{"id":16609,"date":"2015-09-14T00:01:57","date_gmt":"2015-09-14T04:01:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=16609"},"modified":"2015-10-02T12:44:14","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T16:44:14","slug":"court-rejects-usda-motion-to-dismiss-lawsuit-on-organic-rule-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2015\/09\/court-rejects-usda-motion-to-dismiss-lawsuit-on-organic-rule-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Rejects USDA Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit on Organic Rule Change"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2015)<\/em> On Thursday September 10, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in a bench ruling<\/a>, rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) \u00a0motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit<\/a> (Case3:15-cv-01690) that challenges the National Organic Program\u2019s (NOP) failure to follow proper legal procedures \u00a0in making a substantial rule change to the organic standard. This court ruling allows the case to move forward \u00a0on the \u00a0proper procedure and the importance of formal notice and public comment regarding \u00a0the rules for organic food production.<\/p>\n

\"SaveOurOrganicIntegrity\"<\/a>The lawsuit, filed earlier this year by the Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, and the Center for Food Safety (CFS), challenges the contaminated compost guidance \u00a0<\/a>released by USDA, which weakens the long- standing prohibition of synthetic pesticide contaminants. Prior to the new contaminated compost guidance, organic regulations expressly prohibited fertilizers and compost from containing any synthetic substances not included on organic\u2019s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Plaintiffs allege that the USDA\u2019s decision weakens the integrity of organic food production, not only by creating inconsistent organic production standards but also by undermining the essential public participation function of organic policy making under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal law that establishes the \u00a0procedures for public input into federal policy making. Since USDA never subjected the contaminated-compost decision to formal notice and public comment, the plaintiffs argue that USDA failed in its duty to ensure that its regulation is consistent with the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) and the standards set forth for approving the use of synthetic substances.<\/p>\n

This lawsuit is not the only noteworthy instance of procedural violations committed by the USDA; another lawsuit<\/a> brought by 15 farm, consumer and certifier organizations raises a similar procedural challenge<\/a> to a \u00a0rule change to the organic sunset process, which regulates synthetic chemical exceptions in organic production. In this case, the agency once again took unilateral action to adopt a major policy change without public process, an action plaintiffs maintain violates one of the foundational principles and practices of OFPA public participation in organic policy making and APA. The decision by the judge to allow the contaminated compost case to move forward signifies a commitment \u00a0to upholding the procedures outlined in APA and OFPA, which plaintiffs maintain is central to the integrity of food labeled organic in the U.S.<\/p>\n

The simple act of attempting to block a hearing on this procedural raises concerns about USDA commitment to overseeing the USDA organic program in a fair and open manner. The organic program has a long history of providing \u00a0numerous opportunities for the public to weigh in on allowable practices and materials in organic production and has been central to building public trust in the organic certification program and the USDA certified organic food label. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was set up by Congress to serve as an independent authority with unique and sole powers over organic standards. The board is intended \u00a0to safeguard the integrity of the organic food label with independent authorities that operate outside the discretion of the USDA. The proposals of the NOSB, as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are \u00a0published for public comment twice a year before each meeting of the board.<\/p>\n

C<\/span>onsumers, environmentalists, and farmers play a critical role in building and maintaining the integrity of the organic food label.<\/u> A \u00a0comment period<\/a> \u00a0on current proposals before the board is open now through October 8<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Priority issues before the Fall 2015 National Organic Standards Board<\/strong><\/p>\n