|
November 17, 2008
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is pleased to take the opportunity to comment on the following items on the NOSB’s agenda. OTA is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. Its over 1600 members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers’ associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers, and others. OTA’s mission is to promote and protect the growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the public, and the economy.
1. Board Policy & Procedures Manual – Procedures to handle Technical Reviews
It is our understanding that a qualified member of the NOSB may undertake a technical review of a petitioned material, and that a subcommittee of the NOSB can constitute a Technical Advisory Panel. This is clearly stated in the proposed definition of “Technical Advisory Panel (TAP). Since a TAP reviewer is not necessarily a “third party,” it follows that a Technical Review is not necessarily prepared by a “third party” expert. We would accordingly suggest that the definitions be revised to read:
Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) - Group of experts convened by the Program to provide a technical review related to a material petition under review by the NOSB. A subcommittee of the NOSB or a group of third party experts under contract may comprise a TAP.
Technical Review – A report prepared by a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) that addresses the environmental, human, and industrial impact of a petitioned material per the OFPA and regulatory evaluation criteria to aid in the thorough evaluation of that material by the NOSB.
2. Materials Working Group Discussion Document
We thank the NOSB for undertaking the important discussion to clarify definitions that could support its determinations about substances considered for inclusion on the National List. We also applaud the work done by the Materials Working Group in producing its current Discussion Document on NOSB Options for Consideration: Clarification of Agricultural and Nonagricultural Substances on The National List.
OTA urges you to favorably consider Option #2, which calls for a revision to the definition of “Nonagricultural,” and which offers two alternate definitions. While either of these definitions would be acceptable to us, we also find both to be problematic in some respect. Definition A has the advantage of simplicity, and would not require the addition of another definition, for “Agricultural system,” which could prove controversial. However, we would suggest deleting the second sentence of this definition: “For the purposes of this part agricultural refers to the production or handling of crops or livestock.” We believe that this addition is unnecessary, and does not help clarify the meaning of “Agricultural product.” Rather, it could create additional obstacles to the NOSB’s deliberations when considering substances petitioned for § 205.606, since they would then have to be determined to be either crops (plants) or livestock, possibly resorting to the awkward “catch-all” phrase of “nonplant life.”
We would also support the revision of § 205.237(a), as suggested and discussed under “Livestock Feed Dilemma.” We believe that this revision would help address several dilemmas currently facing livestock producers. As proposed, organic livestock could receive up to 5% of the agricultural portion of their rations from nonorganic agricultural sources that have been included on § 205.606 of the National List, and that have been determined to be commercially unavailable as organic. This would give livestock producers greater leeway in providing excellent nutrition to their animals, and could potentially stimulate more organic production of substances listed on § 205.606 to meet increased demand by the livestock feed market. Such a change would represent an improvement that allows greater flexibility without sacrificing the organic integrity of the livestock or livestock products.
We would emphasize that this would only permit livestock to be fed products that would qualify as “organic” if formulated for human consumption, and would be consistent with the composition requirements proposed for pet food labeled as organic. In addition, we would suggest considering additional categories on 205.606 for both livestock feed and pet food, so that there would then be Sections 205.606(a) through 205.606(c) for products for human, livestock and pet consumption, respectively.
We hope you will consider a recommendation concerning a revision to the definition of “nonagricultural” and initiate provisions for reclassifying appropriate substances presently listed on § 205.605 as agricultural.
3. Certifying Operations with Multiple Production Units, Sites, and Facilities under the National Organic Program
We commend the CACC for producing this recommendation, which reflects and improves upon much of the work done by OTA’s Group Certification Task Force and others. Adoption of this document by the NOP as a guidance document would
go a long way towards alleviating the compliance problems associated with the certification of groups of organic producers, and ensure adequate oversight by Accredited Certifying Agents.
However, we do not support the Minority Opinion, which would require that any new member of a group must be designated as "high risk" and be inspected by the ACA. We believe that this requirement could pose an unfair burden on newly forming producer groups. The risk analysis procedure that is proposed in this recommendation should be sufficient to ensure that new members would be more likely to be included in the high risk category, but we do not believe that every new member would necessarily be high risk. For example, in many cases a family member or former employee of an existing member, who is experienced with organic compliance, might become a new member.
