Page Title

Talk for Beyond Pesticides, annual meeting, May 19, 2006, Washington, DC
****************************************************************

by Arthur Harvey

I will skip lightly over how the organic law was amended to reverse its basic principle
concerning the processing of food after it leaves the farm. I note that few if any
members of Congress understood what the amendment was for, beyond the fact
that Roy Blunt wanted it. And the news that organic standards can be flipped so
readily, teaches us a lot about both Congress and the organic manufacturing
industry, which is ready to assert its control in this manner. And, of course, the
naivete and weakness of consumer organizations.

So I want to discuss some of the underlying assumptions that helped to create the
softened skeleton of organics, which is so easily bent and shaped by external forces.
And some of what goes on under the cloak of confidentiality

1) Organic is said to be about process not about products. In one form, this doctrine
resists residue testing of organic foods---even though that is required by the law at
6506(a)(6). The rationale against testing is that it might reveal some forbidden
substances that are not the fault of the organic farmer. But in this tender concern
for farmers, we have forgotten our concern for consumers who want to know not
just what a shiny system we have on the surface, but what kind of product we
deliver. So our thinking must change. And 6506(a)(6) must be part of the
regulation.

In a more sophisticated form, the doctrine of process over product says we can not
claim that orgnic food is superior, healthwise, to conventional food. This is the
official doctrine of USDA. Instead, we are supposed to talk about resource
conservation, a whole system, reducing environmental impacts. And the more
eloquent these claims become, the harder it is to see them on the ground at organic
farms. I have not heard of any organic farmers denied certification for failure to
maintain or improve soil fertility, wildlife habitat, or water quality. Even if a certifier
had the guts to deny such a certification, I don't think a court would sustain it, simply
because the NOP Rule has no criteria for such denials. The result is that much of the
environmental rationale for organics is a wish, not a reality.

2) One argument in favor of allowing synthetics in manufacturing, is that they are
allowed in Europe and elsewhere. There is probably a copycat factor here, but the
argument ignores a crucial difference. EU organic standards are a floor, not a ceiling
like the NOP standard. Individual countries or parts of countries are free to have
stricter standards for the use of their distinctive label, and many of them do have
stricter rules. But in the US, consumers have no way to express their preference for
a stricter standard because certifiers are forbidden to assert it.

I tried to challenge this in my lawsuit, but I failed to specify all the Constitutional
arguments about free speech in my first complaint. The Court of Appeals therefore
declined to rule on them.

3) The situation is often described as a split between old-fashioned purists, small
farmers and the like, versus modern entrepreneurs striving to expand the organic
retail sector and create more markets for farmers. (Of course, farmers are not
likely to rejoice when their buyers get bigger and they have to sell at the buyer's
price.) But this picture of old versus new, is a product of intellectual laziness. I for
one have never asserted , or believed, that small farmers are superior to large ones.
Nor were the pioneers more pure. My first public lecture was at the University of
New Hampshire where, 30 years ago, I described serious cases of organic fraud,
including at the largest organic orchard in the eastern US.

The truth is that the word Organic developed its value from the efforts of many
farmers and educators over a period of 75 years.   Most of us were not purists. We
did, however, advocate a definite standard based on a clear principle. OFPA was the
result, and the clear principle was immediate elimination of synthetics in
manufacturing; plus careful review and ultimate elimination of synthetics in farming.
The word is a capital asset which should be protected and strengthened. This was
the concept of OFPA which envisioned the eventual phasing out of synthetic inputs in
farming through sunsetting.   And the eventual goal of 100% organic ingredients in
manufacturing.

What we are seeing now is the seizure of the word Organic by manufacturers in
cooperation with USDA. They want to convert the capital value of the word into
cash through a marketing program. This amounts to actually consuming our capital,
a process that undermines the asset. Instead of phasing out synthetics, they are
being steadily and dramatically increased. For example, the list of Food Contact
Substances.

The NOP website tells manufacturers they are free to use materials on the FDA list
without being reviewed or on the National List. Of particular interest is #55, which
opens the door to "organic" high fructose corn syrup. #55 on the FDA list is "a
terpolymer of styrene, divinyl benzene and ethylvinyl benzene, aminomethylated,
then quarternized with methyl chloride". "For use in treating aqueous sugar
solutions and hydrolyzed starch solutions."   Another material makes possible
"organic" hydrogenated oils.

***************************

OFPA at 6510(a)(7) forbids the use of water in processing unless it meets the Safe
Drinking Water standard, a maximum of 5 parts per million of chlorine. How is it then,
that organic produce and meats are routinely doused in water up to 200 ppm of
chlorine?   By a series of ambiguous, apparently small steps:

1) The mandate of OFPA is not in the Rule.
2) The shell game begins with .605, titled "substances allowed as ingredients".
3) Under this title appears "chlorine materials". Some of the other 37 "ingredients"
are annotated restrictively, such as phosphoric acid, for "cleaning of food-contact
surfaces and equipment only".
4) But in a masterpiece of obfuscation, chlorine is not so restricted.   Instead its
annotation is followed by an "Exception", which is used by manufacturers and
certifiers to authorize the use of water with 100 or 200 ppm chlorine in processing.
Inspectors are checking only the chlorine levels in rinse water exiting the processing
facility (the "residual chlorine levels") , not the chlorine levels in the food product.

