Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
draft standards did not ban the use of sewage sludge, genetically modified
materials, and irradiation in organic production. The USDA received nearly
300,000 public comments, mostly expressing concerns that the draft stan-
dards lacked safeguards and catered to a very watered-down definition of
organic agriculture.
So the USDA went back to the drawing board and tightened the loopholes
that were most obvious, and reintroduced the standards in January 2001
for public comment. These National Organic Certification Standards were
eventually adopted and phased in over eighteen months. They went into
effect on October 21, 2002. Farmers and consumers still have mixed feelings
about them. They created another level of paperwork and bureaucracy for
farmers' certifications, and they created some guidelines for consumers that
are a bit confusing. There are now three designated levels of “organic-ness.”
Products labeled “100 percent organic” contain only organically produced
ingredients. The“organic”label indicates products that are at least 95 percent
certified organic. The designation “made with organic ingredients” is for
items with at least 70 percent organic components, and up to three of
these ingredients may be listed on the package. Any product containing less
than 70 percent organic ingredients may not be marketed as an organic
food. Foods that fall into the organic categories qualify to display the “USDA
Organic” seal.
But despite the new logo, specific labels, and the new certification bureau-
cracy, the USDA presented the organic food information in such a low-key,
negatingmanner, it's surprising that anyone heard about it. Even in the news
release to mark the implementation of the new national standards, USDA
Secretary Ann Veneman provided a carefully worded statement that now
consumers will know that “products labeled as organic will be consistent
across the country” (USDA News Release 2002) with no comment as to the
benefits of organic production. The USDA pamphlet “Organic Food Stan-
dards and Labels: The Facts” specifically notes that “USDA makes no claims
that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than convention-
ally produced food. Organic food differs from conventionally produced
food in the way it is grown, handled, and processed” (USDA-AMS 2002). Fol-
lowing this lukewarm introduction of the standards, a high-ranking USDA
scientist reinforced this notion when she said that there is no evidence that
one method of growing food is safer than the other (Reuters October 24,
2002). So, as always, it appears the USDA is carefully kowtowing to the large
industrial agricultural interests in this country. Granted, they worked on
the organic standards for twelve years, but they clearly seem to be saying
that the standards don't really mean much.
[31],
(31)
Lines: 313 to 319
———
0.0pt PgVar
———
Normal Page
PgEnds: T
E
X
[31],
(31)
