 (1100 x 336 px).png)
Fall 2016 NOSB Meeting
Keeping Organic Strong: Changes in organic regulations and farming practices
National Organic Standards Board
Fall 2016 NOSB Meeting
Comment by October 26, 2016!
When: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - 8:30AM to Friday, November 18, 2016 - 6:00PM
Where: Chase Park Plaza Hotel, 212 N. Kingshighway Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108
The fall 2016 meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by October 26, 2016. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label.
The proposals of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, were published for public comment. The public comment period will end October 26, 2016. On this page, Beyond Pesticides will be providing the public with a listing and analysis of the issues under consideration of the Board when it meets in St. Louis, MO on November 16-18, 2016. You can view USDA's announcement of the NOSB recommendation here. Please check back to see Beyond Pesticides' analysis.
To truly make an impact in the future of organic, Beyond Pesticides encourages you to:
- Become familiar with the issues below;
- See previous comments submitted;
- Submit a public comment by October 26, 2016 (click here for guidelines!); and
- Join us for the meeting in St. Louis, MO.
**On certain browsers, it may be necessary to download a PDF version of Beyond Pesticides' comments in order to view the navigation pane**
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 2016
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 consider public comment and vote on materials subject to "2018 sunset review" at this meeting.
A Framework to Keep in Mind When Commenting to the NOSB:
According to the Organic Foods Production Act, a synthetic substance may only be allowed for use in organic production if it meets the following criteria [7 USC 6517(c)(1)(B)]:
- It contains an active synthetic ingredient in the following categories: copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins and minerals; livestock parasiticides and medicines and production aids including netting, tree wraps and seals, insect traps, sticky barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers.
- It contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern.
Additionally, it must be fully established that the use of the substance [7 USC 6517(c)(1)(A)]
- would not be harmful to human health or the environment;
- is necessary to the production or handling of the final product because natural substitutes are not available; and
- is consistent with organic farming and handling (see the NOSB’s Principles of Organic Production and Handling).
Structuring your comments on synthetic substances around these points and referencing the specific stipulations in the law will help the members of the NOSB to understand your argument and will make your input more effective.
Top Priority Issues (See Rest of Issues Below) |
Table of Contents/Navigation to Beyond Pesticides' Comments and Summaries |
|
|
Compliance, Accreditation, & Certification Subcommittee (CACS) |
|
|
|||||
|
|
Take Action at Regulations.gov! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Personnel Performance Evaluations of Inspectors
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
-
Background: We believe that performance evaluations of inspectors are necessary to maintain the public trust in the organic label and assure that inspections are accurate, but disagree with the current requirement for on-site, or field inspections for “every inspector, every year” portion of the rule. Instead, we recommend an updated model for on-site evaluations which prioritizes evaluating novice inspectors or inspectors who require the need for additional evaluations based on past-reviews. For certifiers who do not fall into either of these categories, allowing for an evaluation cycle timeframe of three years would remove the burdens that have been identified by certifying bodies and others. We believe this updated model will achieve the goal conducting consistent, thorough inspections while maintaining a less burdensome approach logistically and financially to on-site evaluations.
- Eliminating Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems into Organic Crop Production
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the Wild Farm Alliance’s request to add to the CACS work agenda an item on “Eliminating the Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems into Organic Crop Production.” NOP’s three-year waiting period for transitioning to organic production serves a critical purpose and it should be retained. However, we urge NOSB to recognize that the conversion of native ecosystems that have no cropping history to organic production is an unintended consequence of the requirement, and to develop regulatory language to discourage such conversion. Protection of biodiversity cannot wait for the regulatory timetable. Therefore, we call upon NOSB and NOP to develop guidance implementing the NOSB’s 2009 recommendations, while simultaneously working on regulations. We also believe that protection should not be limited to those species and communities recognized as threatened or endangered, but should recognize that habitat is already so fragmented that further destruction of natural lands threatens entire ecological communities.
Crops Subcommittee |
- Aluminum Sulfate
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the CS and LS proposals to deny the petition to use aluminum sulfate as a litter treatment in poultry houses, which could also end up being added to crop fields. Aluminum sulfate reacts with water to form sulfuric acid, which is an irritant. Aluminum sulfate is corrosive to the eyes, skin contact causes a rash and burning feeling, and inhalation causes throat and lung irritation. Additionally, as its proposed use is in poultry houses, it is noteworthy that it is potentially toxic to poultry by ingestion or dermal exposure. It is also used to promote a form of poultry management that discourages composting of poultry manure. Because the petitioned use of aluminum sulfate does not meet OFPA criteria of absence of harm to human health and the environment, essentiality, or compatibility with organic production, aluminum sulfate is unnecessary.
