The National Organic Standards: Myth or Reality?

October 21, 2002 October 21, 2002 was the official launch day. After twelve years of wrangling, raucous debate, false starts, public outcry, and backroom politics, the National Organic Program (NOP) finally took effect. For real.

Well, maybe.

According to the law passed in 1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was supposed to put together a set of practices to meet the ideals and uphold the integrity of organic agriculture. Consumers were supposed to be able to purchase food products stamped "100% Organic," in full confidence that the USDA label would have the same meaning from Maine to Hawaii. There would be only one standard, replacing a patchwork of organic regulations that varied from state to state, and this standard would provide an even playing field for farmers, processors, and consumers alike.

That was the idea, anyway. The reality is far messier. Yes, the official USDA organic regulations include some promising language: Organic produce must be grown without pesticides, synthetic fertilizers or weed killers; organic meat and egg producers must provide their animals with outdoor access and feed them only organic foods and avoid all growth hormones and antibiotics.

But the devil, as they say, is in the details. And when it comes to organic livestock, the details have not been addressed by the USDA, despite the fact that the public and nonprofits alike have been begging for more details since the governmental agency published its first draft regulations in 1997. So while organic livestock producers know they must provide outdoor access for their animals and must follow sustainable practices, they don't know exactly how to achieve these broad goals. How many animals, for example, can farmers graze on one acre and still be considered organic? How much sewage runoff will be allowed?

The USDA has yet to provide such details, despite promising to have them in place before the October 21 launch. Nor does the USDA have any enforcement responsibilities. Farmers and ranchers will receive the "100% Organic" label—or "Organic" label if the product is 95% organic—based on the evaluation of USDA certifiers, who must undergo training to receive their lofty status. The certifiers will not be government employees; they could, in theory at least, be more tied to the "farmer" under evaluation than to the government who granted them the power to evaluate. One large agribusiness firm in Georgia, for example, allegedly paid for its certifiers to receive their training.

The USDA has already drawn a line in the sand about corporate interference in its organic standards. The agency promised not to bow to big business to modify the regulations, but that hasn't stopped some corporate agribusinesses from trying to circumvent the new standards to secure a chunk of the $9.3 billion organic food market that continues to expand annually.

New Hampshire, for example, decided to act unilaterally just to please one large egg producer in the state. Exploiting what they call the "ambiguous rules" that allow them to do what they deem "best" for the birds, New Hampshire agricultural officials are not requiring poultry to have access outdoors. And because these same officials are the certifiers for the state, they have the power to bestow USDA organic labels without following the letter of the regulations.

The regulations could be watered down even further if a Georgia company has its way. Fieldale Farms, a large poultry operation based in Baldwin, Georgia, wants an exemption from regulations that require all poultry to have outdoors access and all livestock and poultry to be fed 100% organic feed. To secure this exemption, the company is trying to use congressional leaders who in turn would influence the secretary of agriculture to alter the regulations.

What does this all mean for the consumers? Some organic farmers who have been truly following the philosophy of ecologically sustainable agriculture have given up trying to get certified. They believe the certification is empty if organic integrity has been compromised. Other true organic farmers are sticking with the program.

"In either case, practicing organic farmers need to talk to their customers," says Robert Hadad, director of farming systems for The HSUS's Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture section. "They need to continue to educate their customers on how they farm. More than ever, it is necessary to avert the misunderstanding and confusion that will surely be present in the near future."

Despite all of this confusion, the National Organic Program can be interpreted as positive evidence that humane, sustainable agriculture is "coming of age" and reaching the consciousness of the general public. This increasing awareness is a tribute to the organic farmers and discriminating consumers who have worked hard and held fast to a philosophy that farming with respect for the land and not consuming pesticide-laden foods is a health-wise, environmentally sound idea.

"Consumers still have a say in what products they want to feed to their families. If the integrity of the NOP is compromised by big agribusiness, consumers must then seek out and find local farmers in their own communities. Something simply labeled 'organic' is meaningless unless it is also sustainable," says Hadad. "Purchasing 'organic' products from supermarkets won't much help the environment if those products are shipped from across the country or from around the globe, not from local, sustainable farms."

Consumers can find organic farmers right in their region, Hadad notes. Visit farmers' markets. Visit natural food cooperatives. Find out where farmers can be found. Talk to the farmers and find out how they grow their crops or raise their animals. Only through direct dialogue can you be sure of how your food was grown. You have a choice. You have the purchasing power. You can make the difference.

Related Links

HSUS Recommendations to the NOSB

Organic Integrity Under Attack

Organic Still Means Humane