September 1, 2014

Organic Standards in Danger Unless You Make Your Voice Heard

pin it button Organic Standards in Danger Unless You Make Your Voice Heard

organic 300x240 Organic Standards in Danger Unless You Make Your Voice Heard

by Alliance for Natural Health

It’s like they’re saying, “Ssh! If we keep quiet enough, nobody will complain!” Let’s not let them get away with it. Action Alert!

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) will hold its spring board meeting in April. As you probably know, NOSB is the governing board created by Congress that reviews all synthetic and non-organic materials proposed by Big Farma before they can be used in organic farming or food production.

For thirty days before each meeting, the public is supposed to be invited to scrutinize and comment on the topics that will come up at the NOSB meetings—a wide range of issues that significantly affect organic standards—and the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is supposed to announce it. This time, however, the NOP failed to send out any public announcement about the thirty-day comment period, not even in their own e-newsletter, before the comment period began. The Cornucopia Institute discovered information about the April meeting, buried deep in the NOP website, after the comment period had already begun. Two days after the Cornucopia article appeared, NOP made the public announcement through their Organic Insider newsletter, costing stakeholders valuable time. Had this information been buried by mistake or on purpose? We don’t know.

Thank goodness Cornucopia discovered it, because public comment is vital to keep the NOSB accountable in the face of an increasingly cozy relationship between NOSB and Big Farma, and a serious dilution of organic standards. For example, the list of synthetic ingredients that are allowed in Certified Organic products is growing. As we reported previously, in 2002, the NOSB allowed only 72 chemicals. Since then, over 250 more chemicals have been added.

The majority of organic brands are owned by the biggest food manufacturers, and some them have seats on the NOSB. In 2011, a General Mills executive was on the board, and this year an exec from Driscoll’s, which markets both conventional and organic berries, held a seat on the board that was supposed to be filled by a farmer. After public outcry she resigned—but rejoined the NOSB in a different capacity.

Issues discussed in the NOSB meeting ahead could seriously undermine organic standards—unless you and other grassroots activists are willing to voice your strong objections:

  • How to control GMO contamination of organic seeds? Seed purity is especially important to prevent “creeping contamination.” Not only should there be stricter protocols to ensure pure organic seeds, there should be systematic testing of organic seeds for GMO contamination as part of the certification process. And biotechnology companies should be held accountable for any GMO contamination of organic seeds—even if it was unintentional. Under current organic rules, there are no strict practices ensuring that organic seeds are not contaminated with GMO. GMOs are considered an excluded “method” that should be prevented by best practices, but the actual organic product itself is not tested for GMOs. Testing usually occurs when there is “reason to believe” that organic food is contaminated with GMOs.
  • How to deal with GMOs in vaccines? Under current organic regulations, animal vaccines using GMOs are not allowed, unless specifically approved by the NOP. However, the NOP hasn’t identified which vaccines contain GMOs in the first place, resulting in GMO vaccine use and weak enforcement. The NOSB will discuss how to identify GMO vaccines; we believe it should it be defined as any technology that creates a targeted change or mutation in the genome; it certainly shouldn’t be something that is evaluated on a case-by case basis, another option that is being considered. We strongly oppose any GMO vaccines in organic livestock.
  • Should “confidential business information” (CBI) be allowed in a petitioner’s request for a synthetic chemical to be added to the organic “allowed” list? Currently, CBI is not disclosed in the technical evaluation report of a chemical, and it’s not available to the NOSB, much less to the public. But such CBI could include important information regarding environmental and health effects of a chemical. We strongly support prohibiting CBI in petitions to ensure transparency in the process—especially if the CBI pertains to serious environmental and adverse health effects. This may also have the positive effect of deterring companies that have something to hide.
  • Should a fruit antibiotic that adds to the “superbug” problem be allowed for two more years? The NOSB is considering whether to extend the withdrawal date for the antibiotic oxytetracycline, which is used in apple and pear production to prevent fire blight. It’s sprayed on trees, which exposes bacteria in the orchard and especially the soil to the antibiotic, and directly contributes to the “superbug” issue we’ve told you about—the creation of drug-resistant bacteria. There was a lot of public push-back against placing this on the allowed list in the first place. The board wants to extend the withdrawal date to 2016 and add a phase-out plan, even though organic standards require that practices and inputs must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality. We do not support extending sunset date of oxytetracycline.
  • Should sugar beet fiber be allowed in organic food to increase overall fiber content? Most sugar beets are GE, so we oppose such a proposal, and would insist that the final product be tested for GMO. We’re also concerned that the process for adding sugar beet fiber to organic food doesn’t follow organic processes.