In the case of chickens pumped up with chlorine water, the amount remaining after
packaging is up to 10% of the packaged weight. In that case, chlorine reacts with
what is on the inner and outer surfaces of the chicken to form various other
compounds that are not analyzed either. When chlorine is used as a "surface
cleaner" for eggs, there is no attempt to discover how much penetrates through the
shells.

So the current Rule places no limit on chlorine in or on an organic product. In fact,
when the verdict in my lawsuit was announced, an organic inspector with much
experience in California lettuce packing plants, called me in great distress,
erroneously assuming the court decision applied to chlorine, and said it would shut
down the lettuce industry. That remark was typical of the general reaction , and
the general consequences; as follows:
A) The actual impacts of the court decision would be much less than feared;
B) The long-term implications for continuance of illegal operations such as chlorine
    dunking for lettuce and carrots, are not good.
C) If lettuce cannot be chlorinated, then it will have to be produced locally rather
    than shipped from California.   Would that be bad?

******************************************

Cheap cane sugar is probably the most critical ingredient affected by the lawsuit.
Cane juice is refined with synthetic calcium hydroxide in processing. Long before
modern methods of refining, sugar was important in international trade, but it was
very expensive. Organic sugar is now used in hundreds of cereals and other
products which would have to be re-labeled "made with organic" ingredients. Some
loss of consumer acceptance would result, at least among those not addicted. There
would also be a boost for organic maple syrup, which now accounts for less than 3%
of the maple industry because of its low price, which in turn results from the low
price of organic sugar.

So when the industry complains that the court decision would reduce dramatically the
presence of organic products on the shelf---most of that reduction would be in
sugar-based products. Would it be bad if the organic label was reserved for a
smaller, more expensive group of less sweetened products? Sugar cane grows on
the most fertile soil in the world. Cane farmers are effectively selling their declining
fertility to the American sweet tooth, which is no benefit to us or to them in the long
run.   Any more than the unrestrained sale of crude oil at present prices is a benefit
to the poor people in various countries.

*************************************
Quite a ruckus is in progress about dairy cows having not enough pasture grazing in
some large operations. Very little is heard about organic chicken operations with
upwards of 10,000 hens who NEVER go outdoors. And this is true throughout the
industry. The "whole system" here, is when one producer alerts the others when he
finds a certifier allowing an exception to the regulation---then the "whole system"
can follow suit. Farmers with only a few hundred hens, meanwhile, follow all the
rules. So much for a "consistent standard". Fully compliant eggs cannot be labeled
as "more organic", even though in fact they are.

************************************

Consumers believe that organic foods are GMO-free. Actually the Rule forbids only
the "use" of the GMO "method". At present, certifiers require affidavits which
support the absence of knowing use, but verification is not required by the Rule.
Most certifiers require no testing for GMO. If they do use testing, there is no
standard by which a maximum level can be set. So it is not enforceable. Everyone
knows or should know that GMO contamination is an increasing and inescapable fact,
even with organic seed.

USDA is not willing to set a maximum level for GMO content because it would discredit
conventional farm products. As a result, consumers will continue to eat an
ever-increasing and unknown level of GMO's.   Until, that is, independent testing
blows the lid, and creates a major loss of credibility for organic foods in general.

***********************************

The New Yorker magazine's current issue reviews Michael Pollan's new book, The
Omnivore's Dilemma. It concludes with a comment that is emphasized by opponents
of organic farming, and by many supporters too:    "The most urgent moral problem
with the organic ideal; [is] how to feed the world's population." I want to outline
the ways in which this attitude reflects a superficial analysis.

1) Organic agriculture in America is not responsible for feeding 5 billion people.
Even if it is well intentioned, the above statement flows from an imperial assumption
that America knows what is best for the world.

2) Average food consumption by Americans is 4000 calories per day. Reducing that
by half would make us healthier and also free up more food for export than would
be lost by converting all farms to organic. Limiting consumption of animal products
would further boost our food surplus. If this is really a moral issue, as stated, then
why not seek a moral solution?

3) An American-led effort could indeed feed the hungry in the world by cutting down
the remaining forests and using chemicals. But it will not stop population growth, or
prevent further damage to our immune systems, or conserve remaining oil reserves,
orreverse global warming.

******************************

My blueberry marketing plan is not dependent on organic certification, although that
diversifies and helps. Farmers like me, at some point, will drop out of a decaying
system because we are not prisoners of USDA and OTA. Let me outline how this may
develop. Farmers who have a strong local customer base will begin to educate them
about what is happening to the national program. Farmers and local manufacturers
will organize around a new certification system based on several ideas:

1) total transparency which means making public the organic plan of every
operation---which under the present system, is a dead secret. This converts
customers and employees of the farmer into potential inspectors.

2) standards will be described as "Beyond Organic"---with a list of specific
inputs allowed by USDA but forbidden by Beyond Organic.

USDA may very well prosecute (even though they have never prosecuted any
violations of the current regulation).   But such prosecution risks a loss in court for
the USDA, because free speech rights are involved, which will be asserted more
thoroughly than I was able to do.