Vol. 36, No. 3 Fall 2016 Pesticides and YouA quarterly publication of Beyond Pesticides

Page 15

Engaging with Organic Standard SettingProtecting organic integrity to grow a sustainable future

petroleum,willallowatleastsomemushroomgrowerstoreplacethepetroleum-basedwaxwithanaturalbiodegradablematerial.IfenoughsoywaxmeetingthecriteriaofOFPAisavailable,weplantopetitionfortheremovalofthepetroleum-basedwax.

Uponinvestigation,wefoundthatthereissomeambiguityabout“non-GMO” soywax. Theproductwe foundwasdemonstratedtobe“non-GMO”basedoncertificationthatitdoesnotcontainGMO soy protein. However, soy wax is hydrogenated soy oil(which is also found in margarine), and does not contain any protein.ThedecisiontreeusedbytheOrganicMaterialsResearchInstitute(OMRI)todeterminewhetherasubstanceisprohibitedasaproductofexcludedmethods(GMOisanexcludedmethod)doesappeartopermittheuseofproductsmadefromsoyoilofGMO soybeans. So the Crops Subcommitteeof theNOSB,withourconcurrence,proposedanannotation“madefromnon-GMOsoybeans.”Wealsosuggestedanexpirationdateforthelisting,toallowforeasierdelistingorannotationintheeventthatwaxfromorganicallyproducedsoy (anotheropportunity for incentivizing)becomesavailable.

Introduction byJayFeldman

As a part of Beyond Pesticides’ program to ensure continuous improvement in organic standards, the organization plays an active role in commenting on synthetic materials allowed in organic production. This is a process that goes directly to issues of organic integrity –USDA’s compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and the full functioning of the National Organic

Standards Board (NOSB) to ensure fairness in the review of allowed materials in organic production with full consideration of the latest science, all stakeholder views, and practices that can eliminate synthetic materials, to the extent possible. We seek strict adherence to the three basic criteria for review of materials in organic by (i) not allowing synthetic substances, based on a cradle-to-grave analysis, that have adverse effects on health and the environment, (ii) ensuring compatibility with the legally defined organic system, and (iii) requiring proven essentiality in the organic system, meaning the system is not inherently reliant on outside inputs. To the extent that these materials review are conducted in the spirit of the law, compliance establishes limitations on the scale of production, so that we are not trading core values of environmental and health protection for industrial systems that eliminate the very standards on which organic is built. Additionally, if the process works as intended, with greater public involvement, the review and standard setting process creates economic incentives for more natural materials to become available for use in organic production and processing at the commercial scale. The integrity of this process ultimately determines public trust in the organic label. And, trust in the label drives growth in the market. As organic grows and we take pesticides out of agricultural production, and synthetics out of food processing, while supporting agricultural practices that protect and enhance soil fertility by building organic matter and naturally cycling nutrients, we protect our air, land, and water and sequester atmospheric carbon. If we are successful is transitioning all our land management to organic systems nationwide and globally (not an unreasonable goal, given the state of environmental health) we will ensure a sustainable future.

Materials ReviewbyTerryShistar,Ph.D.

Petitioning to allow soy wax –Continuous improvement and prohibiting GMO ingredientsBeyondPesticides’petitiontoaddsoywaxtotheNationalListofAllowedandProhibitedSubstances,apartofourcontinuousimprovement effort, becameamajor issue at the Spring 2016NOSBmeeting. Beyond Pesticides petitioned the NOSB to listnon-geneticallyengineered(GEorGMO)soywaxontheNationalList, as an alternative to currently allowed petroleum-basedwax,foruseingrowingmushroomsonlogs.Organicmushroomgrowerswhogrowshiitakesandothersaprophyticmushroomsonlogsmayuseapetroleum-basedwaxtosealtheplugsandlogends.Thewaxhelpstopreventotherfungifromcolonizingtheexposed surfaces. The petroleum-based wax does not readilybiodegrade, and at least one inspector reported seeing pilesofwaxfragmentslongafterthelogshaddecomposed.Itisourhopethatapprovalof soywax for thisuse,anopportunity forcontinuousimprovementbyincentivizingsoyasanalternativeto

Pesticides and YouA quarterly publication of Beyond Pesticides

Page 16 Vol. 36, No. 3 Fall 2016

The discussion of the soywax petition highlights issues aroundtheprohibitionofGMO inputs (termed “excludedmethods”) inorganicproduction.TheNationalOrganicProgram(NOP)toldtheNOSBthat if it trulywantstoexcludesoywaxmadefromGMOsoybeans,thenitshouldincludethatintherecommendation.TheNOSBwasreluctanttodoso,however,becausesomemembersthought that such an annotation might suggest that excludedmethodsarenottrulyexcludedinothermaterialsontheNationalList. The disagreement and/or confusion was so great that theNOSBchaircalledan“emergencybreak”todiscussit.

