{"id":11896,"date":"2013-09-19T00:01:37","date_gmt":"2013-09-19T04:01:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=11896"},"modified":"2013-09-19T09:14:19","modified_gmt":"2013-09-19T13:14:19","slug":"usda-guts-public-organic-review-process-to-limit-synthetics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2013\/09\/usda-guts-public-organic-review-process-to-limit-synthetics\/","title":{"rendered":"USDA Guts Public Organic Review Process to Limit Synthetics"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/i>, September 19, 2013) In a move decried by consumer and environmental groups as severely weakening the meaning of the organic label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced this week<\/a> that the agency has changed the process for exempting otherwise prohibited substances (such as synthetics) in food that carries the \u201corganic\u201d or \u201cmade with organic\u201d label. This decision makes it easier to continue use of artificial ingredients and substances, undermining integrity of the organic label. Additionally, the changes are effective September 17, only one day after the announcement, and no public comment period was provided for the changes to this policy, which has been in place since 2005. Read the joint statement<\/a> issued by Beyond Pesticides, Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, and Food and Water Watch.<\/p>\n

Under the federal organic law and prior to the announcement, there was a controlled process for allowing the use of substances not normally permitted in organic production because of extenuating circumstances. Under the Organic Foods Production Act<\/i> 7 USC 6517 (e) Sunset Provision, \u201cNo exemption or prohibition contained in the National List shall be valid unless the National Organic Standards Board has reviewed such exemption or prohibition as provided in this section within 5 years of such exemption or prohibition being adopted or reviewed and the Secretary has renewed such exemption or prohibition.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the law, these exemptions are authorized for a five-year period, in order to encourage the development of natural (or organic) alternatives. The exemptions are required by law to expire<\/b>, known as \u201csunset,\u201d unless they were reinstated by a two-thirds \u201cdecisive\u201d majority vote of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and include a public review. While this is the law, USDA has said it will \u00a0no longer operate the program in this manner.<\/p>\n

The USDA\u2019s recent decision now puts the burden of identifying exempted materials for removal largely onto environmentalists and consumers. \u00a0Under the new policy, an exempt material could be permitted indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB votes to remove <\/i>an exempted (synthetic) substance from the list. \u00a0<\/b>The new policy allows USDA to relist exemptions for synthetic materials without the recommendation of the independent board and outside of public view, as required by current law.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe USDA\u2019s decision minimizes all incentives for creating organic, natural alternative ingredients and lowers the standard for what consumers can expect behind the organic label. Allowing the USDA to automatically relist materials without the recommendation of the NOSB erodes the Board\u2019s legal authority over materials decisions, a key to consumer trust in the organic label. The fact that the agency made this decision without any public input only adds to the violation felt by watchdog groups and consumers alike,\u201d the groups said.<\/p>\n

\u201cPotentially allowing an indefinite listing of non-natural ingredients and requiring a super-majority vote to retire a substance after five years undermines the spirit of the law for how materials head into \u201csunset\u201d or retirement. It is unfair to producers trying to produce a truly organic product and it is unfair to consumers trying to make meaningful purchasing decisions. Simply put, this lowers the bar for much of the organic market. We believe USDA must reverse course and we intend to mount a fierce campaign to hold the agency accountable to the millions of Americans who expect more from the government\u201d\u201dand the organic label.\u201d<\/p>\n

For more information: <\/b><\/p>\n