Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy
To Secretary Veneman’s Withdrawal
Of Changes To The Organic Program
Wednesday, May 26, 2004

“Secretary Veneman has listened to the concerns the organic community has raised, and I commend her for retracting these far-reaching changes.  The secretary has decided to follow the law and to consult with the National Organic Standards Board, and that is welcome news. 

“Organic producers and consumers are united in wanting the new organic program to work.  For it to work, the standards have to mean something.  The organic standards and labeling program is still in its infancy, and this is a critical time for its credibility.  This program’s credibility has been built with full public and stakeholder participation, and we need to keep it that way.”

__________________________

[Background – USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman Wednesday rescinded a set of far-reaching “directive” and “guidance” documents for the new organic standards program that the agency recently issued.  The rescission comes the same day that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the “father” of the organic standards and labeling program and the author of the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), began circulating a letter to Senate colleagues for signatures, urging the retraction of the documents.  Veneman announced the rescission in a news conference held Wednesday.  Leahy had warned that the documents are a major departure from the OFPA charter, that they threatened to undermine the integrity of the USDA organic label in the eyes of consumers, and that they posed significant economic hardship for the thousands of organic farmers, handlers, retailers and exporters who depend on the organic market. 

Specifically, Leahy was asking USDA to rescind: 

• The “National Organic Program Scope” Guidance statement (issued April 14, 2004), which suggested that producers of pet foods, personal care products, fertilizers and aquatic animals can make “organic” claims on their labels but will not be regulated by the National Organic Program.  Leahy noted that OFPA’s purpose is to regulate the use of organic labels on organic products and that opening this loophole conflicts with the law’s intent.  Leahy asked, at the very least, for a formal rulemaking process for any such proposals.
   

• The “Pesticide Use” Directive (issued April 23, 2004) would have allowed certain pesticides to be used in organic production even if the inert ingredients of those pesticides are prohibited.  This change could have encouraged the use of the USDA organic label for food even when little is known about the materials used in the production of that food. 
   

• The “Livestock Feed (Fishmeal)” Guidance statement (issued April 14, 2004) would have permitted the use of fishmeal as a feed supplement for organic livestock, in spite of the fact that fishmeal can be laden with synthetic preservatives and contaminants such as mercury and polychlorinated bipheneyls (PCBs). 
   

• The “Livestock Health Care Practice Standard, Origin of Dairy Livestock” Guidance statement (issued April 14, 2004) permits the use of drugs such as antibiotics, and potentially even synthetic growth hormones, for treatment of illness in organic dairy production, as long as there is a 12-month gap between the use of the drug and marketing of the milk.  Leahy charged that this contradicts a regulation governing organic standards which asserts:  "The producer of an organic livestock operation must not sell, label or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics.”  He said the weakened standard would cause consumer confusion about the meaning of the USDA organic label on dairy products.] 

# # # # #