Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

shady GOPosse tactics used in organics fight

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 04:50 PM
Original message
shady GOPosse tactics used in organics fight
original

Exposing the Organic Trade Association's Fallacies and Deception on the Sneak Attack on Organic Standards



Open Letter from Jim Riddle, Chair of National Organic Standards Board
Oct. 28, 2005

More Fallacies from OTA

In a Special Alert, dated Oct. 27, 2005, titled “Congressional Conference Committee restores national organic standards,” the Organic Trade Association continues to make false and misleading statements.

In the opening statement, OTA asserts that the language that they introduced was adopted by “a bi-partisan committee.” That statement is misleading. Though the committee is bipartisan, the action taken was not bipartisan. The Republican members of the House-Senate Conference Committee inserted the language after the full committee had adjourned, with no input from Democratic members who had objections and had compromise language ready to introduce.

OTA claims that their action “will allow continued use of a limited list of stringently reviewed synthetic materials in organic post-harvest handling and processing.” In reality, OTA’s action opens the door to numerous processing aids and food contact substances being used in or on processed organic products with no review by the NOSB. OTA’s language may also weaken the review process, since no evaluation criteria or allowed category limitations are included in their provision.

OTA claims to support “the authority given to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).” That statement directly contradicts their provision that gives the USDA new and unprecedented authority to make emergency decrees that organic crops or ingredients are not commercially available, removing authority currently held by the NOSB and transferring it to the Secretary.

OTA states that “its trade member companies regardless of size have equal voice.” OTA’s recent Congressional action was driven by a few large food manufacturers, including Dean Foods (Horizon), Smuckers, Kraft Foods, Stoneyfield, and Organic Valley, who comprised the “Pay to Play” group. Most OTA members did not participate in this process and did not have an equal voice.

In conclusion, OTA makes a commitment to “actively work with its members and other stakeholders through public rulemaking to ensure that the regulations meet the needs of businesses, farmers, and consumers.”

Unfortunately, OTA's actions have caused deep divisions in the organic community. Congress received over 320,000 calls and letters from consumers, farmers, and businesses opposing OTA's amendment. Those concerns were ignored by OTA and the Republicans who carried their amendment.

All of this mess could have been easily avoided if OTA had engaged the organic community, including its own membership, in an honest and open discussion of the issues prior to introducing the amendment.

OTA's lawyer (Jay Friedman, Convington & Burling) refused to negotiate with consumer, public interest, and farm group representatives. For months, he refused to distribute draft OFPA amendment text, despite repeated requests from OTA members and interested stakeholders. (The text only saw the light of day after being introduced to Congress.)

OTA refused to take part in negotiations requested by Sen. Harkin after the "study bill" language was adopted by the Senate. OTA's lawyer discontinued discussions with Joe Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety, who was the designated point person for the public interest groups.

OTA's tactic of using the Republican majority's unilateral control to their advantage may come back to haunt us all. It now turns organic into a partisan issue, and sets the stage for further divisions.

It will take overwhelming public pressure to restore the powers of the NOSB over the National List; require that all substances used in or on processed organic products are subject to NOSB review; and require that all dairy replacement animals are managed organically from last third of gestation, regardless of how the operation converted to organic production. These are huge issued now unresolved as a result of OTA’s actions.

 



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC