[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

[X] CLOSEIN THIS SECTION

photo

Duplicate of Fall 2014 Issues

Keeping Organic Strong: Changes in organic regulations and farming practices
National Organic Standards Board

 
Fall 2014 NOSB Meeting
Comment by October 7, 2014!

When: October 28 - 30, 2014
Where: Louisville, KY, Galt House Hotel

The fall 2014 meeting dates have been announced, and public comments are due by Tuesday, October 7, 2014. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label.

 

To truly make an impact in the future of organic, Beyond Pesticides encourages you to:

About the Board

The 15 member board, consisting of 4 farmers, 3 environmentalists, 3 consumers, 2 food processors, and one retailer, scientist and certifying agent, votes to allow or prohibit substances and practices in certified organic food and farming. The NOSB acts as a life-line from government to the organic community. As it considers input from you, the public - the concerned citizens upon whom organic integrity depends. That is why your participation is vital to the development of organic standards. Rest assured, if you submit a public comment either in person or online, your concerns will be considered by the Board. Remember that the NOSB can't take serious action to protect organic integrity without your input!

Issues Before the NOSB for Fall 2014

Materials in the list below are either the subject of petitions or the subject of sunset review. Petitioned materials must have evidence summarized in the proposals that they meet the OFPA requirements of essentiality, no adverse effects on humans and the environment, and compatibility with organic practices. Sunset items are already on the National List, and being considered for delisting. They are subject to the same criteria, but are being considered under NOP’s new rules.

The NOSB will vote on those materials subject to “2015 Sunset Review,” but any substantive comments on them now will be considered “untimely.” We have some procedural comments on them. Although the NOSB will not vote on those materials listed under “2016 Sunset Summaries” at this meeting, comments received after October 7, 2014 will be considered untimely. The subcommittees have not published summaries of evidence concerning 2016 sunset materials.

There are also some very important issues in discussion documents and a proposal dealing with livestock vaccines made with genetically engineered organisms ("excluded methods" in NOP terminology). The NOSB will vote on the livestock vaccine proposal. Discussion documents are not up for a vote, but form the basis for future proposals; this is a valuable opportunity to give input.

Crops Subcommittee

Materials/GMO ad hoc Subcommittees

Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification Subcommittee

Handling Subcommittee

Livestock Subcommittee

NOSB Quick Links!

 

See Full Meeting Agenda

 

Take Action at Regulations.gov!
(Comments Due October, 7 2014!)

 

See All Meeting Materials and Issues

 

The Organic Foods Production Act

 

Crops Subcommittee

  • Contamination Issues in Farm Inputs Literature Review
    • NOSB Materials: Discussion Document
    • Background: Organic farmers have always made use of organic materials from a wide range of on-farm and off-farm sources – in compost, some plant materials without prior composting, mined minerals, and animal by-products such as fish or slaughterhouse waste. OFPA addresses residues of such materials in agricultural harvested crops. However, residues of pesticides, heavy metals, genetically engineered organisms, and other contaminants are problems not only for the consumer, but also for the grower, and the regulations require their management in a way that protects crops, soil, and water. Residues may reach the organic farm through different media, but here the concern is about protecting the farmer from contamination coming from off-farm inputs used directly from these sources.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides supports research into all of the contaminants and pathways mentioned in this discussion document. We support research into means of preventing the contamination, which we believe must include restrictions on the way other people use many of those materials. Protecting organic farms from outside contamination will require a gatekeeper looking over what comes onto the farm, but it should also require more responsibility for those who use potentially dangerous materials. It all starts with gathering information, and we are happy to see that the NOSB is taking the first steps. We recommend the extensive database of pesticide-related information on the Beyond Pesticides website.