It turns out that NOP was right. The OMRI decision tree doespermitanumberofcropinputsthataremadefromGMOcrops,including soybean meal, cotton gin trash, or other materialsappliedtothesoil.Thisincludesoilsderivedfromnonorganicornon-segregatedsourcecrops;substrateforanon-GEmicrobeorenzymethatmaycontainnonorganiccommoditycrops.So,iftheNOSBwantstolimittheuseofsoywaxtothatmadefromnon-GEsoybeans,thenitneedstospecifythatrequirement.AndtheconcernthatothermaterialsallowedinorganicproductionmightalsocomefromGEcropsisalsovalid.

Soy wax on the Fall 2016 NOSB agenda.Prohibiting genetically engineered ingredients.Other crop inputs that could be derived fromGE crops includecornglutenmeal,cornsteepliquor,cottonseedmeal,alfalfamealandpellets, compost, compost tea, cottongin trash, molasses,soybeanmeal, sugar,andoils fromcanola, corn, cottonseed,or

soy.Inthecaseofsomeofthesematerials,OMRIappliesdecisiontreestoassesswhetherit is“consideredaGMOorproductofaGMO.”OMRI does not judge allmaterialsmade fromGE cropstobe“aGMOorproductofaGMO.”Someothermaterialsthatare not considered byOMRI to be excluded as GE aremanure

from animals thatmay have been fed GE crops (andmay thuscontainGEcropresidues).Othermaterialsrevieworganizationsororganiccertifiersmayhavedifferentcriteria,butOMRI’smaterialsdecisionsarewidelyusedbyorganicproducersandcertifiers.

IncontrasttotheOMRIdecisiontree,aproposalpublishedbytheNOSBMaterialsSubcommitteeforconsiderationatthespring2016NOSBmeetingtakesastrongerstance.Itsays,“Thisterm[geneticallymodifiedorganism]willalsoapplytoproductsandderivativesfromgeneticallyengineeredsources.”TheMaterialsSubcommitteecitedthe“NOSBPrinciplesofOrganicProductionandHandling” in thePolicyandProceduresManual,whichstate,

Geneticengineering(recombinantandtechnology)isasyntheticprocessdesignedtocontrolnatureatthemolecularlevel,withthepotential for unforeseen consequences. As such, it is notcompatible with the principles of organic agriculture (eitherproduction or handling). Genetically engineered/modifiedorganisms(ge/gmo’s)andproductsproducedbyorthroughtheuseofgeneticengineeringareprohibited.

NOSBworkonGEpolicywillbeongoingaslongasthebiotechnologyindustry continues to develop new technologies and products.However,theissueofsoywaxhaspointedoutaneedtoclarifytheapplicationoftheprohibitionagainstgeneticallyengineeredorganisms.TheNOSBmust completework on (at least) the preliminary policystatements–those contained in theExcludedMethodsTerminologyProposal–inordertoclarifywhatisallowedandwhatisprohibitedfor

organicfarmers,certifiers,andinputproducers.

We support a statement such as the spring 2016proposal, “This term [geneticallymodified organism]will also apply to products and derivatives fromgenetically engineered sources.” This is a process-based criterion and is thus more consistent withorganicstandardsthantheOMRIdecisiontree.

The definition of “excluded methods.”Sanitizers need to be considered in context.The NOSB voted to add another chlorine-baseddisinfectant –hypochlorousacid– foruse in crops,handling, and livestock and postponed the voteon sodiumdodecylbenzene sulfonateas anactiveingredient in antimicrobial products containinglactic acid. The NOSB is also conducting a sunsetreviewofozoneandperaceticacidasdisinfectantsusedincropproduction.BeyondPesticidesbelievesthattheNOSBshouldreviewallthesanitizersanddisinfectants together.

We proposed that the NOSB subcommitteesshould commission a technical review that (1) determineswhat disinfectant/sanitizer uses are required by law, and (2)comprehensively examines more organically-compatiblemethodsandmaterials todeterminewhether chlorine-basedmaterials are actually needed for any uses. In doing so, the

A great blue heron flies over a flooded soybean field in northwestern Ohio.

Pesticides and YouA quarterly publication of Beyond Pesticides

Vol. 36, No. 3 Fall 2016 Page 17

technicalreviewauthorsshouldconsultwithEPA’sSaferChoiceProgram and investigate materials on the Safer ChemicalIngredientsList.Ifthereareusesforwhichchlorineisnecessary,then the NOSB should include them in the National List andlimittheusetothoseparticularuseswithanannotation.

The sunset review of ozone and peracetic acid as disinfectants used in crop production.The provisions allowing synthetic nutrient vitamins and minerals need to be corrected.In 1995, the NOSB made a recommendation stating, ‘‘Uponimplementation of the National Organic Program (NOP), theuse of synthetic vitamins, minerals, and/or accessory nutrientsin products labeled as organicmust be limited to thatwhich isrequired by regulation or recommended for enrichment andfortification by independent professional associations.’’ ThecurrentlistingdoesnotcomplywiththeNOSBrecommendation,andtheHandlingSubcommitteeproducedadiscussiondocumentofferingsomeoptionsforchangingit.

