Tighter organic standards begin in 2013

What is in this article?:

  • Testing of 5 percent of nation's organic foods will begin in 2013.
  • Tests will be performed by agencies that currently certify organic farms for USDA Organic Seal.
  • Critics say testing should be expanded to include more farms during the crop growing season.

 

 

A USDA audit that found that agencies monitoring organic food producers were not conducting periodic testing for pesticide residues has led to new rules requiring such tests on 5 percent of organic foods, the Agriculture Department announced.

In a Federal Register notice, USDA said that agencies that certify organic producers must begin testing for residues on at least 5 percent of organic farms next year. The tests, estimated to cost $500 each, would be paid for by the certifying organizations, not their clients.

Under current USDA regulations, organic food producers receive an initial inspection before being certified and allowed to use the USDA Organic Seal. But no one follows up to make sure the farms do not apply synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or other materials not permitted in organic farming operations.

The new requirement will help protect the integrity of the $30-billion-a-year organic food industry, USDA officials said. Periodic testing for prohibited residues will prevent the mislabeling of organic foods in the nation's supermarkets.

While the new USDA regulations will help, they don’t go far enough to ensure that all organic farmers are playing by the rules, according to critics who have been following the ongoing debate on the Agriculture Department’s National Organic Program or NOP.

Other 95 percent?

“The USDA recently announced plans to begin testing 5 percent of the farms and processors it certifies under its decade-old National Organic Program,” said Mischa Popoff, a former organic farm inspector. “But in the interests of keeping organic food in America as pure and as nutritious as possible, we have to ask: What about the other 95 percent?

Popoff, a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and author of a recent book called “Is It Organic,” also questioned the timing of the testing that will be conducted under the new USDA format.

“Of the 5 percent of farms and processors the USDA plans to test, officials say they will require that some of them are subjected to pre-harvest testing. But surely it would be advisable to do mostly pre-harvest testing. After all, the benefits of organic production all occur in the field. So what better way to ensure that organic crops and livestock are indeed purer and more nutritious than to do all testing in the field?”

With the exception of genetically-modified organisms, almost everything that’s prohibited in organic production dissipates and in many cases becomes undetectable over time, Popoff notes. “So there’s little point wasting time or money testing organic crops post-harvest. In order to prevent cheating, all testing in the organic industry must occur prior to harvest.

“Whether it’s herbicides, pesticides, hormones, improperly-composted manure, or the big-money-maker: synthetic ammonium nitrate, only an unannounced inspection and field test will deter fraud and gross negligence in the multibillion dollar organic sector.”

USDA said the certifying agencies will decide which organic farms and processors will be tested. Allowing flexibility in inspections will help reduce costs.

Critics also are concerned about inspections of organic food that's imported into the United States every year, under USDA oversight, from countries like China, Mexico and Brazil. Imports account for nearly half of the organic food sold in the U.S. annually.

Discuss this Article 2

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 30, 2012

The more one learns about organics, the more one realizes what a huge platform exists for defrauding the public into paying more, lots more, for something that isn't there.

And certification issues aside, this is on top of the recent studies that expose how the end product never offered any benefits of either added safety or added nutrition that would justify the higher cost to the consumer.

Another example of how a certain segmet of the population will always be vulnerable to paying additional amounts for the same product they used to buy for less but has been gussied up by a marketing campaign of imaginary benefits.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Dec 3, 2012

This guy quoted is trying to sell his pre-harvest testing machine.

do the research

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
(optional)

Continuing Education Courses
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...
New Course
The 2,000-member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...

The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Newsletter Signup