http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh07.htm
Ag. Dep't Postpones Organic Rules
 
   By CURT ANDERSON AP Farm Writer
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amid mounting protests from pro-organic groups,
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said Friday that action on new national
organic labeling rules would be postponed for 45 days to allow for more
public comment.
 
The Agriculture Department has already received more than 4,000 comments on
the rules, hundreds of them objecting to the possibility that irradiation,
genetic engineering and sewage sludge fertilizer could be involved in
organics.
 
Glickman, however, noted that the Agriculture Department had taken no stand
on those issues and wanted to hear from the public about them. The new
deadline for comment is April 30.
 
``This is not a final rule and should not be read to reflect how USDA will
finally resolve the many difficult issues involved,'' Glickman said. ``Our
goal is to develop a final rule that the organic community and all the
public can embrace.''
 
But the mere possibility that organics rules could include a high-tech
process such as irradiation to kill bacteria is anathema to most organic
farmers, who say big agribusinesses seeking a share of the market are
trying to move the definition away from its all-natural history.
 
``We as organic farmers and our customers will not sit idly back and have
(the rules) force-fed to us by corporate agribusiness lobbyists and
bureaucrats in Washington,'' said George Siemon, chief executive of an
organic co-op in LaFarge, Wis. ``The farmers of our co-op will not lower
our standards.''
 
Several big corporations have launched organic product lines in recent
years as consumers -- increasingly concerned about pesticides and other
chemicals in food -- are now buying organic food to the tune of $3.5
billion a year and growing.
 
The rules stemmed from a 1990 law intended to provide a national definition
and label requirements for organics now governed only by a patchwork of
state and private certification programs. But many organic producers say
the national rules will be weaker.
 
``We strongly believe that the proposed rule is not compatible or
consistent with current organic practices,'' said Kathleen DiMatteo,
executive director of the Organic Trade Association based in Greenfield,
Mass. ``As we see it, USDA's proposed rule blurs the lines between
conventional and organic agriculture.''
 
Some other objections raised by organic farmers:
 
--Livestock could be fed up to 20 percent non-organic feed each year and
could be treated with antibiotics under certain circumstances. In addition,
the rule does not mandate that animals get access to the outdoors.
 
--Numerous recommendations of the 14-member National Organic Standards
Board were ignored and more stringent local organics guidelines would not
be allowed.
 
--Loopholes could permit use of synthetic pesticides and other materials in
organic farming that have never been allowed before.<p>
--Previous uses of land wouldn't be adequately taken into account when it
is certified for organic production, even if it once was heavily contaminated.
 
 
Glickman has scheduled public hearings in Texas, Iowa, Washington state
and New Jersey on the organics rules and is encouraging people to forward
comments via the Internet.
 
``We want everyone to participate fully in this process,'' he said.
 
The Internet address is: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
The hearings are: Feb. 12, Austin, Texas; Feb. 18, Ames, Iowa; Feb. 26,
Seattle; March 5, New Brunswick, N.J.