The Organic Trade Association thanks the National Organic Standards Board for this opportunity to state or reiterate our positions on many of the issues at hand.  I urge members of the Board to refer to OTA’s list of public comments on our web site, and to contact me at OTA, for more detailed positions.

OTA does not usually take positions on specific materials, and OTA will not offer at this time comments on petition procedures, soy protein isolate, methionine, and sodium nitrate.  I will note that OTA does have a task force on alternatives to synthetic methionine but it is not ready to report.  Several members are working on various approaches to the problem, but studies have just been funded that will take several years to complete, so OTA would appreciate an additional period of allowance, until those studies are sufficiently complete for trade members to make a smooth transition to alternatives.

Materials Sunset

OTA suggests that the entire National List be published in the Federal Register for comment as soon as possible.  NOSB can then see whether there is any new information about any materials and prioritize its work based on the amount of new information available.  If no new information is available for a material, for example, information regarding organic or natural sources of materials that have been developed since the List was created, OTA urges NOSB to recommend continuing the current status of the material.

Pet Food Standard

OTA pet food producers have unanimously favored simply using human food standards with an allowance for any synthetic nutrients necessary to a particular specie.  OTA has not yet finalized language regarding the method by which the status of a nutrient as necessary should be determined, and the guidelines of the Association of American Feed Control Officials, who regulate pet foods at the State level, are not quickly translatable into an organic standard.

There is some disagreement as to whether a new pet food section needs to be included in the rule or whether an addition of a new § 205.300(e) would suffice.  A new § 205.300(e) might read "Pet foods produced in accordance with the requirements in this part must meet the requirements of 205.301(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f).", together with an item under 605, perhaps “Vitamins, trace minerals, and essential amino acids for pet foods in accordance with AAFCO nutrient profiles.”

An alternate approach is to create a new section for pet foods under the feed section and a new 205.608, Nonorganic Substances permitted in pet foods.  Please see the attached brief paper on pet food for further information.

Aquatic animals standards

As many here know, OTA has long opposed the concept of organic certification for wild-caught fish, though OTA does understands that at least one senior United States Senator does not share this perspective.  Nonetheless, it is the duty of this Board to ensure that any aquatic animal standards it creates do not lower consumer confidence in the organic label.  Other marine standards that take into account various environmental factors must be examined, and the organic standard must not only meet any related existing standard, it must take into account and exemplify the ecological principles on which organic agriculture, and its appeal to its consumers, is based.

Regarding aquaculture, OTA strongly recommends that NOSB contact and rely heavily on the work of Lawrence Hutchinson, who has taken a strong stand in favor of ecological aquaculture and who appreciates the need for strict standards regarding production issues such as stocking density and nutrient management that unless carefully considered could allow for the aquatic equivalent of factory farming.  Organic aquaculture must be clearly distinguished from conventional aquaculture in terms of ecologically sound production in order to deserve the organic price premium.  Please contact me for further information.

NOSB Policy Development matters

First, OTA thanks the Policy Development Committee for its hard work in developing its positions.  There is a matter of possible misinterpretation of an OTA position that should be cleared up immediately, though.

OTA has recently been quoted as saying, “The absence of specific standards for such products should not become a reason for allowing the organic claim for such products.  Until standards are developed, USDA should not allow the organic claim to be made regarding these products.”  I apologize for the poor wording.  The passage was meant to refer only to products that did not meet the existing standard, and so should be read quite the opposite of the way it has been read:  “The absence of specific standards for such products should not become a reason for allowing the organic claim for such products if they do not meet the standard.  Until standards are developed, USDA should not allow the organic claim to be made regarding these products if they do not meet the standard.”

OTA supports the NOSB positions on synthetics in fishmeal and unknown inerts in pesticides.

The scope of NOP

Regarding the scope of NOP, OTA’s position has always been that if a product meets the rule, it is by definition an organically produced agricultural product, and therefore should fall under the scope of the National Organic Program.  In addition, while OTA supports the AAPFCO model regulation amendment, OTA believes that manure and compost from certified organic operations should also be allowed to be certified as organically produced agricultural products, and urges USDA to work with AAPFCO to facilitate the resolution of any difficulties resulting from labeling regulations.

Consonant with this, OTA supports the comments of the American Herbal Products Association, and also believes that personal care products should be able to be certified as being organically produced under the rule.  If either of these items requires developing either a formal or an informal agreement with FDA, OTA urges USDA to undertake whatever communication is necessary to allow dietary supplements and personal care products that meet the rule to be allowed to be certified as organically produced.

Regarding commercial availability, OTA supports the comments of Richard Siegel.

Specialty crops

Regarding specialty crop standards, OTA commented in our comments on the Re-Proposed Rule that specialty crop standards should be included in the NOP rule.  OTA understands that NOSB used OTA’s American Organic Standards to inform their own work and recommendations, which OTA agrees should be published as proposed rules.  OTA also supports further consideration of hydroponic production and substantial public comment before NOSB makes a final recommendation to NOP.

Publicizing Items Under Discussion

OTA requests NOSB to post the minutes of its committee meetings within two weeks of the meetings.  Similarly, OTA requests NOSB to post recommendations to be discussed at its meetings at least four weeks prior to the meetings.

Attachments

Please find attached a draft of an OTA paper on organic pet food standards and an OTA position on what we feel is a very important issue, the allowance of both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient in “made with” foods, with the organic portion of the product being counted in the 70% necessary for a front-panel claim, an interpretation of the rule which OTA opposes, and regarding which OTA requests an NOSB recommendation for a rule change supporting OTA’s position.  Thank you very much for your consideration.