The House of
Representatives’ Freedom Caucus lists
the USDA National Organic Program as one that should be a high priority for
reform under President-elect Donald Trump. We agree.
The Organic Foods
Production Act (OFPA), enacted in the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National
Organic Program (NOP) to set uniform national standards for the production,
handling and processing of foods and agricultural products labeled as “USDA
Organic.” It also created the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a
federal advisory board comprised of 15 volunteers appointed by the Agriculture
Secretary for five-year terms, to consider and make recommendations regarding
organic issues.
USDA’s organic
standards describe how farmers are to grow crops and raise livestock, including
which inputs and materials are approved for use in products certified as
organic. “Organic” is, by definition, a marketing term. It is a philosophy and
personal preference akin to being a vegetarian or a vegan, buying locally grown
or preferring “free range.” Importantly, the criteria for organic foods do not
take into consideration human nutrition, food security or water/soil
conservation, among other things.
When the NOP was
established in 1990, organic foods were a very minor part of the food supply. Today,
however, the organic industry has grown to become approximately 5 percent of
food spending, and the NOP is relied upon by millions of Americans. According
to a new report, organic farming has reached 4.1 million acres in 2016, which
is a new record, and an 11 percent increase as compared to 2014. While organic
has clearly become a significant market, the USDA organic program, as laid out
in the statute and implementing regulations, has not kept pace and should
updated.
At the release of
the final national organic standards, then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman stated, “Let me be clear about one thing: [the organic label] is
not a statement about food safety, nor is organic a value judgment about
nutrition or quality.” To that end, the Mayo
Clinic is just one of many reputable groups to have studied the issue, and
confirmed that organic foods are, in fact, no more nutritious than conventional
foods.
Today’s consumer reads
more into the organic label than is warranted. While the USDA organic program,
as laid out in the statute and implementing regulations, does not consider
whether or not the products are healthier and safer, a recent study
conducted by Academics Review concluded those are in fact the primary
reasons consumers purchase organic foods. Millions of consumers are relying
upon the ‘USDA Organic’ seal as a means for identifying foods that are (from
their perspective) safer, more nutritious and/or of higher quality.
Case in point, for
milk to be organic, among other things, cows must remain in the pasture for at
least 120 days per year. Consumers sure can choose to pay a premium to keep
cows in the pasture, but they should also understand it does not improve the
nutritional quality of the milk.
In short, what is
now a subjective concept needs to become more objective, and based on sound
science. Therefore, a number of reforms seem to be in order:
- All regulatory decisions must be based on sound science, as
opposed to personal or consumer preference. Decisions must be made on
objective information, and cannot be arbitrary.
- The marketing of USDA organic foods must be consistent with the
criteria for organic foods and the USDA should have authority to prevent
false and misleading advertising, similar to the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission.
- The Organic Program should require a water reduction plan in order
to be more sustainable. Israel, for example, makes extensive use of drip
irrigation for all of agriculture and it is powered by solar energy. NOP
should put a premium on water reduction to be sustainable.
- The cost and complexities associated with organic certification
process should be reviewed so it is not a barrier to entry.
- The criteria for serving on the NOSB should be reviewed and
strengthened.
- The criteria for organic designation should be limited to farming
practices, and never duplicate the efforts of other regulatory bodies. In
particular, the NOSB should leave the issue of food ingredient safety to the
FDA.
- Finally, the USDA Agriculture Marketing Service will need to establish
the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Program while also updating the National
Organic Program….a formidable task.
Proven evidence
gleaned from rigorous scientific inquiry must remain the key factor in the
regulatory review and decision-making process for all programs, including the
USDA Organic Program. That is especially true when it comes to judgments affecting
the health and well-being of Americans, and something as essential as the
quality and safety of our food supply.
As part of drafting
a new Farm Bill in the 115th Congress, the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees should take note of the recommendation of the Freedom
Caucus, and thoroughly review the National Organic Program.
About the Authors: Marshall Matz and Peter Matz are at OFW
Law in Washington, D.C. mamtz@ofwlaw.com;
pmatz@ofwlaw.com
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com