Back to Issues

  • Inerts
    • NOSB Materials: Verbal Update (no document)
    • Background: So-called “inert” ingredients in pesticide products are neither chemically nor biologically inert. They are designed to enhance the pesticidal activity of pesticide products and can have toxic properties that do not meet the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Active ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production have been carefully screened to ensure that they meet the requirements of OFPA, thus presenting little hazard to people and ecosystems, from their manufacture through their use and disposal. So-called “inert” ingredients, on the other hand, have not received the same level of scrutiny to ensure that they meet OFPA standards. Reliance on the registration of pesticide products with inert ingredients by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not ensure that the standards of OFPA are met, given that the reviews and use allowances under the agency’s authorizing legislation (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) are based on different and often incompatible standards.  In addition, many pesticide product formulations are composed of mostly “inert” ingredients. As a result, the most hazardous part of pesticide products used in organic production may actually be the so-called “inert” ingredients.
    • Our position:Once again, the NOSB agenda contains only an “update” on “inert ingredients.” The NOSB has unanimously agreed upon a plan of action, yet we see no action. Therefore, we request that: (1) The NOP implement the change in the listing as recommended unanimously by the National Organic Standards Board in October 2012 and (2) Consistent with the October 2012 recommendation, list all inerts known to be used in organic production, as determined by the Inerts Working Group, each annotated with an expiration date between June 27, 2017 and June 27, 2022, with the priority groups identified in Beyond Pesticides comments receiving an expiration date of June 27, 2017.

Back to Issues

  • 2015 Sunset Reviews
    • NOSB Materials: Sulfurous Acid (Preliminary Review); Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate (Preliminary Review); Aqueous Potassium Silicate (Preliminary Review)
    • Background: In a move sanctioned by the NOP, the majority of the Crops Subcommittee (CS) used unsupported delisting motions for these substances in order to circumvent the fact that the new NOP sunset policy fails to require full board review of every material, as required by law. It has not provided the required justification to delist the substances, which admittedly goes against NOP policy. Instead, the CS majority justifies its motions by saying that the full NOSB board “should have the opportunity to complete the review of each sunset material by voting.” The CS does summarize evidence in favor of removal and in favor of relisting. However, it does not show how it has weighed that evidence in order to produce a motion to delist. These unsupported delisting motions only serve to highlight the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the NOP policy and the damage that the process does to the integrity of the organic label.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides urges the NOSB to refer these motions back to the subcommittee based on the lack of a supporting rationale. As an alternative, if the Board decides it can act in defiance of the NOP sunset policy, as the subcommittee has done, we suggest that in order to uphold OFPA, it should introduce substitute motions to relist rather than delist, so that a two-thirds majority would be required to renew the listing of these synthetic materials.

Back to Issues

  • 2016 Sunset Summaries
    • NOSB Materials: Sunset 2016 Review Summary
    • The NOSB will not vote on 2016 sunset materials at this meeting. However, this is the last chance on these materials to submit comments that will be considered by the NOSB during its deliberations. New scientific and useful information brought to the Board on these materials at the next NOSB meeting in the spring will be found "untimely" and likely not considered. Therefore, it is important that the NOSB receive comment on these issues during this comment period.
    • Ferric phosphate
      • Background: Ferric phosphate is used as a molluscicide for of slugs and snails. Although harmless to molluscs and earthworms alone as it naturally occurs in soil, ferric phosphate can be combined with chelating agents such as EDTA or EDDS, synergists that make it toxic to some organisms, including snails and slugs, but also earthworms and beneficial soil life.
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of ferric phosphate because ferric phosphate alone is not essential —because it is not effective— and ferric phosphate in combination with EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) poses risks to soil organisms, uses highly toxic materials in manufacture, and is not compatible with organic agriculture. It is time for the NOSB to avoid jumping from loophole to loophole in order to avoid giving ferric phosphate the hearing it deserves. The NOSB must either consider ferric phosphate alone –in which case, it is not essential because it is ineffective—or complexed with EDTA, in which case it poses environmental hazards that must be evaluated. But considering one or the other depending on what is convenient is dishonest and does not result in the evaluation required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).
    • Hydrogen chloride
      • Background: Hydrogen chloride, the gaseous form of hydrochloric acid, is extremely corrosive, and very harmful to human health, especially in the occupational setting where hydrogen chloride is used and high levels of exposure can occur. Hydrogen chloride also has the potential to cause damage to the soil and other organisms in the case of a spill. Hydrogen chloride is not compatible with organic and sustainable agriculture. The use of hydrogen chloride supports the chlorine chemical industry, which is responsible for pollution by some of the most toxic chemicals known, including dioxins and PCBs.
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides supports the relisting of hydrogen chloride in recognition of the lack of alternatives of organic cotton growers. However, in view of the extreme hazard posed by gaseous hydrogen chloride, we ask the NOSB to put its voice behind support for research and development of alternative methods of delinting cotton seed in preparation for planting.

