'Organic' Label Ruled Out For Biotech, Irradiated Food
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 1, 1998; Page A02

Intense pressure and criticism from tens of thousands of citizens have
pushed Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to decide that genetically
engineered and irradiated food, and crops fertilized with sewage sludge,
should not be allowed to be labeled "organic," according to an
administration official.

That decision, still not formalized but described by the official as all
but inevitable, would remove three of the more contentious issues
threatening to derail an effort to codify for the first time a federal
definition of organic food.

But several other elements of the USDA proposal remain controversial,
including the rule's relatively liberal allowance for the use of
antibiotics, nonorganic feed and long-term confinement of animals in the
production of organic meat.

An estimated 150,000 people flooded the Agriculture Department with
cards and letters during the four-month comment period on the proposal
that ended yesterday -- more comments than the department had ever
received on any single rule.

The proposed rule had left open the question of whether gene-modified,
irradiated or sludge-fertilized crops could be deemed organic. The vast
majority of comments opposed those ideas. Moreover, most were personal
and passionate, as opposed to mass-produced form letters from interest
groups -- an indication of the American public's increasingly fervent
hunger for "natural" foods.

In the end, Glickman didn't have "much choice" but to rule out the three
most contentious categories of food, at least for now, said the
official, who is close to the decision-making process and spoke on the
condition of anonymity. "He's a realist," the source said. "It has to be
a rule that everyone is able to embrace. And the other side has been too
compelling."

Representatives of the organic industry said yesterday that even those
concessions would be insufficient. Indeed, given the large gap between
what they had envisioned and what the USDA had proposed, they already
have begun to create an alternative, independent national system for
certifying organic farms and food. That system, they said, would be more
in keeping with the stricter standards now in place in several states
and European countries.

"We see at least 66 major deal breakers in this proposed rule," said
Michael Sligh, who until last year chaired the National Organic
Standards Board, created by Congress in 1990 to oversee the creation and
implementation of an organic food rule.

"USDA must rewrite this rule," Sligh said at a news conference. "That's
the only way to regain public trust."

Glickman said he could not comment specifically on how the department
would respond to what he called the "extraordinary" wave of public
opinion generated by the proposed rule, but he did promise "significant
modifications" in a final rule that he hoped would be approved by the
end of this year after allowing for additional comments.

He said he had never considered the proposal perfect, but given the
enormous delays that had plagued the rule-making process since Congress
demanded standards in 1990, he was proud to get the process going.

"We knew there were areas that were not complete and there would be
controversy," he said. "But rather than work on it for another seven
years, we said, 'Let's get the rule out and get started.' "

Pressure on Glickman rose this week when dozens of members of Congress
signed letters criticizing the proposal. Even agricultural biotechnology
giant Monsanto Co. declared in a letter to Glickman last week that it
favored delaying any effort to include genetically engineered foods on a
national list of approved organic products -- a move some saw as a
defensive effort to preclude a permanent ban.

Philip Angell, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based Monsanto, said the
company decided to press for a delay in consideration of genetically
engineered foods so the company could examine the issue more closely.
"We are in the process of developing extensive data showing the
sustainable agriculture benefits and the other benefits of some biotech
crops . . . that are in keeping with the concept of organic," he said.

Beyond clarifying the meaning of organic for consumers, a federal
definition could have significant economic implications domestically and
internationally. The $4 billion U.S. organic industry is growing by more
than 20 percent a year, spurring many of the nation's bigger food
conglomerates to try to cash in on the word's cachet. But the lack of
federal standards for the term organic -- which generally means "free of
synthetic chemicals and pesticides" but also encompasses broader
concepts of environmentally sound food production -- has threatened to
undermine consumer confidence and sales.

Sligh and others representing the organic food industry said they were
especially troubled by a provision in the proposed rule that gives the
agriculture secretary authority to add products to a national list of
approved organic foods. Organic industry advocates argue that Congress
granted those powers only to the National Organic Standards Board.

If Glickman insists on retaining that authority in a final rule,
advocates said, a lawsuit is likely to follow.

© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Webmaster: steve@greenpeople.org