000319 Ban on Biotech and Irradiation In Organic Rules

Washington - The Clinton administration unveiled regulations for the fast- growing organic food industry, bowing to public demand to ban biotechnology and irradiation procedures on foods labeled and sold as “organic.”

USDA's 650-page proposal aims to provide a nationwide standard for food and clothing marketed as “organic” -- a label that currently falls under a hodgepodge of state, regional and private certifier standards, giving rise to confusion about its meaning.

A nationwide organic standard, which administration officials hope will become final by the end of the year, would not only clarify the meaning of organic for U.S. consumers but also for foreign nations who are increasingly shying away from conventional U.S. growing practices.

“The organic label is about giving consumers a choice,” Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said. “It's about giving consumers and farmers a definition of organic that takes the guesswork out of the process. Consumers know what they're buying and farmers know what's expected of them.”

Glickman said the proposal is the strictest organic standard in the world and may force other countries to tighten their regulations.

The proposal bans food from crops that are genetically altered to fight off weeds and pests, withstand droughts and floods and provide extra nutrients. The move may help sell U.S. organic products in Europe and in Japan, where consumers have objected to biotechnology, claiming that the common U.S. practice can harm the environment and human health.

Also banned from the organic pool under the USDA proposal is food irradiated by disease-killing electron beams and fertilized by sewage sludge recycled by municipal waste plants. Meat produced from animals that receive antibiotics could also not be labeled organic.

Once the proposal is finalized, consumers will be able to look for a USDA shield, similar to the “USDA Prime” identification for beef or the grade labels on egg cartons.

Products with at least 95% organic products will be labeled “USDA certified organic.” Food and clothing with between 50% and 94% organic inputs will be able to claim that they were “made with organic ingredients.”

Any products made with some, but less than half, of organic materials, can only make organic claims on the side label.

The U.S. organic industry sold more than $6 billion of products, from food to clothing, in 1999. It is estimated that organic sales will increase by another 20% this year.

There are currently 12,000 organic farmers in the United States and that number is rising by 12% each year while other sectors of farming are seeing a decline in producers.

But the industry said it needed standards to maintain the surge in organic sales. Without guidelines, consumers will increasingly question whether an organic label really means anything and whether it is worth paying more for organic products, members of the organic industry said.

“Unlike some industries, the organic industry truly wants such standards in place to give consumers the assurance they desire for certified organic products,” Organic Trade Association Executive Director Katherine DiMatteo said.

TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING

The announcement came more than two years after the U.S. Agriculture Department unveiled its initial organic proposal and a decade after the U.S. Congress ordered the agency to develop nationwide organic rules.

The proposal was released on the Internet on Tuesday afternoon and will be published in the Federal Register next Monday. The proposal will then be up for a 90-day comment period. The USDA will review responses from the public, and is expected to make the regulations final by the end of the year.

The USDA's first attempt in December 1997 prompted an outcry from organic farmers, consumers and grocery stores that specialize in organic food. The Agriculture Department received a record 275,603 comments from environmentalists, farmers, celebrities, consumers and the entire Vermont Legislature.

The vast majority of the responses opposed putting the “organic” label on foods grown using biotechnology, irradiation and sewage sludge.

“The USDA has really responded to the outrage,” said Hiu Newcomb, an organic farmer in Virginia.

Organic farmers were also angry that the USDA at first proposed charging fees to farmers to pay for the $1 million annual cost for the organic program. Such fees could be too expensive for organic farmers, many of whom harvest small plots of land and sell in the surrounding county.

In its new proposal, the USDA said taxpayers will pay for the bulk of the costs, at least for the first couple of years.

Organic standards “should enhance the status of the pioneers of this and not in any way penalize them,” said Michael Sligh, director of agriculture policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International. Sligh and others said they plan to closely read the proposal.

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

E-mail: sflanagan@sprintmail.com