- Soy Wax
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Beyond Pesticides submitted the petition to list soy wax. Soy wax is synthetic because it is made by hydrogenating soy oil –the same process used to make margarine. We petitioned for it to give those who grow mushrooms on logs a non-petroleum alternative for sealing inoculation sites on logs. We are pleased to see that the current proposed annotation requires the wax to be made from organic soybeans when commercially available. We agree with the CS proposal to include the annotation, “Must be made from non-GMO soybeans if soy wax from organic soybeans is not commercially available.”
- 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP)
- See Beyond Pesticides final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the CS proposal to deny the petition to allow the use 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) as a growth regulator. EPA’s Biopesticide Registration Action Document (BRAD) discredits the petition claim, “EPA has classified 1-MCP as a biopesticide,” stating, “The Biochemical Classification Committee determined that the 1-MCP gas has not been shown to occur naturally, and cannot be proved to fit the biochemical pesticide definition.” 1-MCP acts as a hormone disruptor in plants by binding to the site of ethylene receptor, with about 10 strength of ethylene. 1-MCP is a synthetic chemical that would take the place of organic practices and nonsynthetic alternatives and it is a growth regulator, which is not an allowed use in organic agriculture.
- Ammonium citrate and Ammonium glycinate
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the CS proposals to reject both of these petitions on the chelating agents ammonium citrate and ammonium glycinate because they would not be used as is, but after reacting with micronutrient metals. If the petitioner returns with a revised petition in the future, we suggest that a technical review to evaluate the effect of the glycinates and the chelates be performed. We also urge that the NOSB receive more information about chelating agents in general –how natural adsorbing chelating agents differ in their chemistry and impacts from chemical chelating agents like glycinate and EDTA.
- Potassium cellulose glycolate
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We agree with the Crops Subcommittee proposal to deny the petition to add potassium cellulose glycolate to the National List because it is unnecessary and incompatible with organic farming, as detailed in the proposal. Additionally, the petition should have been rejected as insufficient. It provides a “label,” which appears to be a shipping label, which fails to provide an ingredients statement or directions for use. The petition, received June 22, 2016, also fails to disclose confidential business information (CBI) relevant to consideration of the petition. NOP codified the NOSB decision not to accept CBI in NOP 3011, issued March 11, 2016.
- Hydroponics (Bioponics) proposal
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the view of the majority of the Crops Subcommittee to recommend that hydroponics, aeroponics, bioponics and aquaponics methods should not be considered eligible for organic certification. Organic production depends upon the “Law of Return,” which together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant,” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic systems. Hydroponic/aeroponic/bioponic/aquaponics systems are not consistent with these principles in organic production. Somewhere along the continuum between in-ground production and bioponics is a line separating those methods of production that can be certified organic from those that cannot. In-ground production can be certified organic, while hydroponics/aeroponics/bioponics/aquaponics should not.
- Contaminated inputs
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We are disappointed to see the Crops Subcommittee (CS) further delay work on contaminated inputs. Organic integrity and the consumer trust necessary to grow the sector require grower and consumer confidence that land managers and policy makers are doing all they can to monitor and protect against organic contamination by prohibited substances. We agree with the approach outlined by the CS in the Spring of 2015, of addressing this complicated issue based on feedstocks and pathways. And while we hope that the CS gathers information on new feedstocks, we believe that the best next step is to choose one feedstock and follow it through to making recommendations. We urge the CS and the NOSB to address this issue promptly and comprehensively, by releasing recommended guidelines in stages and allowing ongoing public comment and input.
Crops 2018 Sunset Review Summary 205.601 (Synthetic Materials Allowed in Organic Crop Production):
- Copper sulfate
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: The use of copper sulfate in an aquatic environment like a rice field is inconsistent with a system of organic and sustainable agriculture. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent, but it is not clear that this provision protects animals in the paddies. Rice paddies replace natural wetlands and provide alternative habitat for animals threatened by the loss of wetlands. Unfortunately, many of these animals are sensitive to copper. In addition, copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic animals that could provide some biological control for the algae the copper is used to kill. The impacts on amphibians found in rice fields—not only have a negative impact on biodiversity, but they also reduce possibilities for biological control of algae and tadpole shrimp.
