Ian Howard

December 5, 2002

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] On Monday, October 21, 2002, the National Organic Standards and the requisite labeling requirements that enforce them took effect after more than a decade of political debate.  The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990[1] delegated to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to establish a national organic certification program[2] replete with mandatory labeling requirements[3] for any person[4] selling agricultural products using organic methods.   Only those persons who have been certified by the USDA certifying agent may affix a label indicating that such products have been produced and handled using organic methods.[5]

[2] The three tier labeling system encompasses products to be labeled as "100 percent organic,"[6] "organic" if 95 percent of the ingredients is organic,[7] and products "made with (specified ingredients or food groups(s))" if 70 percent of the ingredients is organic.[8]  Products that contain organic ingredients that consist of less than 70 percent of the total volume of ingredients may identify each organic ingredient in the ingredient statement[9]and then on the information panel.[10]

[3] Prior to the OFPA, no two State laws regulating organic food were the same.[11] Even though organically produced food at the time represented only two percent of all food produced in the country, the organic food trade was experiencing exponential growth.[12]   The legislature understood that this growth meant a lucrative organic export market.[13]   If, however, facilitating the growth of a lucrative market is the impetus behind these regulations rather than a genuine concern for the safety of our food, then those that are driven by the profit motive can exploit these regulations at the expense of the very things that the regulations should be protecting - our food, the environment, and the local growers.

[4] Any citizen that understands the paramount importance of a healthy environment, the quality of food produced from it, the need to raise public awareness about safe food, and ensuring that the right people are in the best position to achieve these ends must direct some healthy skepticism towards this regulation rather than having blind reliance on its as a panacea.  Who stands to benefit in the long run from this legislation?  Is it the environment?  Is it the consumer?  Is it the local grower?  Is it the large food chains operated by large corporations?

[5] The advantages of federal regulation of organically produced food are numerous.  Uniformity assures the consumers that organically produced food meets a consistent standard[14] and it may devote more agricultural land to producing organic products resulting in reduced pesticide use, which protects the environment by decreasing polluted agricultural runoff and mitigating the destruction of non target species effected by pesticides.  Additionally, uniform standards could raise the public's awareness of organic foods by making them more available as well as lower the price for these products by ameliorating the difficulties that some large food chains have expressed as barriers to purchasing organic foods for consumers.[15]  There are, however, potential pitfalls to the National Organic Standards.

II. GROWERS FOR THE SOUTH ROYALTON MARKET RESPOND

[6] As a consumer, my initial reaction to these national standards and the labeling requirements was one of exuberance.  Finally, I could count on a uniform system establishing a safeguard against questionable organic labeling.   I was elated to think that no longer would the word "organic" connote something unusual to the general public. Even though I was aware of some general concerns surrounding the standards, it was not until I had a conversation with some of the local growers that supply the South Royalton Market that I fully understood the negative impacts that could cascade from establishing a federal bureacracy regulating the entire organic producing industry.

[7] Local organic growers tend to have a greater appreciation for the land and the food grown from it.  They are not motivate solely to make a profit as large corporate entities typically are.  As a result, there is a moral obligation on the part of the local growers to pursue the safest methods of organic farming independent of pecuniary interests.  In contrast, the agenda of the corporate suppliers provides an incentive for them to cut corners as well as apply for exemptions all in an effort to edge their way into a bigger piece of the organic industry pie.  Rather than aspiring to the best organic practices as may local growers do, the National Organic Standards allow the large corporate growers to seek out the most cost effective bare minimum.  In other words, there is a gravitation to do only what is legally required to earn the USDA organic labels.

[8] In many instances, the local standards are more stringent than the USDA organic production requirements[16] and the latter are more expensive for the local grower to implement.  Local Vermont growers will have to pay more to certify production requirements that are less rigorous than what they were doing before the national standards were promulgated.  That is, of course, if they want to continue selling their products as organic.

[9] Should these local growers decide not to undergo USDA certification[17] as a result of the annual certification fees and the exhaustive documentation requirements,[18] they may lose demand for their unlabeled products as the public begins to associate the USDA labels, and only the USDA labels, with safety.  Again, this could happen when local growers are, in fact, producing food that is better.  The end result might push the small growers, their greater appreciation for the land, and their higher standards out of the organic food market.  Is there an alternative that could compliment the USDA labels that might protect these local Vermont growers?

[10] Currently, the National Organic Standards allow State organic programs that are implemented in accordance with the requirements specified in the USDA regulations; they may even be more stringent.[19]  The Secretary could add to these State programs the possibility of a State created label that indicates organic production efforts that exceed the national USDA standards.  Local growers would be able to provide the psychological comfort of a standard label to consumers who can then decide for themselves if they trust their local growers.  Understanding that many consumers will still only feel safe with the national standard and the corresponding labels, this State alternative would not detract from the economic incentive for the large food stores to stock products with the USDA labels.

III. CONCLUSION

[11] If all that the new National Organic Standards succeed in doing is allow corporations to edge their way into the growing organic food industry at the expense of local growers that often have more stringent standards but can not adhere to the costly administrative certification requirements, a monopoly of organic foods driven by the profit motive will result.  Forcing a small product with higher organic standards out of the market to make way for a larger but less stringently produced one is not the solution.  The federal legislation must find a way for these two agendas to coexist so that the public is not left with a uniform, but diluted, version of organic food without the efforts of the local growers to compliment it.

CONTRIBUTORS

 Tim Sanford, Luna Bleu Farm

 Wendy & Jean Palthey, Tunbridge Hill Farm

 Jennifer Megyesi, Fat Rooster Farm

 Free Ellis & Rebecca Bedlier, Growing Mosaic Organics