U.S.D.A. Enters Debate on Organic Label Law
        By MARIAN BURROS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/dining/26WELL.html

WA$HINGTON
       AFTER infuriating organic-food advocates this month by failing to
take a
stand against a law weakening federal standards on organic food, the
secretary
of agriculture yesterday criticized the legislation and called for
maintaining
the standards.

But organic farmers and their supporters say they are troubled by the
department's reluctance to act sooner, and by its opposition to efforts
to
enforce another rule, for raising organic livestock.

The national standards, reached after years of hard-fought negotiations,
were
meant to assure consumers that what was labeled organic was organic, and
to
streamline a hodgepodge of state and local regulations that had
developed over
the previous 30 years.

On Feb. 13, four months after the standards took effect, Congress passed
legislation permitting "organic" livestock to be fed non-organic feed
when
organic feed is twice the price of conventional feed. The Agriculture
Department
took no position when the provision was slipped into a 3,000-page
federal
spending bill at the last minute by J. Dennis Hastert, the speaker of
the
House, at the behest of Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of
Georgia.

Yesterday, though, Ann M. Veneman, the secretary of agriculture, said,
"I am
concerned that the language inserted in the Omnibus Appropriations Act
could
weaken the National Organic Program. It is important to maintain a
strong
organic program that ensures the integrity of the organic label placed
on
organic consumer products. The best way to do that is to maintain the
organic
standards as U.S.D.A. implemented them in October 2002."

The last-minute provision makes it possible for certified organic farms
to give
their animals conventional feed containing antibiotics and pesticides
and still
allow them to label the meat as "certified organic." Consumers will not
be able
to tell the difference.

"We spent over a decade of bipartisan effort to get these standards, and
then in
a back room deal with a couple of Republicans they wiped out over a
decade of
work," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, one of the
architects
of the organics label law.

After Mr. Leahy spoke with Ms. Veneman yesterday, however, he said he
sensed
that there may be hope for a change of posture by the U.S.D.A. and the
administration. Mr. Leahy said he plans to introduce legislation today
to strike
down the law. Among the co-sponsors are several Republican senators:
Olympia
Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

At the time the legislation was passed, Kevin Herglotz, a spokesman for
Ms.
Veneman, said the agency had no opinion on the changes in the provision.
Congress "asked if U.S.D.A. has a position and we told them we did not,"
he
wrote in an e-mail message on Feb. 13. Yesterday's statement by Ms.
Veneman
provides one.

The provision was included to help a chicken processing company,
Fieldale Farms
in Georgia, which had been trying since last summer to have the change
made.

Whether the agency assented to the provision or simply stood by and
watched as
it passed, the National Organic Standards Board said its actions were
"unconscionable." In a letter sent to Ms. Veneman on Feb. 20, the
standards
board, which was created to help the U.S.D.A. in developing organic
standards,
said, "Department of Agriculture representatives on hand at the time the
language was inserted in the legislation did not object to this
provision."

The letter went on to say that "this single paragraph presents a great
threat to
the consumer's confidence in the new federal organic standards. . . . To
stand
idle as this language was inserted is unconscionable."

David Cole of Sunnyside Farm in Washington, Va., the owner of the
country's
largest organic beef herd, called the passage of the bill a perversion
of the
regulatory process. "It is a slippery slope to consumer confusion and
market
oblivion," he said.

But the rule change on the feed is not the only problem for organic food
advocates. A rule governing animals' access to the outdoors is also
proving
troublesome. It requires that all organic livestock have access, but the
wording
is purposely ambiguous to allow for climate and ecological differences.

In Massachusetts last fall, the certifying agency, Massachusetts
Independent
Certifiers Inc., withheld its stamp of approval from an egg producer,
Country
Hen, in Hubbardston, because, the agency said, outdoor access plans were
insufficient.

George Bass, the owner of Country Hen, said, "I feel we give them plenty
of
space inside and we give them enough light and they are not in cages and
we have
100 percent organic feed, and to my way of thinking that is the backbone
of the
organic poultry farm."

But the certifiers did not agree, writing in their decertification
decision that
the chickens did not have "adequate access to exercise areas, fresh air
and
direct sunlight" and that the "applicant was too restrictive in
determining the
hours and days the poultry would be allowed outside."

Displeased with this result, Mr. Bass called on the U.S.D.A. The agency
overruled the decision, without consulting the certifier, and cartons of
Country
Hen eggs continue to carry the certified organic seal.

Judith Gillan, a board member of the certifying agency, said that the
Agriculture Department is required to discuss decertification with the
certifier
before deciding to reverse a report. Instead, it dealt directly with Mr.
Bass.

"We corresponded directly with the administrator saying we wanted to go
on the
record feeling uncomfortable with the process that did not allow us to
participate," Ms. Gillan said. "But we've had no contact with them since
Oct. 28
when we called."

Massachusetts Independent Certifiers is expected to file a complaint
against the
Agriculture Department today.

Speaking of the Country Hen case, Barbara Robinson, a deputy
administrator for
the Agriculture Department who is responsible for the organic program,
said,
"This is not a done deal, as far as I am concerned."

Uneven enforcement of outdoor grazing requirements could also harm the
integrity
of the organic standards. In New Hampshire, where the state's
Agriculture
Department also certifies organics, egg producers have been told that if
they
cannot provide access to the outdoors for their chickens but have "good
reason,"
that is acceptable. Richard Uncles, one of the state's certifiers, said,
"We
have taken the position that to pay lip service to this access thing is
not
accomplishing anything."

Maintaining the integrity of the organic standards is a subject of
interest to
large and small producers alike, including some very large ones like
Tyson
Foods, General Mills and Kraft Foods.

Ed Nicholson, a Tyson spokesman, told The New York Times two weeks ago
that the
company opposed the legislative provision before it was passed. "We
think it is
important to meet the organic requirements," he said. "Otherwise it will
compromise the integrity of the organic standards."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
*

> The material in this post is distributed without profit to those who have
> expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
> and educational purposes. For more information go to:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for purposes that
> go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]