What You Can Do
January 8, 2007
Dear friends: I am working on a proposed amendment to
OFPA, which would repair much of the damage from the OTA
rider which Congress adopted in October 2005. Briefly, that
legalized an unknown number of current and future synthetics
used in preparing organic-labeled products. (Still to be
determined by the Court of Appeals is whether the rider also
legalized synthetic processing aids.)
My current thought is that reversing the entire OTA rider is
problematic, mostly because the large manufacturers seem to
have unlimited funds to protect their use of the USDA seal on
products containing such synthetics. And since most
consumers don't know, and can't find out, exactly what is
used on a particular product, the debate takes on a sort of
abstract quality and fails to engage many consumers.
It is exactly this inability of the consumer to discover how the
products are made, which I believe can be a rallying point to
amend the organic law in such a way that the industry and
USDA cannot subvert. Section 6510 of OFPA is a list of 7
activities that are forbidden in organic "Handling"---which
includes processing and manufacturing. My proposal is to add
#8 to 6510(a): [shall not]
"(8) use, in or on such product, any synthetic processing aid,
synthetic additive, or synthetic ingredient which is not
identified as such on the ingredient statement and specifically
allowed in the National List."
If your organization is prepared to endorse this and work to
get Congress to pass it, then I want to hear from you as to
any wording changes that might improve it. However, the
basic idea is not negotiable---consumers must be able to
discover what was used in manufacturing their organic food
by reading the label.
The objection sure to be raised is that it would make some
organic products look worse than conventional ones that do
not have to disclose their own synthetics. This is true,
and it will give organic manufacturers an incentive to reduce
or eliminate such synthetics, and redouble their search for
natural alternatives. It will also strengthen
the USDA seal because only organic foods would provide
many consumers with the information they want. Some
manufacturers will therefore endorse the idea, because
any extra expense or marketing difficulty will be more than
outweighed by increasing consumer loyalty in the long run.
Other manufacturers who simply want to ride the USDA seal
to greater immediate profits, will not be pleased. But they will
be unable to stage an effective opposition in public, and will
have to concentrate on behind-the-scenes maneuvering.
But this is exactly the situation we have been witnessing for
the past few years. It will not change until we find a rallying
cause to persuade Congress to confront the issue
openly. The "pay-to-play" group of manufacturers who
lobbied the OTA rider into law, can continue to influence a few
key lawmakers, but they cannot control a public debate which
asserts the consumer's right to know.
Dear friends: I am working on a proposed amendment to
OFPA, which would repair much of the damage from the OTA
rider which Congress adopted in October 2005. Briefly, that
legalized an unknown number of current and future synthetics
used in preparing organic-labeled products. (Still to be
determined by the Court of Appeals is whether the rider also
legalized synthetic processing aids.)
My current thought is that reversing the entire OTA rider is
problematic, mostly because the large manufacturers seem to
have unlimited funds to protect their use of the USDA seal on
products containing such synthetics. And since most
consumers don't know, and can't find out, exactly what is
used on a particular product, the debate takes on a sort of
abstract quality and fails to engage many consumers.
It is exactly this inability of the consumer to discover how the
products are made, which I believe can be a rallying point to
amend the organic law in such a way that the industry and
USDA cannot subvert. Section 6510 of OFPA is a list of 7
activities that are forbidden in organic "Handling"---which
includes processing and manufacturing. My proposal is to add
#8 to 6510(a): [shall not]
"(8) use, in or on such product, any synthetic processing aid,
synthetic additive, or synthetic ingredient which is not
identified as such on the ingredient statement and specifically
allowed in the National List."
If your organization is prepared to endorse this and work to
get Congress to pass it, then I want to hear from you as to
any wording changes that might improve it. However, the
basic idea is not negotiable---consumers must be able to
discover what was used in manufacturing their organic food
by reading the label.
The objection sure to be raised is that it would make some
organic products look worse than conventional ones that do
not have to disclose their own synthetics. This is true,
and it will give organic manufacturers an incentive to reduce
or eliminate such synthetics, and redouble their search for
natural alternatives. It will also strengthen
the USDA seal because only organic foods would provide
many consumers with the information they want. Some
manufacturers will therefore endorse the idea, because
any extra expense or marketing difficulty will be more than
outweighed by increasing consumer loyalty in the long run.
Other manufacturers who simply want to ride the USDA seal
to greater immediate profits, will not be pleased. But they will
be unable to stage an effective opposition in public, and will
have to concentrate on behind-the-scenes maneuvering.
But this is exactly the situation we have been witnessing for
the past few years. It will not change until we find a rallying
cause to persuade Congress to confront the issue
openly. The "pay-to-play" group of manufacturers who
lobbied the OTA rider into law, can continue to influence a few
key lawmakers, but they cannot control a public debate which
asserts the consumer's right to know.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |