|
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
|
331 |
The NOSB was to accommodate the interests of growers
by codifying improper and prohibited practices to level the playing field; it was not to
lower growing standards.36 In fact, in certain areas, the
NOSB was mandated to add standards, particularly for "organic" livestock
production, where Congress lacked knowledge and expertise.37
The most unique characteristic of the OFPA is that it is rooted in
logic, rationality and internal consistency. It may represent the most commendable attempt
yet to make statutory law match or at least imitate natural law.
- Congress Intended that Promulgation of Rules Under OFPA be Prompt
Congress mandated the promulgation of rules under
the FPA, leaving no doubt or leeway in the timing or the comprehensiveness of the
regulations.38 Indeed, as Congress must have recognized, any
delay or compromise in standards would certainly injure competent veteran organic
producers and consumers. Nevertheless, government agencies have no promulgated a
respectable rule even five years after the law’s passage. Indeed, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture has left a dismal record of OFPA rule promulgation. This track record of
failure is outlined in the following text.
First, the Bush administration was openly hostile to the concept of
organic agriculture and delayed appointment of the NOSB until January 1992. The final
roster for the board was woefully lacking in organic experience and expertise. Only two
tenured organic farm operators39 were actually appointed.40 Conventional agriculture educators were appointed (Dr. Gary
Osweiler and Dr. Don Kinsman), but they lacked exposure to organic practices and paradigm.
They have spent most of their time trying to understand what the board wanted
"organic" to mean and be.41 Most remaining board
members were
36. The statute’s
drafters specifically declined to include "promotion of growth of organic
agriculture" as one of its purposes. See 7 U.S.C. § 6501 (Supp. V 1993)
(stating purposes of the act).
37. See e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 6509(g) (Supp. V
1993) (stating that "[t]he Secretary shall hold public hearings and shall develop
detailed regulations, with notice and public comment, to guide the implementation of the
standards for livestock products provided under this section"). Indeed, livestock
hearings at four sites across the country were mandated in the law and carried out in 1994
from January through March. The overwhelming testimony to the NOPP was that producers are
breeding or can breed and grow healthy livestock and excellent livestock products with
solely organically grown feeds, clean water, salt and healthy living conditions, and
without medications, synthetic supplements or feed additives.
38. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 6505(a)(1)(A), (B)
(Supp. V 1993) (requiring compliance by October 1, 1993); 7 U.S.C. § 6521(a) ("Not
later than 540 days after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall issue
proposed regulations to carry out this chapter.")
39. The appointed organic farm operators were Merrill
Clark and Dr. Robert Quinn.
40. See 7 U.S.C. § 6518(b)(1)-(7) Supp. V
1993) (regarding the member composition of the NOSB).
41. S. REP. NO. 357, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.
289, 292 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656, 4943, 4946 (stating that
organic food is "produced using sustainable production methods that rely primarily on
natural materials, " but also noting that "[o]rganically produced food defies
simple definition"); H.R. CONF. REP.NO 916, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 1175
(1990) (adopting the Senate bill’s definition of "organically produced"
food). See Kendall & Brusko, supra note 20, at 8.
|