- Ozone gas
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Ozone has high acute toxicity. Concentrations above 0.1 mg/L by volume average over an 8 hour period may cause nausea, chest pain, reduced visual acuity and pulmonary edema. Inhalation of >20 ppm for at least an hour may be fatal. In terms of chronic effects, ozone may have deleterious effects on the lungs and cause respiratory disease. The use of ozone may be seriously detrimental to the health of humans who work with it, and those exposed indirectly, downwind of use. As a known and problematic air pollutant its use as a tool in organic farming questionable. In view of the dangers associated with the use of ozone, the NOSB should examine its hazards in the context of all materials and methods that are available to meet the sanitation needs of organic production. The NOSB should recommend annotations to protect farmers and workers where needed.
- Paracetic acid
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Information from recent EPA reviews has not been incorporated into recent decisions about peracetic acid. The current annotation seems to indicate that peracetic acid is an “inert” ingredient, but it is not listed in EPA’s InertFinder database, nor is it listed on the historic lists 4A or 4B. There are several issues that need to be addressed in reviewing peracetic acid –its identity, worker protection, and its role in the universe of sanitizers and disinfectants used in organic production.
- EPA List 3 - Inerts of Unknown Toxicity
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: The NOSB must take the sunset review of List 3 “inerts” seriously. Although List 3 “inerts” are included in the annotation change approved at the fall 2015 NOSB meeting, it may be several years before that annotation takes effect. The NOSB has identified the three List 3 “inerts” in use in organic production, and should review them according to OFPA criteria as required by law rather than simply waiting for the annotation change to take effect. The former “List 3 inerts,” which were approved for use only in passive pheromone dispensers, have received special treatment –the law did not intend for “inerts” on List 3 to be allowed in organic production. Therefore, this small group of chemicals has questionable status. Although it is possible that some will be found to be acceptable when reviewed by the NOSB, the existence of such an exceptional listing does not support the integrity of organic production.
Crops 2018 Sunset Review Summary 205.602 (Non-Synthetic Materials Prohibited in Organic Crop Production):
- Calcium chloride
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the CS proposal to continue listing calcium chloride at §205.602 as a prohibited natural material. The TAP review and previous NOSB recommendations all support limiting the use of calcium chloride to the restricted conditions when normal calcium uptake from the soil is impossible. NOSB should request further investigation into the statement by the TAP reviewer that the deficiency for which it is allowed can be avoided by choosing non-susceptible varieties.
- Strengthening the Organic Seed Guidance
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: The goal should be a requirement for virtually 100% organic seed use on organic farms. However, we understand that exceptions will on occasion arise to allow for seed that is not available as organic, and we advocate for necessary allowances to ensure organic farmers have full access to diverse seed genetics. NOP auditors must provide training and better monitor how certifiers oversee seed exemptions. Complete seed lists of requests for exempted varieties and documented efforts to source and trial organic seed must be included in the farmer’s Organic System Plan (OSP). When exceptions occur, organic growers must not use seeds and plants grown with prohibited substances. The absolute prohibition on non-organic seeds that applies to sprouts should also apply to other crops not grown in soil, such as microgreens. Special attention should be given to the largest growers, who must be required to work with seed producers and produce buyers to ensure a supply of organic seed. Compliance with the organic seed requirement and increased usage of organic seed by organic farmers will not only help mitigate GE contamination, but will also benefit the overall economic success of farmers, and the ecological well-being and resilience of organic farms.
- Container and Greenhouse Production: Further Clarification
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We appreciate and support the decision of the CS to separate consideration of hydroponics/aeroponics/bioponics/aquaponics ( “hydroponics”) from that of containerized culture in a solid medium. We therefore urge the NOSB to move ahead with voting on hydroponics while it considers the complexities of containerized production in solid media. Containerized production methods –like some hydroponic methods—have a place in meeting the food needs of our society, but that does not make them eligible for organic certification. Assessment of alternatives should be based on the source of plant nutrition. Approved methods should primarily rely on the living soil, with little reliance on liquid nutrients. And finally, the practices of crop rotation and cover cropping can and should be practiced in a greenhouse as they bring multiple benefits to organic systems.
