Talk prepared for annual meeting of Beyond Pesticides,
Washington DC, May 20, 2006         text
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOPCongressStudy1_06_06.pdf

Above is the location of a document issued in March 2006 by the National
Organic Program, which I will discuss in some detail below.

[Following is an exchange of comments by four different people, one of
whom is  a  manufacturer, while another is an OCA  (Organic Consumers
Association)  spokesperson, and of course one is me.  ---A. H.]

      *                          *                               *                             *


Hi All,   Check this out for OCA's take on the NOSB appointees.   
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/OSB121905.cfm



*                 *                   *                       *                                   *


Web Note: The USDA has appointed a General Mills bureaucrat as
"Consumer
Representative" to the National Organic Standards Board, rejecting
nominees
from the organic community who stood up against the recent Sneak Attack
in
Congress. General Mills officially supported the controversial rider to the
2006 Agricultural Appropraitions bill that reduced organic community control
and review over organic standards. USDA also appointed a director from
the
organic certification corporation, QAI, Joe Smillie, who is a long-time
member of the Organic Trade Association leadership clique that rammed
through the Sneak Attack. The appointment of these "Sneak Attack"
lapdogs
make it clear that the organic community will have to step up the pressure
on both the USDA and an increasingly pro-corporate agribusiness NOSB if
we
are to maintain strict organic standards.

*                   *                      *                  *                *

OCA's take on the General Mills executive posing as a consumer/public
interest rep, is correct.  I would go further, and suggest it as
grounds for a lawsuit against USDA for violating the OFPA guideline.
[Later:  see Announcements for details on how Consumers Union was able
to remove that phony consumer "rep"]


As for Joe Smillie, one-time organic pioneer converted to
agribusiness---well, he does meet the criteria regardless of what
anyone thinks about his wisdom.  As for QAI, Jim Riddle had something
to say about that at AcresUSA, which I have published at my website,
restoreorganiclaw.org


*            *                  *                      *                *

Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the good postings on your website.  I saw this and have a
question:

[The following opens up a  new and interesting dimension.   It  has a number of
problems, however.  1)  The authorization for synthetic "ingredients" included
in the rider at 6510, is only implied, and really creates an ambiguity in relation
to 6504.    2) Although the manufacturers would be wise to support Jim's proposal,
I suspect       they are too power-crazed to do so.  Without  the support of the
pay-to-play group, OTA would      not endorse the idea.   3) Even if USDA chose this
course,  it would be subject to various  qualifications that would rob it of its
potential for full transparency.   4) Finally, it would still
allow an ever-increasing flow of synthetics into organic food.]

What do you mean by manufacturers being too power- crazed to support
Jim's proposal?  I have no problem with the term, only I'm trying to
understand what might motivate manufacturers to not support it?  It
would seem to me that manufacturers would be very motivated to support
this, as otherwise the OTA "fix" is not really a fix is it?

    *                             *                            *                           *                           *

I summarized the situation by calling the manufacturers power-crazed.
Of course, it is more complex than that.  Still, I think it is accurate,
if you read what Jim Riddle said at Indianapolis, although it is pretty
lengthy.

The pay-to-play group rushed through their legislative fix, although it
obviously was going to stimulate a lot of resentment among traditional
organic people.  They did have the option of working through
rule-making, but they decided to seize the moment when they had access
through Roy Blunt.  George Siemon, for example, got no more for his
dairy farmers than I offered during the pre-final court order
negotiations.  But he justified the rider by saying he could not be
certain what USDA would do in rule-making.  So at least on George's
part, this was flexing of muscles---and I think that was true of others
in OTA as well.  Maybe some of them are having second thoughts now, but
having discredited the manufacturers in the eyes of the media, they will
have to live with the results.  

Jim believes sugar is the major problem if synthetics are banned as
processing aids.
I think we need more info about all-natural methods of processing cane,
and how  much it would cost.  Have some possibilities not been explored
because sugar is so  cheap?  If organic sugar cost, say, 50% more than it
does now, it would still be        cheaper than honey or maple syrup as well
as having other advantages.  And what   is wrong with giving a greater
incentive to the use of locally-produced sweeteners?  

Jim's take is that the pay-to-play group wants above all to avoid having
their FCS reviewed by the  NOSB.

*                  *                        *                             *                            *  

Arthur,
I think you give others too much credit, by assuming they think through
their positions before acting them out.  I know you have a habit of
having your positions well backed , but if this does not apply to most
people, then             the responsibility laid on them later is sometimes
misplaced.

For example if I may attempt to reconstruct history: The pay- to- play
manufacturers did band together to solve their problem. They did however
likely not fully even understand their problem other than that they were
told that they would not be able to use for instance organic sugar and
some other "synthetics".  They then simply hired what they considered
"the best" to figure it all out and implement a solution.  I doubt if
they were intimately involved in the wording, but trusted their "top
lawyer" to take care of it.

Now it seems their "top lawyer" may have made a big mistake that may
mean that they didn't fix the problem they thought they fixed.   I think
the manufacturers will now want to be following Jims suggested solution,
as that is the only way it seems where their ill worded OFPA changes
will be able to achieve what they set out to do.

I'm sure Gandhi must have said something wise about evil being primarily
ignorance.  And I think that is the case we're up against.  This changes
the approach I feel.

       *                        *                         *                             *

_____, I hope you are right.  Even if you are only partly correct, maybe you
can
influence the direction OTA takes, far more than I could.  Surely Phil
Margolis understood the implications, although he probably did not fully
appreciate the negative reaction of the media.

Of course, if you are right that the pay-to-play people did not understand
just what they were doing, then Jim  is  wrong in his reporting based on his
experience.  
Regardless of who is right or wrong, apparently you and I agree that to
require labeling for all inputs in manufacturing organic products, would be a
giant step forward.
Current Discussion