WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's revised national organic standards, introduced last week, were met this time around with many more cheers than jeers from the food industry and activist consumers.
The groups, which include natural foods retailers, have been waiting 10 years for a list of government-approved practices that would apply to produce, processed foods and -- for the first time -- meat and poultry, eggs and related animal products.
"We have put together an organic standard that is easy to understand and easy to explain," said Dan Glickman, Agriculture Secretary. "When it is finally in place, it will be the most comprehensive, strictest organic rule in the world, which is the way our consumers and farmers want it."
The latest version bans the use of irradiation, genetic engineering, sewage-sludge fertilizer and related practices that raised the ire of the organic foods industry when they were included in the first draft.
"These new standards will create a level playing field between consumers and producer," said Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, Mass.
According to officials, the new national standard will replace or augment various state and third-party regulations that are currently in use, including the 12-year-old, voluntary "American Organic Standards" designed by the industry during the government's regulatory drought. Current enforcement agents will have to receive accreditation from the USDA before conducting annual organic producer and handler inspections.
"Farmers and handlers will have to pay for certification, but certifiers will not have to pay for accreditation, which lasts five years," said DiMatteo.
For organic produce, the revised standards require land free of prohibited substances for at least three years before the harvest of an organic crop; crop rotation; fertilizers and nutrients managed through industry-accepted practices; and pest control managed primarily through practices including physical, mechanical and biological controls. Livestock standards would apply to animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products represented as organically produced. Here, animals must be raised on an organic operation from birth, or no later than the second day of life for poultry; and fed 100% organically produced feeds. Similarly, they cannot receive hormones or antibiotics, though the use of vaccines could be used to keep animals healthy. Any animals treated with a prohibited medication would be removed from the organic operation.
In a provision that may have implications for retailers or wholesalers, the rule states that handlers must prevent the commingling of organic with non-organic products and protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances.
"Our goal for this standard is to ensure that it is strict in what is acceptable as organic; is precise in its definition of organic; is easy for consumers to understand; and through its uniformity creates more economic potential 12,000 organic farmers," said Glickman.
Finally, for processed foods, the USDA is promoting a four-tier classification system. (See related story, Page 49.) For something to be labeled organic, it must be 100% organic or contain at least 95% organic ingredients. If it contains only between 50% and 95% organic ingredients, then the label may only say that it was "made from organic ingredients." Anything less than 50% cannot make any organic labeling claim other than on the information panel.
Under the proposal, farm and processing operations that grow and process organic foods must be certified by USDA-accredited certifying agents. A certified operation may label its products or ingredients as organic and may use the "USDA Certified Organic" seal, Glickman said. In developing this updated list, the USDA acknowledged the tremendous volume of opinion it received from all interested parties.
"They spoke very loudly and repetitively," noted Glickman. "It is well known that we received an unprecedented 275,603 comments during the first go-around."
The high level of interest notwithstanding, Glickman took pains to point out a distinction that conventional food producers have made in their arguments against the organic industry's campaign for stricter thresholds -- that consumers should not take the organic label as a sign of better quality or safety.
"Organic is about how it is produced; it is a process issue. Just because something is labeled as organic, does not mean it is any more superior, any safer or more healthy than conventional foods," he said. "All foods in this country must meet the same high standards of safety regardless of their classification."
A civil penalty of up to $10,000 can be levied on any person who knowingly sells or labels as organic a product that is not produced and handled in accordance with the new regulations, Glickman added.
