http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-05/01/149l-050198-idx.html

Organic' Label Ruled Out For Biotech, Irradiated Food

              By Rick Weiss
              Washington Post Staff Writer
              Friday, May 1, 1998; Page A02

              Intense pressure and criticism from tens of
              thousands of citizens have pushed Agriculture
              Secretary Dan Glickman to decide that
              genetically engineered and irradiated food,
              and crops fertilized with sewage sludge, should
              not be allowed to be labeled "organic,"
              according to an administration official.

              That decision, still not formalized but
              described by the official as all but inevitable,
              would remove three of the more contentious
              issues threatening to derail an effort to codify
              for the first time a federal definition of organic
              food.

              But several other elements of the USDA
              proposal remain controversial, including the
              rule's relatively liberal allowance for the use of
              antibiotics, nonorganic feed and long-term
              confinement of animals in the production of
              organic meat.

              An estimated 150,000 people flooded the
              Agriculture Department with cards and letters
              during the four-month comment period on the
              proposal that ended yesterday -- more
              comments than the department had ever
              received on any single rule.

              The proposed rule had left open the question
              of whether gene-modified, irradiated or
              sludge-fertilized crops could be deemed
              organic. The vast majority of comments
              opposed those ideas. Moreover, most were
              personal and passionate, as opposed to
              mass-produced form letters from interest
              groups -- an indication of the American
              public's increasingly fervent hunger for
              "natural" foods.

              In the end, Glickman didn't have "much
              choice" but to rule out the three most
              contentious categories of food, at least for
              now, said the official, who is close to the
              decision-making process and spoke on the
              condition of anonymity. "He's a realist," the
              source said. "It has to be a rule that everyone
              is able to embrace. And the other side has
              been too compelling."


              Representatives of the organic industry said
              yesterday that even those concessions would
              be insufficient. Indeed, given the large gap
              between what they had envisioned and what
              the USDA had proposed, they already have
              begun to create an alternative, independent
              national system for certifying organic farms
              and food. That system, they said, would be
              more in keeping with the stricter standards
              now in place in several states and European
              countries.

              "We see at least 66 major deal breakers in this
              proposed rule," said Michael Sligh, who until
              last year chaired the National Organic
              Standards Board, created by Congress in 1990
              to oversee the creation and implementation of
              an organic food rule.

              "USDA must rewrite this rule," Sligh said at a
              news conference. "That's the only way to
              regain public trust."

              Glickman said he could not comment
              specifically on how the department would
              respond to what he called the "extraordinary"
              wave of public opinion generated by the
              proposed rule, but he did promise "significant
              modifications" in a final rule that he hoped
              would be approved by the end of this year
              after allowing for additional comments.

              He said he had never considered the proposal
              perfect, but given the enormous delays that
              had plagued the rule-making process since
              Congress demanded standards in 1990, he was
              proud to get the process going.

              "We knew there were areas that were not
              complete and there would be controversy," he
              said. "But rather than work on it for another
              seven years, we said, 'Let's get the rule out and
              get started.' "

              Pressure on Glickman rose this week when
              dozens of members of Congress signed letters
              criticizing the proposal. Even agricultural
              biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. declared in
              a letter to Glickman last week that it favored
              delaying any effort to include genetically
              engineered foods on a national list of approved
              organic products -- a move some saw as a
              defensive effort to preclude a permanent ban.

              Philip Angell, a spokesman for the St.
              Louis-based Monsanto, said the company
              decided to press for a delay in consideration of
              genetically engineered foods so the company
              could examine the issue more closely. "We are
              in the process of developing extensive data
              showing the sustainable agriculture benefits
              and the other benefits of some biotech crops . .
              . that are in keeping with the concept of

              organic," he said.

              Beyond clarifying the meaning of organic for
              consumers, a federal definition could have
              significant economic implications domestically
              and internationally. The $4 billion U.S. organic
              industry is growing by more than 20 percent a
              year, spurring many of the nation's bigger food
              conglomerates to try to cash in on the word's
              cachet. But the lack of federal standards for
              the term organic -- which generally means
              "free of synthetic chemicals and pesticides"
              but also encompasses broader concepts of
              environmentally sound food production -- has
              threatened to undermine consumer confidence
              and sales.

              Sligh and others representing the organic food
              industry said they were especially troubled by
              a provision in the proposed rule that gives the
              agriculture secretary authority to add products
              to a national list of approved organic foods.
              Organic industry advocates argue that
              Congress granted those powers only to the
              National Organic Standards Board.

              If Glickman insists on retaining that authority
              in a final rule, advocates said, a lawsuit is
              likely to follow.

                  © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post
                                Company