Comment to NOSB
November 16, 2005
Submitted by:
Tom Hutcheson
Associate Policy Director
OTA commends NOSB for its very hard work in drafting the recommendations for sunset review. The template chosen is accessible and informative. OTA also appreciates the careful thought that has gone into choosing which materials should undergo full Technical Advisory Panel reviews and looks forward to the updated reviews.
In a related matter, OTA understands USDA expects to be working on a proposal for developing a response to the recent legislation regarding 7 CFR 205.606.
OTA anticipates USDA rulemaking on this issue, and would be pleased to work with NOSB to seek the best way to incorporate timely NOSB involvement in the process of determining what natural products should be allowed in the 5% non-organic ingredients of a product labeled as organic if organic products are not commercially available. This process has until now been the responsibility of certifiers, and OTA expects that any new rule will mandate that manufacturers demonstrate not only to their certifiers, but also to USDA—through the NOSB—that a product is not commercially available in an organic form. OTA notes that this strengthens, rather than weakens, the existing rule.
The bad news is that OTA anticipates that upward of 1500 ingredients could be petitioned unless some degree of categorization of ingredients is allowed, in which case perhaps 50-100 could be petitioned. The longer list includes various steam-distilled essential oils, CO2 extracts (oleoresins), alcohol-extracted botanicals, and derivatives (usually produced by distillation) of all three, as well as spices. OTA would like to support the broadest categories possible that will be legally acceptable as identifying ingredients in order to maintain something close to the range of organic product options, and therefore demand for raw agricultural product, that the trade currently has.
These represent materials for a which a reliable supply of organically produced product may not be available, so the good news is that this also represents market opportunities for organic farmers. In some cases, though, products normally available as organic could suffer supply disruption, for example, tropical products lost through natural disasters, and NOSB should expect to see these products petitioned for placement on 606.
OTA has a task force working on this problem and stresses the need to have a workable process in place as quickly as possible, including an approved petition process, in order to avoid problems in organic product formulation leading to lowered demand for raw agricultural product. There are many people in the trade in a position to provide solid advice to NOSB on possible solutions, and who would welcome involvement in an NOSB Task Force on the topic.
Regarding 605(b), OTA envisions no need for any rule change in the existing materials review process, and fully supports the use of the existing criteria in reviewing synthetic processing aids and adjuvants, as provided for in the existing rule.
Now that the amendment has been enacted, there's no reason for the evaluation criteria to be vacated from the rule. Moving the criteria to the Act goes beyond a simple response to the effects of the Harvey v. Secretary of Agriculture lawsuit, which OTA promised it would not do, since these issues have not been vetted publicly, as was the Rule on which this amendment was based. OTA fully supports maintaining the current rule, including its criteria for evaluation.
Finally, OTA urges NOSB to expedite consideration of criteria for re-classification of materials from 605(b) to 605(a) if natural analogues of synthetics on 605(b) are found.