        Back to Issues

Materials/GMO ad hoc Subcommittees

  • Fall 2014 Research Priorities
    • NOSB Materials: Proposal
    • Background: Research topics were collected from NOSB Subcommittees and from suggestions within public comments, and the top research priorities are presented for approval this fall. The criteria for prioritization are for topics that the NOSB believes will have the largest long-term impact on growth and integrity of organic agriculture. In addition to supporting all research priorities identified in 2012 and 2013, the Subcommittee has added the following topics, for the various subcommittees, as priorities for research for 2014: alternatives to BPA in packaging material, plant disease management, soil building practices, mitigation measures for residues in compost, organic no till, seed purity from GMOs, integrity of breeding lines and foundation seed and ways to mitigate small amounts of genetic presence in breeding lines, risk reduction from off-target exposure to non-permitted materials, mastitis, parasitism, pneumonia, herd health, and plant extracts.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides supports the research priorities recommended by the Materials Subcommittee. Beyond Pesticide also recommends the following for consideration: chlorine alternatives, biodegradable biobased bioplastic mulch degradation, chelating agents, and hydrogen chloride alternatives.

Back to Issues

  • Terminology for Excluded Methods
    • NOSB Materials: Discussion Document
    • Background: Excluded methods are methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development in ways that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides identifies two definitional tasks being addressed in the discussion document. First is the regulatory task of defining “excluded methods,” and second is the task of defining the various methods of genetic manipulation.  Beyond Pesticides agrees that the definition of “excluded methods” should be processed-based, and we suggest that a taxonomy of terms would be helpful in defining the types of genetic manipulation and their relationships to each other, and would help determine whether techniques developed in the future fit under the definition of excluded methods. The task of developing a sound regulatory definition of “excluded methods” is essential and should be given high priority.

Back to Issues

Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification Subcommittee

  • Assessment of Soil Conservation Practices
    • NOSB Materials: Discussion Document
    • Background: The OFPA and the NOP standards emphasize the importance of maintaining and improving soil quality. The NOP is aware of concerns regarding use of appropriate soil conservation practices on organic farms, for instance prevention of soil erosion, tillage, fencing of livestock from streams, application of manure on frozen soil, and overgrazing of pasture. The Board would like to determine whether and how crop and livestock operations are complying with the portions of the regulation stating that operators must maintain or improve the natural resources, including soil and water quality.
    • Our Position: While Beyond Pesticides endorses the efforts to assess practices to achieve soil conservation objectives, it is important to address biodiversity conservation comprehensively, not just soil conservation. The Board should also be addressing the Sodbuster and Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act, as well as highly erodible land provisions. Swampbuster protects wetlands, as do the NOP regulations (205.2 and 205.200). Sodbuster conserves biodiversity and maintains or improves wildlife that depend on these high conservation value areas by protecting un-plowed prairies and grasslands, as do the NOP regulations (205.2 and 205.200). Wetlands, prairies and grasslands are better left for intact rather than turned into cropland. We also ask to urge the NOP to release long-promised biodiversity guidance.

Back to Issues

Handling Subcommittee

  • Glycerin
    • NOSB Materials: Proposal (petitioned for removal)
    • Background: Glycerin is a viscous fluid that has a sweet taste. It is used in a wide variety of products including food, cosmetics, medical and industrial applications. The petitioner has requested the removal of Glycerin from 205.605(b) (synthetic materials for handling), stating that there is now sufficient quantity of organically produced glycerin and that synthetic glycerin is no longer required.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides agrees with the Handling Subcommittee (HS) that the issues raised by the glycerin petition are complex. We believe that the approach to listing glycerin needs to recognize that complexity. We suggest different listings for glycerin made by hydrolysis of fats and oil and glycerin made by fermentation. We do not support the classification of glycerin made by hydrolysis of fats and oils as agricultural and therefore oppose its listing on §205.606. Commercial availability does apply to §205.605, according to §205.270(b). Glycerin made by fermentation of agricultural products should be listed separately. There are larger issues that should be addressed by the Materials/GMO Subcommittee to inform decisions involving fermentation products.

