| An
Open Letter to the Secretary of Agriculture
May 27, 2004
Jim Riddle – NOSB Vice Chairman
31762 Wiscoy Ridge Rd
Winona, MN 55987
Ann Veneman - USDA Secretary of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave SW
Room 200A
Washington, DC 20250
Dear Secretary Veneman:
The news today that you have rescinded recent Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) moves that had undermined the national
organic standards is certainly welcome.
These changes, while couched as clarifications, ran completely
counter to the regulations as written and to the spirit of
organics. They would have done irreparable damage to the USDA
certified organic label.
Yet my gratitude is tempered by the knowledge that these
problematic actions by the National Organic Program (NOP)
in April were only the most recent – and most extreme
– examples of an unacceptable situation.
The USDA could avoid the further questioning of its ability
to administer a strong organic program simply by following
its own rules.
I urge you to take a second necessary step by committing
to restore the integrity of the USDA’s organic program.
This will require that the NOP begin to function routinely
in good faith in its relationship with the organic farming
community through the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB),
as required by law. Without addressing on-going areas of non-compliance
and non-cooperation, the NOP will not regain the trust that
is critical for the program to succeed. I mention two areas
of special concern below.
Some background: I was appointed to the
USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in January 2001.
Since my appointment, I have tried my best to be a conscientious
advisory board member by making positive contributions to
promote organic agriculture and protect organic principles.
We have a limited – but a strong and clear – mandate
under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) to shape
the National Organic Program (NOP).
When I first came onto the NOSB, the position of board secretary
was unfilled. I offered to serve in that capacity, and was
unanimously elected secretary at my first meeting. I made
sure that minutes of Board and Executive Committee meetings
were recorded and promptly posted for public review. I have
since been elected vice-chair, and continue to serve in that
capacity.
I currently serve on the Livestock, Policy Development, and
Accreditation committees. I have chaired three NOSB task forces,
addressing issues such as apiculture, chlorine use, and “commercial
availability.” We developed timely, focused, and inclusive
recommendations that were unanimously adopted by the full
Board.
I am the lead author of the Board Policy Manual, which establishes
detailed board policies and procedures. I am also lead author
of numerous NOSB recommendations, including the NOSB Principles
of Organic Production and Handling; Guidance on Minor Non-compliances;
Certification of Grower Groups; International Equivalency;
Dairy Replacement Stock; Compatibility with a System of Sustainable
Agriculture; and Organic System Plan templates.
In other areas, I have served since 1991 on the organic advisory
task force of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)
where we created the first state Memorandum of Understanding
on Organic Agriculture. I have also worked closely with the
USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
to train NRCS staff on organic methods.
As part of the NOSB, I take my statutory responsibility to
“advise the Secretary on implementation” of the
OFPA seriously. As certifying agency representative, I have
tried at all times to represent the needs and interests of
organic certifiers and inspectors, and to protect the integrity
and authenticity of organic agriculture.
Restoring due process in the two following areas
is critical to re-establishing the authority of the NOSB specifically
granted in the OFPA.
1. Input on approval of permitted substances
The USDA has improperly approved the use of substances that
are not on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Materials.
- A letter sent January 22, 2004, to Christopher Ely of
Applegate Farms allows his company to use sodium lactate
and potassium lactate as preservatives in processed meat
products. Neither of these substances is on the National
List, and neither has been reviewed by the NOSB.
- On February 2, 2004, the USDA wrote a letter to David
Hiltz, Acadian Seaplants, Ltd., stating that his company
could add phosphoric acid to sea plant extracts, essentially
because the addition of phosphoric acid is not prohibited
under the annotation for aquatic plant extracts on the National
List. The letter did not mention that OFPA, section 6508(b)
prohibits synthetic fertilizers, including synthetic sources
of phosphorous.
My reasons for concern: As I’m sure
you’re aware, the USDA cannot add a substance to the
National List without a recommendation of the NOSB.
Bad process: Despite the fact that Applegate
Farms had petitioned to have the substances reviewed, the
USDA ruled that they could be used without review because
they are manufactured from substances that are on the National
List.
Likewise, Acadian Seaplants, Ltd., had petitioned to have
phosphoric acid reviewed by the NOSB, but the USDA did not
allow the review to go forward. Instead, it ruled that use
of the substance was allowed without scientific review, and
without a recommendation from the NOSB.
2. Selecting competent technical assistance
As an advisory board, our statutory responsibility over the
National List is unique relative to other such boards within
the federal government. We take that responsibility seriously,
and work hard to review petitioned substances and clearly
document our efforts. In order to facilitate our reviews,
OFPA, section 6518(k)(3) states, “the Board shall convene
technical advisory panels to provide scientific evaluation
of the materials considered for inclusion in the National
List.”
I am obligated to report that at our most recent meeting,
April 28-30, 2004, we had to defer consideration of three
petitioned substances due to inadequate reviews from our technical
advisory panel (TAP) contractor. Our current TAP contract
is with the Center for Food and Nutrition (CFN) at Virginia
Tech University.
My reasons for concern: The NOSB has consistently
found CFN’s technical reviews to be inadequate, and
we have had to reject them on numerous occasions, deferring
consideration of petitioned substances, pending complete and
relevant TAP reports. This situation has caused frustration
for petitioners, NOSB members, and members of the public.
It has led to increased costs and time delays.
Bad process: The contract was awarded in
October 2001. It was arranged with no consultation of the
NOSB, and with no posting for bids in the Federal Register
or on the National Organic Program website.
I understand that Congress has appropriated money for new
TAP reviews. I ask that you take action to assure that the
request for applications to apply for TAP contracts be posted
in a public manner, and that the NOSB have an active role
in the selection of the TAP contractor(s).
Hiring an executive director
I further understand that Congress has appropriated $100,000
in FY ’04 for an executive director for the NOSB, which
is authorized by OFPA section 6518(j). I ask that you expedite
the hiring process, and make sure that the NOSB has a role
in writing the job description and selecting the Board’s
executive director.
In summary: I urge you to ensure that the NOP actually
do what it is supposed to do under the OFPA and require that
proper administrative procedures be followed when new policies,
letters, and directives are formulated and new technical advisory
panels are contracted.
I enjoy serving on the NOSB, and am committed to a strong
national organic program. I look forward to a continuing positive
relationship as an advisor to you as we work to advance, promote,
and protect organic agriculture. Please outline how you will
respond to these concerns that are so important to the organic
farming and food communities.
Respectfully,
Jim Riddle
NOSB vice-chair and
Organic Policy Specialist for Newfarm.org
|