- List 4 - NPEs
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: NOSB should take a more active approach to considering the removal of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) from pesticide products used in organic production. EPA has identified alternatives to NPEs, and it is time for the National Organic Program to banish these harmful substances. The term “nonylphenol ethoxylates” refers to a large group of chemicals that vary in chemical structure and toxicological effects. However, they all break down rather quickly to long-lived degradation products that are more toxic and share common effects –they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and extremely toxic to aquatic organisms. The responsibility of organic regulators and practitioners goes beyond the compatibility with organic principles and compliance with organic standards. Organic production should be leading the way in environmental protection and regeneration, and the use of nonylphenol ethoxylates in pesticides products in organic production is not compatible with this mission.
- MOU with EPA Safer Choice Program for "Inerts" Review
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: There has been an unconscionable delay in implementing NOSB recommendations for replacing the obsolete references to EPA List 3 and List 4 “inert” ingredients on the National List with listings of actual approved non-active ingredients in pesticide products. These ingredients frequently compose as much as 99% of pesticide products and due to NOSB scrutiny of active ingredients may be the most hazardous ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production. The NOSB proposed that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with EPA would finalize the agreement between NOP and the Safer Choice Program that would spell out the details of how the recommendation would actually be implemented. We urge the NOP to immediately conduct a public notice and comment process and publish for public comment a description of this MOU as a description of the means of implementing the Fall 2015 NOSB recommendation.
Handling Subcommittee |
- Chlorine dioxide gas
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We are appalled that the HS would propose adding chlorine dioxide gas to the National List and we maintain that the petition should be rejected because it fails to meet all OFPA criteria. The petitioned product has a conditional registration from EPA, meaning that not all essential data have been submitted. It is not labeled for this use. The necessary tolerances or exemptions from tolerances do not exist. It is a hazardous chemical used to take the place of care in handling and less hazardous materials. Because the petitioner created confusion around the petitioned substance, important information about the hazards of chlorine dioxide gas and its regulation by EPA were hidden from the HS in its deliberations. The NOSB should not approve more sanitizers –particularly chlorine-based sanitizers—until performing a comprehensive review of sanitizers and the need for sanitizers in organic production.
- Oat protein concentrate
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the HS proposal to oppose listing of oat protein concentrate on the National List as it fails the essentiality and availability criteria as well as the commercial supply criteria. Beyond Pesticides opposes the listing of oat protein concentrate because it is grown using chemical-intensive methods, is not essential for organic production and handling, and is incompatible with organic production and handling. Oat protein concentrate is an extract from non-organic oats that is marketed as a vegan protein source to be used in processed foods. Protein is a macronutrient. Consumers expect that products labeled “organic” have superior nutrition due to organic farming practices, not because certain nutrients from non-organic sources have been added to supplement the organic ingredients. Three other petitions –for oat beta-glucan, barley beta-fiber (barley beta-glucan), and sugar beet fiber—that also promised nutritional benefits (fiber) from non-organic sources were resoundingly denied (by votes of 15-0, 12-3, and 15-0) in April 2016 and April 2013 and we are pleased to see the subcommittee opposition to this petition as well.
- Tocopherols - additional listing and annotation change
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: These comments address both the proposed annotation change and the additional listing for tocopherols. We support the additional listing on §205.605(a) as a way to encourage the use of nonsynthetic tocopherols, and we understand the reasoning behind removing the annotation “when rosemary extracts are not a suitable alternative.” However, all non-organic tocopherols meeting the proposed annotations of either listing are extracted from non-organic vegetable oil. The evaluation of tocopherols must take into consideration the use of pesticides in the non-organic production of soybeans and ensure that GMO soy is not used in production of organic products.The HS has proposed a first step –creating a separate listing for nonsynthetic tocopherols, which will hopefully be followed by a sunsetting of synthetic tocopherols. We would like to see the transition to tocopherols made from organic oils.
Handling 2018 Sunset Review Summary 205.605(a) (Nonsynthetic Nonorganic Nonagricultural Materials Allowed in Organic Processing and Handling)
- Agar-agar
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the continued listing of agar-agar on §205.605(a) Nonsynthetics allowed, with the annotation, “from Gelidium species, processed without alkaline pretreatment and sourced from areas managed for sustainability.” Agar (or agar-agar) may be nonsynthetic or synthetic. Nonsynthetic agar is made from Gelidium species of seaweed. It may be pretreated with an acid (vinegar or a mineral acid) to improve penetration. Synthetic agar is made from Gracilaria species, which has been overharvested and in processing is subject to alkaline pretreatment to bring about a chemical change in the polysaccharides to produce agar with increased gel strength. In the spring of 2016, the Handling Subcommittee (HS) concluded from the Technical Evaluation Report (TR) that a reevaluation of the classification of agar might be needed once the NOP finalizes the classification of materials guidance. We do not believe that the reevaluation must wait on the NOP’s long-delayed guidance.
