USDA Organic Rules May Be Slow in Coming

Could it be that the best thing that ever happened to the organic industry was the specter of allowing irradiation, biotechnology and sewage sludge as fertilizer in organic farming and food processing?

“This mess does have a silver lining,” said Diane Bowen, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers, a certifying organization in Santa Cruz. “[The debate] has raised support for and awareness of organic agriculture to heights we in the organic community couldn’t have imagined five years ago.”

Public comment officially ended Thursday on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rules to govern the organic food industry. The outpouring of opinion was noteworthy both for its volume and for its grass-roots nature.

The USDA was mum on the subject as it began analyzing about 150,000 letters, postcards and e-mail comments submitted since mid-December, when the rules were proposed. Many entries from food industry trade groups and agribusiness companies arrived in a last-minute flurry.

The response was the largest on record for a rule at the USDA and second only in government to the 750,000 comments received by the Food and Drug Administration in 1995 and 1996 on the proposed regulation of tobacco products.

One query was on every interested party’s mind: How thoroughly will the government revise the organic proposal in an effort to satisfy the bushel basketful of concerns raised by consumers, organic farming pioneers and others?

In an interview last week, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman indicated that the agency will not allow the three practices that particularly riled the industry: genetic engineering, irradiation and the use of sewage sludge to fertilize plants.

Despite the prospect of a victory on the “big three,” the $4-billion industry remains upset about 60 or so other aspects of the federal proposal--from the treatment of livestock, to the use of antibiotics in animals, to “eco-labeling,” to the addition of certain synthetic chemicals, to the list of allowable pesticides.

At a Washington news conference at Restaurant Nora, an eatery specializing in organic foods, industry activists gathered to reflect on the process.

“The mood was that there was an overwhelming public rejection of the rule,” said Andrew Kimbrell, co-founder of Organic Watch, a coalition of farm groups and certifiers that is analyzing the public comment. “The agency took a beating.”

Skeptical about the government’s ability to arrive at workable standards in a timely fashion, activists in recent days have formed a new group that plans in early May to begin developing rules based on recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board. That appointed panel was created by Congress to guide the USDA but saw most of its suggestions go unheeded.

The new group also would plan an “industry self-regulation” program for certification agencies, with the goal of providing interim accreditation as the industry waits for the USDA to revise its proposal.

However, many previous such efforts have failed, industry observers noted.

An avowed skeptic, Bowen said she expects it will be at least three years before a federal organic program is implemented, if at all.

In his comments last week, Glickman vowed to make revisions as quickly as possible and submit a new proposal for public comment. The USDA is expected to reveal hints of its new direction within a few days. But Glickman added: “I’m not going to give myself a deadline.”