know what they're buying and paying for. Maybe I want to pay less
money and get a less pure product---we have room for that differentiation in the market. But not
when I am paying for this and getting that. I think truth in advertising is a very big thing.

Arthur: I agree. If synthetic ingtredients are allowed in organic products, and if the law was
amended to require that every ingredient and processing aid (every substance added after
harvest), as well as the country of origin be listed on the label----then I would see no propblem,
Because then the consumer could choose if they wanted organic products with synthetics, or not.
But at the present time, that choice is not possible for the consumer. The labeling laws allow so
many things to be added without being identified on the labels, that the total exclusion of
synthetics from organic manufacturing is the only protection left to the consumer. That's why this
issue is so important. But if the labeling laws, or at least the application of those labeling laws to
organics were reformed as I suggested, that could be an appropriate compromise.

Acres USA Conference