USDA May Allow Synthetic
Chemicals in Organic Body
Care Products

June 21, 2002

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS
Truth or Dare

BY Jayne Ollin - Lakon Herbals Inc

When I step up to the personal care section of my local grocery and I
see an item labeled 'organic', my first impulse is to buy it over the
non-organic product. My second impulse is to justify the higher price,
believing that item to be the healthier choice for myself, and my family.

If I am not mistaken this is the general mindset of today's consumer.

To be concerned about health has become a trend that many consider
a worthy expense. As testimony to this trend are the huge corporate chains
of 'natural' foods stores sweeping the country. Stores filled with aisle after
aisle of natural and 'organic' products. In response to American's desire
to live a cleaner, healthier life, to discriminate between synthetic and
natural, huge manufacturing companies have flooded the market with 'organic'
and 'natural' products. Is it the least bit ironic that many of these
giant manufacturers have begun incorporating the term 'organic'into their
company names and their marketing ploys? It seems to make sense, strictly
from a business point of view, that this trend has attracted the attention
of corporate giants whose compasses shrewdly detect an opportunity to
increase profits through exploitation of a simple little word ­ ORGANIC.

Never before has the term 'organic' racked up so many consumer dollars. We
as a society continue to shop with the impulse to buy healthier products
from a market we blindly trust, we have inadvertently supported the growth
of a huge body of manufacturers whose first priority is not our health.
Their concern is unmistakably with their profit margin which would be
adversely affected by the upcoming regulations on the use of the term
ORGANIC.

In October of 2002, manufacturers will be expected to comply with the
NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS PROGRAM (NOSP), or take
the word 'organic'off their label. Under current policy guidelines set forth
by USDA and the NOP (National Organic Program) manufacturers wishing
to use the term organic must comply with the current standards which can be
found on the USDA website.

However, many large health and beauty aide manufacturers (HABA) have
begun lobbying USDA in an effort to convince officials that personal care
products cannot be made without the use of synthetic additives, or, that
botanical preparations or herbal essential oils cannot be extracted without
the use of toxic solvents such as hexane or petrol (for example). In a
nutshell, HABA manufacturers who have incurred significant gains in the
past few years through exploitation of the term organic, are now funneling
millions of consumer dollars into a campaign to convince USDA (before the
October '02 compliance date) that body care products (Organic or otherwise)
cannot be made without synthetic chemicals.

This attempt to lower the standards is not compelled by the science of
botanical formulation, but by greed for the dollar that can be had off the
terminology. Manufacturers wishing to use the term organic without cleaning
up their products of synthetics and toxins would have us believe that true
organic is simply impossible. That body care products cannot be produced
without chemical stabilizers, emulsifiers, surfactants, toxic solvents and a
multitude of other in-organic compounds and 'inert' ingredients. As well,
these corporate manufacturers are lobbying for exemption from standard
organic processing regulations that prohibit organic products to be made in
the same facility as chemical products. This would open the door to all
manner of contamination; one worse case scenario, should they succeed,
would be the processing of a non-toxic insect formula, claiming to a pure
botanical product being mixed and packaged in the same facility as a product
containing DEET or other hazardous pesticides.

The Organic Standards that these companies are aggressively lobbying to
have weakened, would not only license them to falsely label their products
for the sole purpose of profiting from the term, it would place many
customers in serious danger as many inert ingredients, and traces of toxic
substances will become undisclosed ingredients in the thousands of products
that could be legally labeled 'organic'.

CHEMICAL ALLERGIES, CONSUMER PROTECTION
AND PRODUCT LIABILITY

Chemical sensitivity is a growing problem for many people. As
manufacturer of a relatively small herbal company, producing a line of
botanically pure body care products, I am well aware of a growing population
that suffers from chemical allergies. The rising incidence of chemical
sensitivity ­ of acute and chronic reactions to everyday chemicals - is
directly associated to the sea of synthetic ingredients flooding the
marketplace.

Consequently, an accelerated number are experiencing serious health
problems as a result of bioaccumulation of 'acceptable' trace levels
of synthetic pollutants. Our environment, our soil, our waterways, as well
as our bodies, have reached dangerous saturation levels. The chemically
sensitive individual has become extremely common, and the need for truth in
labeling is becoming ever more urgent.

As an agency commissioned to protect the consumer, the USDA has set
strict standards, which it expects manufacturers to comply with. These
standards would require such needed disclosure, which would not only serve
the customer, but would also protect the manufacturer, the distributor and
the storeowner from liability suits and outrageous insurance premiums.

These standards should not be rendered toothless simply to satisfy the gross
profit margin of corporate giants who can easily handle the cost of pesky
liability suits. The current NOP standards are worth defending to the last letter.
If a manufacturer cannot meet them then they have no business profiting from
deceptive labeling at the expense of the consumers health.

However, unless the NOP hears from, yours truly - the consumer, the
chemically sensitive, the practitioner, the manufacturer, the small store
owner - these standards will be corrupted in October of this year, and the
side-effects will not only be a rise in the cases of allergic reactions to
inert ingredients, but a rise in lawsuits as manufacturers become less
discriminating leading to a dramatic increases in product liability
insurance. Many Mom and Pop stores, small manufacturers, as well as
suppliers will go out of business. Those companies who have adhered to the
standard for purity up to this point, who have gone the extra mile to offer
a truly pure product will no longer be able to compete under degraded
standards, as their revenues are gradually usurped by flashy products on
sale again for just a little less.

To learn more about the current organic regulations, and to voice your
support of maintaining strict standards of compliance visit
(http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/nopscopepolicy.htm). The USDA would like to
maintain these current standards for Organic, but they need to hear from us.
The National Organic Standards Board will count every letter they receive
upholding the current standards as representative of 1,000 citizens.
Information or concern regarding the need to maintain the National Organic
Standards Policy can be sent to the Chair of the National Organic Standards
Board, (NOSB), and the Program Mgr. for USDA-NOP. When writing please to cc
your Congressmen and Congresswomen.

DAVID E. CARTER
CONSUMER/PUBLIC INTEREST EXP. January 24 2006
10081 YATES STREET
WESTMINISTER, CO 80031
OFFICE PHONE: (303) 292-2833 EMT
e-mail: de.carter@attbi.com

Richard Mathews
Program Manager
USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP
Room 4008-South Building
1400 and Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-0020

Telephone: (202) 720-3252
Fax: (202) 205-7808
email: NOPWebmaster@usda.gov
Contact Information for the NSOB processing committee:
NSOB.processing@USDA.gov

Yours truly,
Jayne Ollin
Lakon Herbals Inc
jollin@sover.net