Back to Issues

  • Whole Algal Flour
    • NOSB Materials: Proposal (petitioned)
    • Background: Whole algal Flour is manufactured from a microalgae by fermenting and harvesting cultures of a non-toxigenic strain of Chlorella protothecoides. Its primary proposed use would be as a whole food ingredient use as either a partial replacement for food ingredients that provide dietary fat and/or protein or as an added ingredient for texture and mouth feel enhancement.
    • Our Position: We agree with the Handling Subcommittee’s proposals regarding whole algal flour. We agree that there is too much CBI to determine whether it meets criteria under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). We also agree that it is not essential. It would replace natural foods including cream, milk, eggs and egg yolks, and butter or shortening. All of these natural foods contribute nutrients to the diet, and it is not clear what whole algal flour contributes to the diet. The petition also raises an issue that should be addressed by the NOSB, specifically what criteria should be applied to determine whether fermentation products are acceptable as inputs in organic production and processing. Although these processes involve the growth of microorganisms, it is not appropriate to treat vat fermentation to create food additives –like whole algal flour and glycerin—the same as food processing uses –pickles, cheese, and wine, for example. Therefore, we request that the Materials/GMO Subcommittee add to its workplan the development of criteria for evaluating products of fermentation processes.

Back to Issues

  • 2015 Sunset Reviews
    • NOSB Materials: Gellan gum (Preliminary Review); Tragacanth gum (Preliminary Review); Marsala (Preliminary Review); Sherry (Preliminary Review)
    • Background: In a move sanctioned by NOP, the majority of the Handling Subcommittee (HS) used unsupported delisting motions for two substances –gellan gum and tragacanth gum—in order to circumvent the fact that the new NOP sunset policy fails to require full board review of every material, as required by law. It has not provided the required justification to delist the substances, which goes against NOP policy. Instead, the HS majority justifies its motions by saying that the full NOSB board “should have the opportunity to complete the review of each sunset material by voting.” The HS does not present evidence in favor of removal. These unsupported delisting motions only serve to highlight the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the NOP policy and the damage that the process does to the integrity of the organic label. In the case of the other two materials, marsala and sherry, the prescribed process was followed.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides urges the NOSB to refer the motions on gellan gum and tragacanth gum back to the subcommittee based on the lack of a supporting rationale. As an alternative, if the Board decides it can act in defiance of the NOP sunset policy, as the subcommittee has done, we suggest that in order to uphold OFPA, it should introduce substitute motions to relist rather than delist, so that a two-thirds majority would be required to renew the listing of a synthetic or nonorganic material. We do support the removal of marsala and sherry. However, we are disappointed that the HS did not address the environmental and health impacts of nonorganic chemical-intensive production of grapes in its review of these two wines.

Back to Issues

  • 2016 Sunset Summaries
    • NOSB Materials: 2016 Review Summary
    • The NOSB will not vote on 2016 sunset materials at this meeting. However, this is the last chance on these materials to submit comments that will be considered by the NOSB during its deliberations. New scientific and useful information brought to the Board on these materials at the next NOSB meeting in the spring will be found "untimely" and likely not considered. Therefore, it is important that the NOSB receive comment on these issues during this comment period.
    • In order for the NOSB to receive timely comment, the subcommittee must provide analysis of the materials by means of the checklists used in materials review by the NOSB. The public must also be informed that this is the last comment period in which comments on these materials will be considered “timely.” Neither of these things has been done by the Handling Subcommittee (HS).

     

