These comments address the two memos dated March 9, 2006 from Valerie Frances to the NOSB concerning the definition of “synthetic.” OTA wishes to thank the author for contributing significant clarity to the questions surrounding substances that should be classified as “synthetic” under the NOP, and supports the use of the “Recommended Framework to Further Clarify the Definition of Synthetic” as guidance for the NOSB in its review of substances petitioned for inclusion on the National List.
We also wish to add the following comments concerning this document:
Section 3.1 Natural Source
This section suggests that “the NOSB should evaluate whether microbiological or fungal matter should be included in the definition.” OTA supports the inclusion of any substance of biological origin in that definition, and does not believe that the intent of the OFPA was to exclude any such substance by omitting the categories of fungi and microorganisms. The definition of “Natural Source” would thus read: “Naturally occurring mineral, plant, or animal matter, or any matter of biological origin, used to obtain nonsynthetic inputs for organic production and handling.” It should also be noted that the prohibition on excluded methods would continue apply to any biological matter under consideration.
Section 3.3 Formulation (Manufacturing)
We support the NOSB's previous recommendation of August, 2005 in which the processes listed in the definition of “Processing” would not render a material obtained from a natural source as synthetic, regardless of any chemical changes that may occur. We would thus suggest that this section be revised to include an additional bullet point to follow “A formulated (manufactured) substance is nonysnthetic if”:
· The process of formulation (manufacturing) entails only those transformations identified in the definition of “Processing,” that is, cooking, baking, curing, heating, drying, mixing, grinding, churning, separating , extracting, slaughtering, cutting, fermenting, distilling, eviscerating, preserving, dehydrating, freezing, or chilling.
We also suggest that this section better clarify the distinction between substances that are nonsynthetic and those that are synthetic and allowed for use in organic production and handling. Accordingly, the first bullet point should simply state that a formulated substance is nonsynthetic if “It contains only nonsynthetic constituent substances.” Even though it is nonsynthetic, it is only allowed for use in organic production and handling if any synthetic substances it contains appear on the National List. For example, a flavoring may be labeled as “organic” if it contains a small amount of an allowed synthetic substance. The synthetic constituent would not thus become nonsynthetic because it is contained in a product that is identified as nonsynthetic.
Section 3.6 Chemical Change
This is an important discussion, and points up the difficulty of equating the meaning of “synthetic” under the OFPA with the occurrence of a chemical change. In particular, OTA supports the concept that “whether the chemicals involved are found in natural sources” should be a consideration in determining whether a substance is classified as synthetic. Inclusion of this criterion could potentially eliminate the need to extensively examine the manufacturing process of a substance that is chemically and functionally identical to a naturally occurring material (e.g., ascorbic acid).
OTA appreciates the opportunity to participate in this discussion, which is a fundamental element of the meaning of organic production. We expect that, as greater clarity is reached concerning the meaning of “synthetic” as it applies to inputs and ingredients used in organic production and processing, the industry and the public will benefit from increased confidence in the organic label.
