|
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
| |
| Winter 1995 |
ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTION ACT
|
339 |
C. The Criteria Consideration is of Utmost Importance
The mandate to consider the criteria is binding. Any
material that fails to pass all seven criteria without negative characteristics is a
doubtful material to be on a list where the credibility of organic production hangs in the
balance.71 Arguments about these criteria and suggestions
that they be "ranked" for importance have been made. Again, consistency and it
corollary of logic facilitate proper interpretation.
If an alternative practice to using a synthetic or natural poison
exists, the other criteria are moot, and the material does not qualify for organic
use—no ranking is necessary.72 If the criteria requiring
compatibility73 are not met, the material again violates the
basic consistency standard of the act, and the material is disqualified.
Obviously, the remaining criteria only come into consideration if the
no-alternative and no-incompatibility criteria are met. Then, and only then, are rankings
on health and the environment even relevant considerations. Following this interpretation,
very few materials would get through this filter of risk avoidance and become a
"necessary risk." 74 Indeed, why should there be an
extensive list if thousands of farmers have learned and demonstrated that crops and
livestock can be grown and raised without these inputs? Those who think this cannot be
done should learn from those who are doing it. They certainly should not be interrupting
those who are engaged in organic production by delaying implementation of the act while a
lengthy list of inputs is put through a time-consuming and unnecessary process of material
"approval."
The burden of questionable inputs should be borne by those who would
use them, while the program is up and running. For those growers who are not dependent on
outside-the-organic-farm material, the National List petition process can be put into
operation with "other" growers characterizing and justifying their use of
certain materials on their own toll.
- Food Safety and Human Health Effects of Major Importance
The OFPA makes clear in section 6517©(1)(A)(I) for synthetics and
section
6517(c)(2)(A)(I) for naturals that no material harmful to human health shall be
permitted in organic food production and processing.75 The
drafters were so adamant on this point that the law requires the NOSB to conduct a
full-scale review of botanical pesticides.76 For a botanical
pesticide to escape prohibition, the material must: (1) be free of negative human health
effects; (2) be consistent with organic farming or handling and the purposes
71. 7 U.S.C. §
6518(m)(1)-(7) (Supp. V 1993).
72. 7 U.S.C. § 6517(c)(1)(B)(iii) (Supp.V 1993).
73. See e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 6518(m)(5), (7)
(Supp. V 1993).
74. 7 U.S.C. § 6517(c)(1)(A)(ii) (Supp.V 1993).
75. 7 U.S.C. §§ 6517(c)(1)(A)(i), 6517(c)(2)(A)(i),
(Supp.V 1993).
76. 7 U.S.C. § 6518(k)(4) (Supp. V 1993).
|