4. 100% Labeling Claim Recommendation
We agree with the recommendation that neither sanitizers used on processing equipment nor inert atmospheric gases used as packaging aids should affect the use of the “100% organic” label on a product. However, we have some concerns about the other two recommendations, which would preclude an organic product from being labeled as “100% organic” if a sanitizer is used in produce rinses and hydro-cooling, and if a grain product was stored in a silo in which diatomaceous earth has been used.
It may not be wise to require that substances used to meet food safety requirements affect the “100% organic” claim. We would wish to avoid a situation in which a 100% organic product could be accused of being less safe than a conventional product due to a restriction on substances (so long as those substances are on the National List).
We would also note that diatomaceous earth (DE) is the primary product available to organic farmers for stored grain pest control. Many products that use the “100% organic” label, such as pasta and cereals, use grain that has been stored in silos with DE.
We would request that additional information be obtained concerning the impact of such a change, as well as the likelihood that grain that comes from a silo capped with DE would contain enough of this substance to compromise its 100% organic status, before moving ahead with this recommendation.
5. Recommendation on Commercial Availability Guidance regarding the sourcing of organic seed §205.204
The effort to stimulate a greater supply and use of organic seed varieties is a critical one, which will require patience as incremental improvements are made. We applaud the serious attention given to this concern, and the clarity of the recommendations offered to address it.
We urge the NOSB and the NOP to aggressively pursue opportunities to fund the kind of third party database recommended here, as well as to provide resources for ACA’s, farmers and seed producers to collect, collate and disseminate data about varieties, characteristics, availability and use of organic compared to nonorganic seeds. This information is essential to enforcement of the requirement for use of organic seed that is commercially available, and we recognize that collecting it, especially in the case of vegetable varieties, places a large burden on farmers and ACAs. Additional funding, other than normal certification fees, would go a long way towards making this workable.
We also suggest that the rest of the provisions of §205.204(a) be given similar attention, namely the requirement for use of organically produced perennial planting stock. This could bring about a more robust organic nursery stock industry, including the development of small fruit and ornamental varieties that are better suited to organic management.
6. Biodiversity, opportunities to strengthen a core organic principle - Discussion
OTA welcomes the NOSB’s attention to the principle of biodiversity in organic agriculture, which we believe is central to organic production systems. We agree that the implementation of this requirement should be strengthened, and think that the kind of guidance discussed here is a good start. We would also suggest examining other background documents used in development of the NOP for language that gives greater emphasis to biological diversity, as well as the key concept of agroecosystem health.
We suggest that the requirement that an organic farm operation protect and enhance the biological diversity inherent in its natural resource base could eventually lead to rule making. Just as the NOSB and the public urged the NOP to more clearly define “access to pasture” as a core requirement of organic livestock production, it would be appropriate to explore the possibility of strengthening the rule by an explicit requirement for the protection and enhancement of biological diversity. Guidance should include a clear definition and set of critical indicators that might be identified in the Organic System Plan to monitor site-specific levels of biological diversity.
We would offer one cautionary note, however, about imposing additional record keeping burdens on both organic farmers and certifying agents. Only requirements that directly address biodiversity should be considered. It is also essential that enough flexibility is included for a farmer to use the most effective site-specific practices. Accordingly, we would suggest emphasizing performance standards that identify outcomes to be monitored in the Organic System Plan, rather than highly prescriptive practice standards. While we would like all organic farmers to implement superior practices aimed at enhancing biological diversity, we recognize that it may take time for a given farm to identify and implement such practices. We would not wish to discourage some farmers from transitioning to organic methods because of the difficulty of meeting very prescriptive requirements, and also point out the importance of continual improvement as a core principle of organic systems.
7. Aquaculture Recommendations
OTA congratulates the Aquaculture Working Group for its exhaustive and detailed recommendations on fish feed and related management issues and net pens and related management issues, and for revisions made to the Supplement to Interim Final Report (bivalve mollusks). The careful research and sponsorship of the Aquaculture Symposium have advanced the knowledge and capacity of the organic industry to create excellent and enforceable standards. Overall, we support the recommendations, with the following suggested adjustments:
Re: Fish Feed and Related Management Issues:
We are concerned that § 205.612 sets the maximum allowable percentage of fish meal and fish oil from wild caught fish and other wild aquatic animals at 25% for the first five years, but it is unclear how the nutritional needs of aquatic species can be met from other sources. Until there is an organic aquaculture industry to provide by-products for such purposes, and since the AWG has determined that terrestrial livestock by-products cannot be used, there will be a serious stumbling block for organic aquaculture development.