- Animal enzymes
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Animal enzymes allowed by this listing are: “Rennet—animals derived; Catalase—bovine liver; Animal lipase; Pancreatin; Pepsin; and Trypsin.” It appears that animal rennet from non-organic sources is probably not essential, since according to the 2011 Technical Review (TR), non-animal sources account for 95% of the rennet used in the U.S. Animal-based rennet could also be made from organic livestock. The evaluation of animal enzymes must take into consideration the use of pesticides in the non-organic production of corn and soybeans and ensure that GMO grains are not used in production of organic products. The NOSB must investigate the potential availability of organic animal enzymes if the demand was enhanced by removal of this listing. The HS review is lacking in important respects, and without an adequate review, the NOSB should not relist animal enzymes.
- Calcium sulfate - mined
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We ask the board to consider TAP review evaluation of the many uses of calcium sulfate. We agree that the use of calcium sulfate as a coagulant in tofu production is compatible with organic principles, but other uses should be considered individually. The information in the TAP review might support the use of calcium sulfate in brewing, but not in other possible uses. We have not seen sufficient evidence to support the use of calcium sulfate for all food uses. Therefore we support renewing the listing of calcium sulfate with the annotation, “For use only as a coagulant in bean curd (tofu and similar products).”
- Carrageenan
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We oppose the relisting of carrageenan on §205.605(a) and believes that the substance should be removed from the National List. Carrageenan should be reclassified as a synthetic. The NOSB must take a precautionary approach when assessing the studies of health effects of carrageenan. Even giving equal weight to industry-supported and independent research, the NOSB must accept the existence of science pointing to serious health consequences associated with the consumption of carrageenan and act to protect organic consumers. The evidence summarized by the 2015 Technical Review came up with a verdict of mixed results on virtually every issue regarding food grade (high molecular weight) carrageenan. However, there is widespread agreement that poligeenan, which contaminates food grade carrageenan at unknown and uncontrollable levels, does cause adverse effects, including cancer. In addition, the production causes adverse environmental impacts. And it is not necessary –organic processors have been moving away from the use of carrageen because of consumer pressure since it was last considered for sunset.
- Glucano delta-lactone
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We oppose the relisting of glucono delta-lactone as it currently appears in the annotation. The technical review calls into question the need for GDL and also challenges the appropriateness of listing GDL on §205.605(a) without an annotation change. If the NOSB chooses to relist GDL, it should ensure that the listing is consistent with its classification –that is, if it is relisted on §205.605(a), then the annotation should require a nonsynthetic. It should also restrict the use of GDL to tofu production because that is the only use that has been supported.
- Tartaric acid
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: The HS should investigate whether tartaric acid from organic grape wine is available or would be available if this listing did not discourage its use. As listed on the National List, tartaric acid must be made from grape wine, as it is a waste product from winemaking. The evaluation of tartaric acid must thus take into consideration the use of pesticides in the non-organic production of grapes and the availability of organic grape wine for this purpose, as well as the potential availability of the tartaric acid from organic grape wine if the demand existed.
Handling 2018 Sunset Review Summary 205.605(b) (Synthetic Nonorganic Nonagricultural Materials Allowed in Organic Processing and Handling)
- Cellulose
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: At the spring 2012 meeting, the NOSB recommended relisting with the following annotation, in order to ensure that microcrystalline cellulose is not used in food, “for use in regenerative casings, powdered cellulose as an anti-caking agent (non-chlorine bleached) and filtering aid.” The NOP refused to make the annotation change and renewed the listing as originally written and states that its rulemaking action is complete. The NOSB should get a firm answer from NOP regarding its intentions. It appears that cellulose can be removed from the National List as unnecessary. As an alternative to removal, the recommendation for an annotation change passed by the board in 2012 should be revisited.
- Potassium hydroxide
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Potassium hydroxide is a hazardous material, possibly (with sodium hydroxide) one of the most hazardous and toxic on the National List. The 2016 TR does not seem to have resolved the issue of the essentiality for potassium hydroxide in processing peaches, but the essentiality of other allowed uses also needs to be examined. The NOSB must address the following questions: For what purposes is potassium hydroxide used in organic processing? What are the alternatives for those uses? Is further annotation necessary?