Beyond Pesticides supports a modification of the HandlingSubcommittee’s first option –although nonsynthetic vitaminsandmineralsrequiredbylawshouldbeallowedinorganicfood,any other supplementation of food and all supplementation ofinfantformulashouldbeallowedonlyinproductslabeled“madewithorganic.”Thereasoningforfoodisstraightforward.Organicconsumersexpectthattheirfoodcontainsafullcomplementofvitamins andminerals based on organic agricultural productionpractices,notsupplementation.

On the other hand, infant formula is known to be an imitationproduct.Makingformulasforinfantfeedinghasrequiredattemptstomakecow’smilkmorelikebreastmilkandaddingnutrientsthatarenotoptimalorsufficient.Soitisaverycomplexproblemanddifficulttoreconcilewithorganicprinciples.Thus,thetop-of-the-lineinfantformulawouldbelabeled“madewithorganic”ratherthan“organic.”

Carrageenan review.One very controversial material is carrageenan. Beyond Pesticidesopposestherelistingofcarrageenanbecauseitmayhaveadverseeffectsonthehealthofconsumers,itsproductionresultsinadverseecologicalimpacts,therearealternativestoitsuse,anditsuseisinconsistentwithasystemoforganicandsustainableproduction.Independentscientistshavepresentedevidence to theNOSBdemonstrating inflammatoryimpacts of carrageenan. Due to consumer concerns about the useofcarrageenaninorganicproducts,ithasbeenremovedfrommany,

and every product containing carrageenan is available without it –demonstratingthelackofessentiality.

Policy and Procedures Manual and the Importance of the NOSBWhentheorganiclawwaspassedandplacedundertheauthorityofUSDA,hostiletoorganicasaviablecommercialsector,itwasthestatutorypoweroftheNOSBthatgarneredorganiccommunitysupportforthefederallaw.ThefirstUSDAorganicrule,whichsetasidetherecommendationsoftheNOSB,exemplifiedtheorganicdivide. However, a public outpouring of support for the corevaluesexpressed in the law,alongwith theNOSB’s specificandunique authorities representing the organic community –whichincludesgrowers,processors,andsellersoforganicmerchandiseaswellasconsumersandenvironmentalists–resultedinacoursecorrection. There are continuing disagreements with USDA onorganicstandards,decisionmakingprocess,andco-existencewithGMOcontamination.However,theNOSBservesasthegatekeeperoftheNationalListtoensurethatUSDAdoesnotwaterdowntheorganiclabelbyallowingtheuseofsubstancesthatdonotmeettherigorouscriteriainOFPA.

TheNOSB has struggled to distinguish itself from other boardsestablishedunderFederalAdvisoryCommitteeActbypointingtoitsstatutorilydefinedmissionandattemptingtomaintaincontroloveritsagenda.Indoingso,itcreatedadocumentthatservesasbylawsfortheNOSB,thePolicyandProceduresManual(PPM).

ThePolicyDevelopmentSubcommittee,withheavyinvolvementof NOP, produced extensive revisions to the PPM, which wereapprovedatthespringmeeting.BeyondPesticidesopposedmanychanges thatweakened theauthorityof theNOSB. In addition,we objected to a process that created wholesale revisionswithoutexplanationorjustification.Withthesuccessfullitigationon reversing USDA’s allowance of contaminated compost andthe organic community’s challenge to the reinterpreted sunsetprovision,organicisdueforanothercoursecorrection.

ConclusionMembers of the public can engage with the organic standardsetting process on many levels. All organic consumers mustget involved at some level to ensure that production practicesandmaterials restrictions are strong. It must be clear that theexpectationsoforganicconsumersaremetwithinthecontextofsoundandresponsible,organic,agriculturalproductionpractices,andthattheorganiclabel,asaresult,istrusted.WatchtheKeeping Organic StrongpageonBeyondPesticides’websiteandseehowyoucanstayinvolved:http://bit.ly/KeepingOrganicStrong.

Beyond Pesticides is a plaintiff in a lawsuit along with other groups of consumers, farmers, certifiers, and environmentalists) thatchallengesUSDA’sreversalofthesunsetprocess,whichhashistoricallyrequiredtheNOSBtovote,bya2/3’sdecisivemargin,tore-listamaterialthathassunsettedafterfiveyears,basedonarigorousreviewinaccordancewithOFPAcriteria.ThecourtrejectedamotiontodismissfiledbyUSDA,arguingthatithadtheauthorityto,withoutpublicnoticeandcomment,reversesunsettoallowamaterialtostay,bydefault,ontheNationalListunlesstheNOSB,withadecisive2/3’svote,recommendstoremovethematerialfromthelist.Thecasegoestotrialwithintheyear.