U.S. government issues standards on organic food

By Michele Dula Baum
CNN.com Health and Food Writer

(CNN) -- For the first time, the U.S. government is telling farmers and food producers what makes a product organic.

"These are the strictest, most comprehensive organic standards in the world," U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in announcing the final rule, which will be published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000. The rule becomes effective 60 days from publication, and growers and livestock producers have a maximum of 18 months to comply if they want to market their products as organic.

"I am confident that our work will lead to even greater growth and opportunity in what is already a $6 billion organic food industry," Glickman said. In making Wednesday's announcement, he was joined by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, organic farmers Amy and Travis Forgues, and several staff members from USDA.

VIDEO CNN's Linda Ciampa reports on the popularity of organic foods Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)     RESOURCES Chat Transcript: Linda Ciampa on USDA standards for organic foods Learn more about organic foods

Advocates of organic production and processing say organic applies not only to food, but how it is produced. Organic food is grown or raised based on a system of farming that mimics natural ecosystems or at least respects the natural ecosystems, according to John Foster, certification director with Oregon Tilth.

MESSAGE BOARD Do you think consumers will benefit from the USDA's standards for the organics industry?

"These new standards are a win for both farmers and consumers," Glickman continued. "For farmers, the standards create clear guidelines for how to take advantage of the exploding demand for organic products. For consumers, the organic standards offer another choice in the marketplace."

Those who "want to buy organic can do so with the confidence of knowing exactly what they're buying," he said.

National standards on organically produced foods have been in development since the Organic Foods Production Act was passed as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. Even so, seven years elapsed before initial regulations could be formulated and proposed.

"Public response was 275,000-plus," remembered Kathleen Merrigan, administrator of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. "It was one of the largest in the history of federal government."

On Wednesday, Glickman referred to the overwhelming response as "full-throated public debate," and jokingly added that "in fact, debate was so full-throated, I felt it was choking me at times."

What are the key differences in the rule issued by the USDA and what was proposed in 1997?

It:

• Prohibits the use of irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering in foods marketed as organic;


• Requires that products labeled as "Made with Organic Ingredients" contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, making the standard consistent with that used in the European Union;


• Requires handlers to use organic ingredients up to 100 percent, whenever possible, if a product is labeled as "organic;"


• Excludes retail outlets from most of the requirements, along with food producers whose gross income from organic sales is $5,000 or less a year;


• Requires immediate notification of "drift" of a prohibited substance from a neighboring property or other source;


• Provides more opportunity to resolve cases of noncompliance prior to revocation of certification;


• Disallows use of pesticides on land designated for organic produce for at least three years prior to organic planting;


• Sets specific intervals between the application of raw manure to crops and harvesting them;


• Prohibits the use of antibiotics in livestock production.

"The organic label is a marketing tool," Glickman said. "It is something, I think, consumers want."

But USDA is not making a statement about food safety, the secretary continued, saying that 'organic' is not "a value judgment about nutrition or quality."

Government "is not in the business of choosing sides," Glickman said.

About 41,000 comments came in before the June 12, 2000 deadline on the revised rule, including some that were "100 pages, single-spaced," said Merrigan. "But people said that for the most part, this is good, now let's delve into the fine-tuning."

Regulations govern the labeling of organically produced agricultural products and set standards touching nearly every aspect of food production. Organic growers also must get state certification to market their products as organic.

The revised rule is "a hell of a lot better than the one we fought them over," said K. Dun Gifford, founder and president of the Oldways Preservation Exchange Trust, a Boston, Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization that promotes sustainability and traditional food ways.

Major disputes arose over the use of municipal sewage sludge to fertilize fields, genetically modified foods and "a host of other ... technical issues," said Gifford, adding that the USDA deserves praise for its response to public concerns. "They made a mistake and acknowledged it. Government rarely does that."

Prior to the widespread use of synthetic chemical pesticides beginning in the 1940s, nearly all U.S. food production was organic. But that doesn't mean that food was pesticide-free.

The first recorded use of pesticides dates back more than 3,000 years, according to North Carolina State University entomology professor Ronald Kuhr.

Ancient Romans used sulfur as a fumigant, and the Chinese later used arsenic to control garden pests, he says. Arsenic in less toxic forms "was used in the late '30s, and even up until the '40s in this country," Kuhr added.

Today, U.S. manufacturers produce more than 1.5 billion pounds of chemical pesticides a year, accounting for some $7 billion in retail sales. About 72 percent are put to agricultural use. More than 400 insecticides have been registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency, noted Kuhr.