    • Egg white lysozyme
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of egg white lysozyme. Egg white lysozyme is isolated from the whites of hens’ eggs. It is most likely derived from nonorganic factory-farmed eggs from chickens kept in confinement, fed feed made from genetically engineered corn and soybeans treated with pesticides, and given antibiotics and arsenic to kill parasites. The health and environmental impacts of producing eggs in nonorganic factory farms are legion and include damage to streams from runoff from both egg producing facilities and the farms producing the feed, increasing antibiotic resistance, and arsenic contamination of land and water. Genetically engineered corn and soybeans are responsible for decreases in biodiversity. Seed treatments on nonorganic corn and soybeans lead to decimated populations of pollinators. None of these impacts are addressed in the technical review (TR) that will form the basis of the HS recommendation.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE
    • Microorganisms
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides cannot support the relisting of microorganisms without documentation to show that the listing meets the criteria of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The principal document of support is a technical review (TR) that does not address the manufacture of microorganisms by fermentation. The sunset review of microorganisms is intended to be a test case for addressing ancillary substances contained in the material. Unfortunately, the HS has done an inadequate job –by failing to identify all ancillary substances and failing to review any of them.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE
    • Activated charcoal
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides would support the relisting of activated charcoal if it were possible to annotate the listing. Activated charcoal is a substance that could meet the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act with few restrictions, including limiting its use to filtering water and requiring steam activation. However, without those restrictions, we find it to present environmental and health problems from toxic chemical use and issues with compatibility from possible detrimental effects on nutritional quality.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE
    • Peracetic acid
    • Boiler Chemicals (cyclohexylamine, diethylaminoethanol, octadecylamine)
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of the boiler chemicals octadecylamine, diethylaminoethanol, and cyclohexylamine because they fail the OFPA criteria for health and environmental impacts, essentiality, and compatibility with organic handling practices. The HS must determine and evaluate residues of the chemicals in organic food for the allowed use on packaging.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE (Note: Beyond Pesticides will be submitting one comment on the three materials listed above)
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE
    • L-Malic acid
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of L-malic acid because the database does not support the decision to relist. The principal document of support is a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) review of DL-malic acid, the synthetic form, which does not address the manufacture of L-malic acid by fermentation.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE
    • Sodium acid pyrophosphate
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), based on the information available to us and the Handling Subcommittee (HS). We note that the principal document available to the committee is a technical advisory panel (TAP) review of sodium phosphates in response to a petition for use in soy milk. The technical review (TR) focuses on a proposed expanded use of SAPP, and does not address the current listed use. SAPP is made from phosphoric acid and sodium carbonate. Manufacture of food grade phosphoric acid involves the removal of heavy metals and radioactive waste. This produces a waste stream of hazardous substances.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE
    • Tetrasodium pyrophosphate (TSPP)
      • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of tetrasodium pyrophosphate (TSPP) because it fails to meet the criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act for health and environmental effects, essentiality, and compatibility with organic handling practices. TSPP is made from phosphoric acid and sodium carbonate. Manufacture of food grade phosphoric acid involves the removal of heavy metals and radioactive waste. This produces a waste stream of hazardous substances.
      • SEE BEYOND PESTICIDES' DRAFT COMMENT HERE
      • SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE

Back to Issues

Livestock Subcommittee

  • Vaccines from Excluded Methods (GMO Vaccines)
    • NOSB Materials: Proposal
    • Background: Vaccines are critical for the prevention of disease and to prevent needless suffering of livestock. For the vast majority of diseases for which a vaccine may be used there is a vaccine available which is not made with excluded methods. However, most certifiers do not require producers to document that the livestock vaccine used is not made with excluded methods (genetic engineering). The NOSB, working with the NOP, has spent considerable time over the last several years reviewing how best to address the issue of vaccines made with excluded methods in order to be in compliance with OFPA and the Regulations. Two key findings of this work to date is that the definition of “excluded methods” requires revision, and that it is difficult to determine which vaccines meet the regulatory definition.
    • Our Position: Beyond Pesticides appreciates the thorough recounting of the attempts of the NOSB, Livestock Subcommittee (LS), and the Vaccines Made With Excluded Methods (MWEM) Working Group to come to a satisfactory resolution of the problem of determining which vaccines are MWEM. We agree that the NOSB does not yet have the information available to solve this problem. However, we disagree with the proposal of the LS to turn the problem over to the National Organic Program (NOP) to solve by providing guidance to the NOSB, certifiers and MRO’s on the use of Vaccines MWEM in organic Livestock production. Additionally, to address the issue regarding the definition of “excluded methods,” we suggest that the NOSB adopt a two-stage process. First, the definition of “excluded methods” must be clear enough to form the basis for regulatory action. The investigations of the LS and Vaccines MWEM Working Group will certainly be valuable input into the ongoing efforts of the Materials/GMO Subcommittee in that regard. Second, the NOSB should recommend to the Secretary that he establish a registry, labeling system, or some other mechanism for identifying vaccines that meet that definition. It does no good to make this kind of recommendation to the NOP because they do not have the authority to implement it.

Back to Issues