- Silicon dioxide
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Silicon dioxide is listed as: 205.605(b) Silicon dioxide—Permitted as a defoamer. Allowed for other uses when organic rice hulls are not commercially available. The annotation in the final rule is less restrictive than the NOSB recommendation, and therefore allows the use of the synthetic silicon dioxide in cases where there is a nonsynthetic alternative other than organic rice hulls,” which is contrary to OFPA §6517(d)(2). According to the 2010 Technical Review (TR), other plant materials may be the basis for biogenic silica products. Therefore, the NOSB should revisit the annotation to determine whether it should be changed to the language as originally passed by the NOSB or to a slightly less restrictive version (but still more restrictive than the version adopted into the regulations), “Permitted as a defoamer. Allowed for other uses when an organic substitute is not commercially available.”
Handling 2018 Sunset Review Summary 205.606 (Nonorganic Agricultural Materials Allowed in Organic Processing and Handling)
- Beta-carotene extract color
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Organic consumers do not expect their food to be artificially colored, whether or not the color is synthetic according to the NOP classification of materials, so a color additive is not necessary. Additionally, the 2012 Supplemental Technical Review identifies organic annatto coloring as an alternative. The NOSB must reconsider the agricultural classification of beta-carotene and take into account all of the impacts of the extraction process of beta-carotene. The evaluation of beta-carotene must take into consideration the use of pesticides in the non-organic production of soybean oil and ensure that GMO soy is not used in production of organic products. The HS should determine whether organic annatto does indeed perform the function of beta carotene extract.
Back to the table of contents
Discussion Document
- Cumulative impact of phosphates in organic processed foods
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We thank the Handling Subcommittee for this very helpful discussion document regarding phosphates used in organic foods. Given that the discussion document discusses the potential of harm from cumulative exposure to phosphates added to food—it makes sense to focus on the essentiality of the various phosphates. If organic dairy processors are making products without phosphates, they are clearly using something else on the National List or nothing, which means phosphates are non-essential. Since European, Japanese, CODEX and IFOAM standards limit phosphates to only monocalcium phosphate and only as a leavening agent, other uses are not needed and should be phased out.
- Marine algae listings on National List
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Marine algae listings should be clarified by adding Latin binomials. The listings should continue to be listed by specific use or application. The NOSB may find it necessary for reasons such as conservation or the avoidance of contamination to restrict the use in organic production to a subset of the full range of species thus identified. Given the level of complexity only touched on in the discussion document, it will not be possible to include everything in the National List, and some elements can be explained in guidance. Another issue that has not been addressed in this discussion document is the problem of introducing pests of native species through cultivation, and we ask that this be considered.
- Statement on Proposed Reclassification
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
-
Background: We agree that the synthetic classification of xanthan gum should not change, but law requires that the decision must be made by the NOSB as a whole, not the Handling Subcommittee. The issue of xanthan gum reclassification went through all the steps of being put on the NOSB work agenda, evaluation through a Technical Review, and subcommittee determination although the notes do not indicate whether the subcommittee voted on the issue. If the subcommittee voted, the vote should be reported in the subcommittee notes and the statement published with subcommittee proposals. Since the subcommittee cannot by itself make decisions on behalf of the NOSB and given that the consideration was a workplan item, the HS must put its proposal concerning the reclassification of xanthan gum on the NOSB agenda for public comment, Board discussion, and a vote.
Back to the table of contents
Livestock Subcommittee |
- Ivermectin
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the LS proposal to remove ivermectin from the National List because it does not meet OFPA criteria of absence of harm to human health and the environment, essentiality, or compatibility with organic production. The regulations at §205.238 require livestock producers to take measures to prevent disease. The regulations at §205.240 require pasture management to minimize and prevent the spread of diseases. NOSB Guidance on Compatibility calls for giving weight to a positive impact on biodiversity. NOSB Principles of Organic Production and Handling call for “Avoiding the routine use of chemical allopathic veterinary drugs, including antibiotics.” All of these statements of organic principles, taken together with the findings expressed in the LS proposal, indicate that use of ivermectin is not compatible with organic production.