Natural pesticides are allowed under the new USDA rule, along with a nine-page list of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Natural pesticides include a substance derived from the chrysanthemum flower and nicotine from crushed tobacco, said Kuhr, adding, "even detergents have been used for a long time."

Still, "organic in the year 2000 is not the same as organic in 1930," said Merrigan. "It's not just what you don't use, but what you do to maintain the environment. You have to develop a farm plan that's a systematic approach."

For the estimated 12,200 organic farmers in the United States, the new rule is "not just turning back the clock," she continued. It's an expensive proposition that can mean a major investment in equipment and supplies. And that's why, she said, consumers should be prepared to pay more for organically produced foods.

Livestock labeled organically grown must be treated in a humane way, and allowed access to the outdoors, Merrigan said.

What it comes down to, the administrator explains, is a clear set of rules on production, labeling and marketing that will ensure that farmers know what is expected of them and consumers know exactly how food items are grown and what they are paying for.

"It's important to have a national standard, both from an interstate perspective and an international one," she said. "The rules are clear and won't be unevenly applied across the country."

Farmers may voluntarily choose to be certified as organic producers, but cannot label their products as organic unless they are certified.

"But there are built-in incentives to get people to comply much sooner than that," said Merrigan.

Farmers and retailers across the country have already learned that organic production can actually increase profits, said Oldways' Gifford.

"The world's largest grower of organic grapes is the Gallo winery in California," he said. "The question is, why, and why not tell anybody? They're smart enough to know that their yields are increased and to know that the market's going to be asking for it. And they'll be the first ones there."

Other countries "are way ahead of us in organic production," continued Gifford, naming Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom.

"There's a vast home-gardening culture" in England, Gifford said, noting that the Sainsbury's independent supermarket chain there "is just booming. They always run out of organic produce."

Such a trend is more than welcome in a business that is at a five-year plateau, said Gifford. Indeed, the grocery industry "is in such bad need for growth," according to John McMillin, a food industry analyst for Prudential Securities.

"But chains like the Whole Food Market based in Austin, Texas -- they and their fellows -- are growing at 20 percent a year," adds Gifford.

What this means, he explained, is that "people are migrating toward whole foods. It's a gradual evolution."

Still, it's an evolution that's becoming more visible in the growth of organic food markets, restaurants and communities, many of which maintain small farms to cultivate crops for their own use.

Crop rotation is "the cornerstone of organic farming, in my mind," said Merrigan. "We think it's essential to soil health."

Rotating crops just makes good sense, agreed Ryan Cohen, manager of a four-acre organic farm at East Lake Commons, a 20-acre co-housing development in the suburban Atlanta, Georgia, community of Decatur.

"Never grow the same thing in the same spot twice," advised Cohen. "That way, insects can't find it." Repeated planting in the same soil gives critters a chance to focus on the food supply and build up into destructive concentrations, he says.

"I also grow a wide variety of vegetables," he added. "If I'm growing 30 to 40 kinds of crops, I don't care if a certain type of green gets eaten up by flea beetles in spring."

This "sacrificial approach" allows for an expected crop loss. In addition, there are targeted plantings of species that are meant to attract pest predators and other beneficial insects. "Or I may plant radishes, because flea beetles like radishes better than the greens, adds Cohen.

Weeds are controlled by hand and hoe.

"If I had to grow conventionally, I wouldn't know how to do it," he said.

Larger scale operations will make their own accommodations, but regulations will be enforced, and certification may be revoked for noncompliance.

"The statute provides for fines of up to $10,000 for fraudulent labeling," said Keith Jones, program manager of the USDA's National Organic Program. "It allows the FDA to fine up to $10,000 whether (the producer) is subject to the regulations or not."

Fraudulent labeling is just what it says, he added -- calling something organic when it does not meet the required standards.

Through its accredited certifiers, the USDA can either suspend or revoke certification for producers, handlers or processors for infractions, continued Jones.

"These might include using a material not approved for use, or using a production or handling methodology not allowed," he said. "Any violation of the regulations will allow us to suspend or revoke certification."

Lesser infractions may result in a warning to the rule breaker, along with the imposition of a deadline to fix the problem.

Even supporters know the changes will take time.

"The agricultural system couldn't support a lock, stock and barrel revolution," Gifford and other advocates of organic growing realize. But, he says, "the new standards are a good beginning."

With an undertaking this size, it is only reasonable to expect some slow going at first, but enforcement should not bog down, Jones said.

"This is a very complex and comprehensive rule," said Jones. "It covers everything from the time the seed goes into the ground to when it goes into a package for retail sale -- the entire food system in one single rule."