Assault
on organic standards
It took 12 years of hearings,
hundreds of thousands of comments from the public, and the drafting of 600
pages of proposed standards to create the "USDA Organic" label.
Issued last October, it was a
major achievement. Even its toughest critics agree that any food bearing
the organic label must be produced far more naturally, with far less impact
on the environment, than conventional food. Among the requirements: No
synthetic fertilizers, few chemical pesticides, no antibiotics or hormones,
no irradiation or genetic engineering, no animal byproducts in animal feed,
and access to the outdoors for all livestock.
No sooner did those tough
standards go into effect, however, than various enterprises began to look
for ways to cash in on the USDA Organic label without having to adhere to
all the demanding rules. In October, The Country Hen, a Massachusetts egg
producer, applied to its local organic certifier for permission to use the
organic label. But to meet the rule that its chickens would be able to go
outside, the producer indicated that it planned to put a few porches on its
henhouses, which held thousands of layers. Did this promise fulfill the
requirement for access to the outdoors? The local certifier said no. But on
appeal, the USDA overruled the certifier and said The Country Hen could use
the USDA’s and the certifier’s organic labels.
The certifier has since filed
suit against the USDA, and Consumers Union has urged the USDA to change its
ruling. In the meantime, Country Hen eggs are on the market with the
organic labels.
In Georgia, some chicken
producers wanted to use the organic label on their broilers. But they
discovered that organic feed, which is what an organic chicken must eat,
was relatively expensive. So the chicken producers convinced Rep. Nathan
Deal (R-Ga.) to push through Congress a rider to the 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations bill saying that if organic feed cost more than twice as
much as regular feed, organic livestock could eat the regular kind.
As that drastic cheapening of the
organic label became known, Consumers Union and others objected. Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) amassed enough support to repeal the feed exemption.
But there was a cost. Sen. Ted Stevens (D-Alaska) insisted that the
legislation instruct the USDA to authorize use of the organic label on
seafood caught in the wild. That includes not just salmon from the
relatively unpolluted waters off the Alaska coast but also swordfish and
shark, which the Food and Drug Administration says contain so much mercury
that children and pregnant women should not eat them.
Last October, with no hearings or
public discussion, the USDA extended its rules on organic labeling to
cosmetics. There are now shampoos and body lotions labeled "70 percent
organic" based on the fact that their main ingredient is an
"organic hydrosol." What’s that? It is water in which something
organic, such as an organic lavender leaf, has been soaked.
Consumers Union believes that Congress must stop entertaining
requests from special interests to cash in on the USDA Organic label and
that the USDA must become a strict steward of how the label is used.
Consumers want and need an organic label they can trust.
What you can do
To learn more
or to express your views about these issues to the appropriate government
officials, visit the Consumers Union Guide to Environmental Labels at www.eco-labels.org.
|
|