- Poultry Litter Treatments: Aluminum sulfate, Sodium bisulfate and acid-activated bentonite
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments on Aluminum sulfate, Sodium bisulfate, and acid-activated bentonite
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Three synthetic poultry litter treatments have been petitioned to reduce ammonia in poultry houses: acid-activated bentonite, aluminum sulfate, and sodium bisulfate. Each poses its own hazards to human health and the environment. In addition, the residues in the poultry litter are synthetic plant nutrients, which would make the litter ineligible for use as fertilizer on organic farms. There are alternative management practices and materials. Most importantly, all are used to support a particular type of management, in which litter may be reused for up to 35 flocks before it is changed. The repeated use of the same litter reduces the C:N ratio of the poultry litter and the likelihood that composting will be used to manage manure and amend organic soil. In view of the many benefits of compost for both disposal of manure and growing crops, management systems that discourage composting should not be promoted through the allowance of synthetic inputs.
Materials Subcommittee |
- Research Priorities
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support all of the research priorities brought forth by the Materials Subcommittee, with the following exceptions. We are not sure that the issue of chlorine materials and alternatives meets the criteria for research priorities. We support a comprehensive review of all sanitizers, disinfectants, cleansers, and their uses by the NOSB, but believe that primary research is available to support that review. Given the known health effects of nitrates, there is no good reason for prioritizing research that facilitates the use of celery powder as a nitrate source in food. Before proposing alternatives to Bisphenol A as a research priority, the NOSB should commission a technical review of the current literature. The presentation of consumer demand as a research priority is insulting to consumers participating in the NOSB process. Surveys by non-profit organizations provide information about what consumers would do given more choices and more information, but sales are only as informative as the choices and information provided to consumers. And finally, we suggest that the NOSB request NOP to broaden its scope in delivering the research priorities and also request an annual report from NOP on how it has distributed the research priorities.
- Excluded Methods Terminology
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: This is an area urgently requiring NOSB action, especially in view of the enactment of recent federal law, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, which could make genetic engineering or genetically modified terminology unclear. We support the approach of separating the proposal and discussion document on excluded methods terminology. We support the excluded methods terminology proposal. In particular, we support the approach taken by the MS to start with a few critical definitions and principles from the NOSB and IFOAM to develop criteria to determine whether processes are excluded methods. This approach is sound and flexible, allowing application to new methods. However, we believe that “transduction” requires a definition and an explanation for its classification as not an excluded method. With regard to technical details, we support the comments of the Center for Food Safety.
Discussion Documents
- Excluded Methods Terminology - Third Discussion Document
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: Please see above.
- Report to the USDA Secretary on Progress to Prevent GMO Incursion into Organic
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the action of the NOSB to update the Secretary of Agriculture regarding its progress in preventing GMO incursion into organic production. We believe that the proposed letter is a fair representation of NOSB activities. However, in reporting on the message from the public, the letter should include the message that the public views it as important that the cost of avoiding GMO contamination of organic farms and products be borne by those who profit most from the use of GMOs –the patent holders for GMO seeds.
Policy Development Subcommittee |
- Policy and Procedures Manual Revisions
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: The Policy and Procedures Manual serves as by-laws for the NOSB. The proposal of the PDS for changes in the PPM has not followed the procedures in the PPM for presenting proposals. The PDS has not provided an explanation with sufficient detail and rationale to support the proposals, including reasons why the proposals should be adopted, historical context, and the regulatory framework pertinent to the issue. We supports the clarification that the Administrative Team does not make decisions; the revised sections on petitions and proposals to allow the NOSB to remove National List items by adding a proposal to remove to the work agenda; the proposal that clarifies the hierarchy of rules under which the NOSB operates; and the proposal regarding the transparent defining and handling of records and votes, but recommend that the NOP must report on its handling of public requests. Although we support opening the NOSB docket early, the PPM should also promote transparency of subcommittee actions. The PDS should examine other provisions of the PPM that conflict with this proposal. And finally, we oppose the proposed changes in election procedures due to the lack of support given.
- Sunset Review - Efficient Work Load Reorganization
- See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
- Submit your comment here
- Background: We support the proposal of the Policy Development Subcommittee for reorganizing sunset review of National List Materials. We all have a stake in the process and it is important that the process facilitates the most effective deliberation and analysis possible. We support the principle of applying the original sunset date regardless of the actual review date. We hope that application of this principle will result in less selfishness among stakeholders in evaluating the options. We believe that other principles applied to the reorganization are also fair.