We also believe that use of wild fishery by-products is ecologically desirable, given the stringent monitoring and quality control requirements identified in this recommendation. We would thus suggest allowing a larger percentage of fish meal and fish oil to be derived from sustainably harvested wild-caught sources, with a proportional step-wise reduction as an organic aquaculture industry becomes established.
Re: Net Pens and Related Management Issues:
The requirement in §205.255(g) to minimize adverse environmental impacts from aquaculture production is essential. However, we believe that the performance target specified in §205.255(g)(1)(i) of recycling a minimum of 50% of all nutrients is not feasible, especially in tropical waters where the native animals and plants are adapted to oligotrophic (low nutrient) loading. Although the 50% retrieval figure is a laudable goal, accurate measurement is problematic. NOSB should consider requiring operations to measure assimilative capacity by carbon deposits, benthic organisms, and other types of benthic analyses rather than simply requiring retrieval of 50% of all output. Until such time as a methodology is available for verifying such a target, the requirement should be for retrieval of a substantial percentage of output, with documentation of appropriate monitoring activities maintained by the operation.
Finally, we suggest that the concept of continual improvement be integrated into these standards, so that producers must include in their Organic System Plan their intent to reduce or eliminate use of practices that may represent a compromise from the best possible organic methods.
8. Pet Food Standards - Recommendation
OTA congratulates the NOSB and the Pet Food Task Force for their excellent work on this proposal. We support the changes outlined, and urge the NOP to move forward with rulemaking to reflect this recommendation, with some adjustments. There is some inconsistency between the Executive Summary of the proposal and the regulatory changes outlined. On page 2 the Executive Summary states: “These proposed changes allow non-organic meat, meat products, poultry and poultry products in the non-organic fraction of an “organic” (95%) or “made with organic” (70%) product.” We support the intention of this statement. However, under “Description of Product Composition Requirements” on the same page, it states:
Products labeled “Organic” – must have 95% organic agricultural ingredients, and the remainder may be nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances on the National List at 205.603 (substances allowed for livestock) or 205.605 (nonsynthetic or synthetic substances approved for food use, provided they are also FDA approved for livestock).
The regulatory changes proposed are also inconsistent. The proposed §205.237(c) states:
(c) Pet food must be composed of agricultural products that are organically produced and, if applicable, organically handled: Except that, nonsynthetic substances, and synthetic substances allowed under §205.603, and 205.605 provided they are allowed by FDA in animal feed, may be used as feed additives and supplements.
However, the proposed §205.301(g)(2), which addresses pet food, states (emphasis added to identify inconsistency):
A raw or processed agricultural product sold, labeled, or represented as "organic" must contain (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) not less than 95 percent organically produced raw or processed agricultural ingredients products. Any remaining product ingredients or processing aids must be organically produced, unless not commercially available in organic form and included on 205.606, or must be nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances in accordance with 205.237(c). No products may be produced using prohibited practices or substances specified in §205.301(f), except that nonsynthetic processing aids may be used. If labeled as organically produced, such product must be labeled pursuant to § 205.303.
The recommendation, moreover, does not include in the Appendix any agricultural products suggested for addition to §205.606 under the Pet Food category. In order for the statement made on page 2 of the Executive Summary to be implemented, §205.237(c) would have to include the allowance for nonorganic agricultural products listed in §205.606, and the Appendix would have to include the addition of non-organic meat, meat products, poultry and poultry products for use in pet food only to §205.606. We would support revising this recommendation to make these changes.
We also agree with the Handling Committee’s recommendation to include in §205.606 a separate category for pet food only, and additionally suggest that a third category for livestock feed only be included, as discussed in item #2 above.
9. Other Issues
We would also like to inform you that OTA has convened a task force on nanotechnology, and hope to have information concerning the applicability of that technology to organic production for later discussion.
|
