Last Word on Organic Standards, Again

By MARIAN BURROS
NY Times

FEDERAL standards for what foods can be called organic might have seemed like the final word on the issue when they went into effect two years ago. But the Agriculture Department's interpretation of the laws governing the National Organic Program has fed a fierce debate on what should be allowed in such products.

Last month the department issued what it called clarifications of the standards, allowing antibiotics in dairy cows, certain chemicals in pesticides and livestock feed containing nonorganic fish meal.

The father of national organic standards, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, called the Agriculture Department's directives "unilateral fiats which may violate the letter of the law," and he added, "They certainly violate its spirit."

Mr. Leahy said he is circulating a letter among his colleagues asking Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman to rescind the directives and to seek public comment before making changes in the regulations.

Barbara Robinson, deputy administrator of Agricultural Marketing Services, which is in charge of the National Organic Program, said the agency was surprised by the opposition. The department is not creating new rules but establishing the limits of existing regulations, she said, so it is not required to seek public comment or to consult with the National Organic Standards Board, an expert advisory group set up by law to establish standards.

The directives, she said, were in response to organic certifiers, who sought clarification on behalf of their customers. Those customers include Strauss Creamery in California and Country Hen in Massachusetts.

"Several of us on the staff go back and forth until we are sure our answers will stand up in court, and only then do we publish them," she said. "This is what the regulations allow."

Jean Halloran, director of the Consumer Policy Institute of Consumers Union, which lobbied for passage of the standards, disagrees, calling the government's actions "unbelievable and outrageous, far beyond anything they've done in the past." She said the law prohibits such changes unless they are recommended by the standards board and have been subjected to public comment. Farmers, consumers, organic certifiers and inspectors spoke out against the new directives at a meeting of the board on April 30.

The 2002 federal law said ingredients in feed had to be organic. Ms. Robinson said the law allows natural ingredients, like fish, to be used unless otherwise prohibited. But critics say fish meal can contain preservatives, PCB's and mercury.

The rulings last month also allow organic dairy animals to be treated for disease with any drug, including antibiotics and growth hormones, and remain on an organic farm, as long as the producer waits 12 months to sell its milk.

Ms. Robinson said the department was simply relying on provisions in the law for animals on regular farms that may have received antibiotics and are used as replacements on organic farms. The law prohibits the sale of their milk as organic until the cows have been there for 12 months.

Officials of Strauss Creamery in California said they had used antibiotics on their organic calves before the standards and wanted to continue. Some certifiers allowed the practice, they said, others did not. Without antibiotics farmers could lose 20 to 40 percent of their calves, said Albert Strauss, president and owner of the company.

Kelly Shea, director of organic agriculture for Horizon Organic, the largest organic dairy in the country, disagrees. "We were surprised when this guidance document was released and really disappointed," she said. "We definitely believe that antibiotics should not be allowed in organic milk production, and our policy is that if an organic animal gets sick and for humane purposes has to be treated with antibiotics, it is no longer considered organic and is never allowed to return to the herd."

Cont'd>>

Home • Up