|
Policy Statement
Harvey vs. Johanns
(2nd statement) Updated OFRF Policy
Statement
Regarding the Harvey Lawsuit & Legislative Amendments
November 12, 2005
The recent amendments made to the Organic Foods
Production Act (OFPA) have generated great controversy within the
organic community and in the public eye. Both the substance and
process of these amendments have created questions about the integrity
of the national organic standard, as well as the integrity of the
organic community. The Board of Directors of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation offers the following observations about the
process and outcomes of these events.
From March 2005 onward, we opposed amending OFPA
in response to the Harvey vs. Johanns decision without a full investigation
of regulatory options and without a full vetting of proposed legislation
by all stakeholders. Our initial concerns were about the vulnerability
of the law to other, unfriendly changes; potential damage to consumer
confidence in the integrity of the organic label; and the likelihood
that the amendments might actually weaken organic standards. The
first concern was not realized at this time but the recent action
sets a precedent for such changes to be made in the future. The
second and third concerns may prove to be well founded. Reporting
and commentary in the national media has clearly struck a blow to
the image of organic integrity.
We publicly stated our position early in the process,
but our staff and Board remained open to hearing all viewpoints
and proposals. We recognized that the needs of some dedicated and
long-standing organic businesses appeared to be critically affected.
We also recognized the sincere and long-standing interests of consumer
and public-interest groups in upholding the original construction
of the law. However, we have remained certain that severely disputed
changes to the law are counter-productive to the broad interests
of organic farmers and consumers.
Our position has its roots in our basic organizational
purpose, which is: to foster the improvement and widespread
adoption of organic farming practices. “Improvement”
is the positive goal that should govern any changes to the OFPA.
In our view, this was not an outcome of the recent amendments.
The Political Process
Our close observation and consultation with many principals in this
conflict have led us to the following conclusions:
- The economic justifications offered for these
amendments were based on data that were not published, and were
not subject to independent verification. Claims such as, “20%
of farmers would stop planting organic” appeared overstated
to us, and without corroborating evidence. A key principle of
our organization is open access to research data. A process that
does not hold true to public discussion and verification of data
leaves organic agriculture vulnerable to any type of claim, positive
or negative.
- The attachment of these amendments as an un-debated
“rider” on an appropriations bill was directly contradictory
to core organic community values of transparency and open public
process.
- The last-minute insertion of the amendments
in secret by the Appropriations Committee Chairmen, after the
full conference committee of Senators and Representative from
both parties had already been adjourned, is a truly damaging precedent.
Adoption of these tactics by the organic sector leaves us highly
vulnerable to their use against organic integrity in the future.
- Harsh rhetoric from all sides appeared
to reinforce the hardening of positions, undermining the possibility
of a negotiated compromise among organic stakeholders. Given the
size of the overall organic industry, cohesive action is critical
to maintaining the credibility of organics in Congress and in
the public eye.
In sum, while the short-term outcomes of
the amendments for some in the organic industry may be positive,
the long-term outcomes may have negative impacts on the organic
sector as a whole. We believe that the process by which the amendments
were passed has caused damage to the integrity and reputation of
the organic industry.
The Substantive Provisions
Many concerns about the actual impact of the amendments remain speculative.
Much will be determined by how the USDA (and the public) interprets
the meaning of both the Harvey v. Johanns lawsuit and the ensuing
amendments through the rule-writing process.
Our gravest concern is in regard to the provision
for “commercially unavailable” organic ingredients. The
previous status of certifier practices in this area has never been
studied, but many suspected that the status quo was not acceptable.
Unless accurate data concerning unmet demands and product availability
can be collected, we find the new legislative provisions unlikely
to improve the situation. Moving
Forward
We believe that the organic industry must make a visible and transparent
effort to regain the public’s confidence. Tangible evidence
of such activity, such as forwarding proposals to improve the Organic
Foods Production Act and the regulations that implement it, will
go a long way towards building new bridges to organic colleagues
in particular and the consumers in general.
OFRF has and will continue to monitor the new
Rule making process as it unfolds. We are committed to facilitating
dialogue among organizations of organic growers and, when the appropriate
opportunity presents itself, to other stakeholders involved with
the improvement and widespread adoption of organic agriculture.
| 
