|
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
|
333 |
stall progress even today. The total exclusion of both the food safety
debate and input from the chemically sensitive community (those who suffer from multiple
chemical sensitivity and require clean organic food)44 has
been a severe drawback as well.
Regarding implementation of the rules, phase-in recommendations kept
floating to the surface, as did the possible "need" to grandfather in previously
used questionable materials.45 Companies that were looking to
new organic rules as their "jumping in" opportunity doggedly attended every
board meeting, hoping the standards and allowed materials would give them the chance to
use synthetic substances in processed foods and still label them "organic." In
fact, "historical uses" in organic processed foods of some of the synthetics
desired by many processors were non-existent. Yet, these companies hoped the synthetics
they used would be categorically allowed if the lead processor/scientist on the board, Dr.
Richard Theuer of Beechnut Foods,46 could "prove"
their necessity.
Even though public input was solicited on a regular basis and all
meetings were open and announced well in advance, typical organic food consumers rarely
read about the board, its meetings or its interest in their input. The "public"
that most of the board wanted to hear from were the "organic" insiders,"
the friends of the certifiers, the pals of
ii is used in
production and contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern;
or
iii is used in handling and is
non-synthetic but is not organically produced.
7 U.S.C. §§ 6517(c)(1)(A), (B) (Supp. V 1993). Natural substances
that are otherwise allowable under the chapter may be prohibited if:
- the Secretary determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, that the use of
such substances—
(i) would be harmful to human health or the environment; and
- is inconsistent with organic farming or handling, and the purposes of this chapter.
7 U.S.C. § 6517(c)(2)(A) (Supp. V 1993).
44. The chemically sensitive community includes
persons who suffer from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) or Repeated Exposure Toxicity
Syndrome (RET Syndrome). See generally NICHOLAS A. ASHFORD & CLAUDIA S. MILLER,
CHEMICAL EXPOSURES: LOW LEVELS AND HIGH STAKES (1991) (discussing the diseases that result
from chemical exposure); Deborah F. Dubin, Americans with Disabilities Act
Accommodation Issues May Apply to Environmental Illness, 11 HEALTHSPAN 22 (1994).
45. S. REP. NO. 357, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.
289, 293 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656, 4947 (confining specifically
any phase-in or grandfathers to the period before October 1993). This statute contains
adequate notice to interested parties that doubtful synthetics would not survive the
"National List" process. Id.
46. Beechnut was out of the organic processed foods
business before Dr. Theuer was appointed to the board.
|