Kirk,
Here in Washington State, Yucca used to be on the WSDA Generic Approved Org=
anic Materials list (about a month ago), but now is brought in under Wetti=
ng Agents as a Saponin. Of course, it would be excluded if it contained So=
dium Benzoate as a preservative.
For Organic Growers, WSDA lists CT as acceptable as long as it doesn't cont=
ain prohibited items. The WSDA also says they are in full compliance with =
NOP.
As I was reviewing the WSDA info again, I did see something that would be a=
glitch for Washington State Organic Growers who desire to use CT... it inv=
olves using chelated minerals. The rule is that chelated minerals can not =
be used by Organic Growers in Washington State unless they first do a tissu=
e test or a soil test to demonstrate that one or more of the chelated miner=
als was low and therefore needed. A lot of tea ingredients include humic a=
nd fulvic acids and trace minerals. Those teas could pose a problem for Or=
ganic Growers. Full disclosure of ingredients is needed by CT manufacturer=
s or their products need to be registered as Organic products with WSDA bef=
ore Organic Growers can use them in Washington State.
For example: If a manufacturer puts something like Humisolve TM7 in their =
tea ingredients and doesn't tell anyone and tells organic growers in Washin=
gton State their tea meets Washington State Standards, that Grower could be=
at risk of losing his organic certification if he uses such a tea without =
first doing tissue or soil tests to show that a mineral which is chelated i=
s needed.
Washington State organic growers have three lists for materials they can us=
e: the National List (NOP), the WSDA Generic Materials List, and the WSDA B=
rand Name Materials List (BNML).
If, as you say, if a product is registered with OMRI and OMRI is 100% compl=
iant with NOP, then quite likely that product is okay to use by Organic Gro=
wers in Washington State.... except for rules like no chelated minerals unl=
ess the grower does tissue or soil tests first.
So, this might be a good question for Dr. Ingham, can it be guaranteed that=
a properly brewed CT will not have any chelated minerals present in that t=
ea? If that can not be guaranteed, the Organic Growers in Washington State=
could be at risk of loosing their organic certification if they use CT wit=
hout first doing tissue or soil tests.
Another question, If humus material is used in CT, or even worm castings, c=
an it be guaranteed that CT will not contain chelated minerals? i.e., humi=
c, or fulvic acids and minerals?
--Thomas Giannou
http://www.tandjenterprises.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Kirk Leonard
To: Compost Tea Group
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: [compost_tea] Re: NOP and Yucca
Or is that NOP Yuck!?:) The "National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances" is not exhaustive. From NOP FAQs, in the National List secti=
on:
"Q: Will there be a generic list of allowed naturals?
A: No, there will not be a generic list of allowed natural materials,
because all naturals are allowed unless prohibited on the National List."
Sections 205.602 and 205.604 in the Final Standards tome present prohibit=
ed
materials. No yucca or saponin there, so they must be allowed, eh?
I believe everything approved by OMRI is de facto NOP-approved and it
doesn't cost that much to get their lists (registering is another
matter...). Brand name list is available on line at omri.org, last I
checked. Seems like any doubts could be resolved by asking certifiers, o=
r
OMRI, for that matter. They have been responsive to questions I have ask=
ed
in the past. Certainly can't say the same for NOP people.
Certifier ok is necessary for CT, btw, as it's disallowed by NOP, even
though NOSB spoke differently, and some certifiers are approving... For =
an
exercise in amazement, look at the National List and then think about wha=
t's
in CT. Not a single component of CT is disallowed, yet CT is, which to m=
e
suggests a really odd and obtuse USDA agenda.
Received on Fri Apr 18 2003 - 00:29:57 EDT