At the last NOSB meeting, ANH-USA strongly opposed allowing dangerous synthetic chemicals in organic food, including organic baby formula. And the board rejected most of these chemicals.

It’s important that we all participate in this process to uphold organic standards and prevent corporate interests from destroying truly organic food. Organic certification is often the only thing consumers can use to distinguish between healthy, sustainable food and industrial farmed foods, most of which contain GMOs.

Action Alert! Send your comments to the NOSB and tell them your stance on each of the agenda items above. Please send them your message today!

Take Action1 Organic Standards in Danger Unless You Make Your Voice Heard

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Asian Farmers and Scientists Say No to GMO Golden Rice

Asian Farmers and Scientists Say No to GMO Golden Rice

Pin It

GM Golden Rice was developed at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines with the hope that it could provide more vitamin A through beta carotene. The project was a huge disaster, however, and basically shelved for years. But then Bill Gates came along, the college-drop-out-turned-billionaire who started Microsoft Corp., looking for something to spend his billions of dollars to promote. All of a sudden, with big money providing jobs to pursue a failed project, GM Golden Rice has new life.

There are multiple problems with GMO Golden Rice, including the fact that the people from rice-producing countries do not want it!

Recently many top scientists and farmer advocates from rice-producing countries met in the Philippines in an effort to try and stop more field testing, and the commercialization of Golden Rice. The science behind Golden Rice does not prove benefits, and it threatens genetic diversity among traditional rice varieties which is necessary in many parts of the world that experience natural and man-made disasters. Like any GMO seed crop, Golden Rice would take the future of farming in rice-producing countries away from the control of the farmers and give it to multinational corporations that would then control the rice seed supplies.

MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development) in the Philippines hosted the event earlier this year, and has recently provided video interviews from some of the participants in English.

China Blocks U.S. Pork Imports Due to Banned Animal Drug

China Blocks U.S. Pork Imports Due to Banned Animal Drug

Pin It

Ractopamine is a controversial animal drug that is banned in 160 countries, but not the United States. China is now refusing to allow several pork processing plants in the U.S. to import their meats which they say have tested positive for ractopamine.

Russian Officials Approve Fines for Individuals and Businesses Failing to Label GMOs

Russian Officials Approve Fines for Individuals and Businesses Failing to Label GMOs

Pin It

While the heavily funded Biotech industry along with major processed food companies in the U.S. continue to oppose any form of labeling requirements to allow consumers information on whether or not a product contains genetically modified ingredients, Russia is moving in the opposite direction, and now approving fines for failing to warn consumers that their products contain genetically modified ingredients.

Is Monsanto’s ‘Cure’ For World Hunger Cursing The Global Food Supply?

Is Monsanto’s ‘Cure’ For World Hunger Cursing The Global Food Supply?

Pin It

What if the very GM agricultural system that Monsanto claims will help to solve the problem of world hunger depends on a chemical that kills the very pollinator upon which approximately 70% of world’s food supply now depends?

A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology titled, “Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behavior,” establishes a link between the world’s most popular herbicide – aka Roundup – and the dramatic decline in honeybee populations in North American and Europe that lead to the coining of the term ‘colony collapse disorder.’

‘Right to Farm’ is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Only Protects Corporate Ag

‘Right to Farm’ is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Only Protects Corporate Ag

Pin It

On August 5, 2014, Missouri voters will decide on whether to pass Constitutional Amendment #1, also known as the “Right to Farm Amendment” (aka the “Right to Harm” amendment).

While the right to farm is something everyone should support, Amendment One serves as a bio-tech/concentrated animal feeding operation protection act–doing little to help the family farm. Supporters of the amendment include Monsanto, Cargill, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Cattleman’s Association, and Missouri Pork Association–all entities working to further the interests of industrial agriculture.

Help defeat this amendment in Monsanto’s home state!

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!