The National Organic Standards implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) took effect on October 21, 2002. Products bearing the USDA Organic Label meet the requirements of the Final National Organic Program (NOP) Rule, the national standards for the production, handling, processing, and labeling of organically grown food in the United States.
Listen to Beyond Pesticides discuss the history of the National Organic Standards, farming and product labeling on an Organically Speaking podcast interview - download (right click, save as) or stream.
In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) (full text available here) to determine uniform standards for organic agriculture and processing. The purpose of this was to establish national standards for organic products in order to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed organic food. The OFPA established the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the purpose of which is to assist in the ongoing development of organic standards. Prior to the USDA organic rules, state and local organizations regulated organic production with some local variations in standards.
The USDA released a weak version of proposed organic rule October 1998. but it was met with much criticism and sparked an unprecedented 325,603 public comments. USDA proposed allowing bioengineered crops, sewage sludge, and irridation in organic production, which became known as the “big three.” Many changes, including removal of the "big three" were made to the final rule.
While it is generally agreed that the final rule is a vast improvement over the proposed rule of 1998, many organic farmers and environmentalists have concerns with the regulations. In October 2002, just days after the rules governing organic under NOP were implemented, Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey filed suit against USDA claiming that USDA regulations governing foods labeled “organic” contravened several principles of the OFPA (read "In the Words of Arthur Harvey" from Pesticides and You).
Of primary concern were the allowance of certain non-organic agricultural substances under the organic label, the allowance of certain synthetic ingredients under the organic label, and the treatment (feed) of dairy cows transitioning to organic. Having initially lost on all counts, Harvey prevailed in January 2005 when the Court of Appeals ruled in his favor that the USDA organic regulations were in conflict with the OFPA. Groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed a petition asking USDA to bring the regulations into compliance with the law (read more from daily news).
However, following the Harvey victory in the Court of Appeals, Congress engaged in backroom talks with the Organic Trade Association and amended the OFPA to allow synthetic substances in “organic” labeled products, and to adjust the feed regulations for dairy cows. We reported on this amendment in the winter 2005-2006 issue of Pesticides and You. Because of the amendments to OFPA, the court found in 2006 that the Secretary of Agriculture was not required to comply with the earlier consent decree, thus reversing its earlier ruling in favor of Mr. Harvey. Many organic farmers’ and consumers’ groups decried the amendments to the OFPA because of the lack of democratic participation.
Beyond Pesticides, along with many other sister organizations issued an Open Letter To The Organic Community to set the record straight on the amendments to the OFPA and bridge differences as we move ahead together to strengthen the partnership between consumers, farmers and food processors that will grow the organic marketplace.
Return to top
Farming varies from place to place and farmer to farmer. Organic farming is no different than conventional farming in this regard, but there are certain underlying principles of organic agriculture that are the basis for the regulations implemented by the USDA. Rather than a doctrine on the values and interpretations of organic farming, the rules have distilled organic principles into what is allowed, not allowed, and required for certification. Often, people focus on what is not allowed in organic agriculture to highlight its divergence from conventional agriculture. The use of antibiotics, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms, and irradiation is prohibited in organic production, and the list of allowed pesticides is highly restricted to include only the least toxic controls, primarily derived from natural ingredients.
All producers and handlers of organic products are required to be certified by a USDA accredited certifying agent in order to claim to be USDA certified organic. There are currently 55 domestic agencies and 40 international agencies accredited by the USDA. Certifying agents make annual visits to farms and processing plants, and are permitted to make unannounced visits to make sure a facility is in compliance with the standards.
Farms are required to submit to the certifier a comprehensive plan that includes things such as the land history of all fields, a fertility and nutrient management plan, a pest, weed, and disease management plan, and the origin, feed and health care of livestock. A grower must report all products used on the farm, rate and date of application. If a grower fails to report a product used, even if it is an approved product, s/he will be out of compliance with the organic standards and will receive appropriate reprimands and/or revocation of certification.
For a complete explanation of these standards, including products allowed, you can visit the text of the National Organic Standards.
There is also an independent organization, called the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), that reviews products submitted by applicants to determine if they follow the National Organic Standards. This list of OMRI-approved products is widely used as the most comprehensive list of product names that are approved for organic production. OMRI is not affiliated with USDA and not all products approved for organic production are listed with OMRI.
Organic production is subject to many more regulations aimed to protect ecological and human health than conventional agriculture. One area of particular importance and in stark contrast to conventional agriculture is the regulation of pesticides. In conventional agriculture, synthetic pesticides with known health effects may still be registered for use, and the “inert” ingredients in the formulations are not taken into consideration in the registration process, even though many inert ingredients are toxic by themselves. Under the organic regulations, only naturally derived pesticides and a small number of synthetic ingredients of low toxicity such as boric acid may be used. Inert ingredients in these products must be approved for organic production.
Sometimes an active ingredient may be utilized in both conventional and organic agriculture, but only certain formulations are approved for organic use because of the inert ingredients. An example of this is the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is widely used to combat various insects in the larval stage. Bt itself degrades rapidly and has very low toxicity to humans and wildlife. However, Bt’s effectiveness is threatened by the introduction of genetically engineered crops in conventional agriculture that contain Bt such as corn, cotton, and potatoes. In these crops, Bt is always present, which means there is great potential for insects to develop resistance to Bt. For more on this issue, please visit our genetic engineering page.
Using even pesticides approved for organic production is generally a last resort for organic farmers. Crop rotation, good soil and plant health, and biological controls such as beneficial insects are the favored methods for controlling pests and diseases. Without the use of herbicides, organic farmers rely on good crop rotation, cover cropping, mechanical cultivation and mulching to limit weeds. No-till organic agriculture is a new approach that combines some of these practices at once.
What is not Regulated Under the Organic Standards
The organic standards have intentionally focused on production methods only, and worker treatment is not a part of the regulations. The elimination of toxic pesticide exposure for workers is an enormous step in the right direction for just working conditions. However, it is important to keep in mind that the organic label does not indicate anything about the treatment of farm workers beyond this toxic exposure issue. For more on this, visit our buying organic page.
Return to top
In order to ensure a standard for the use of the term “organic” and the use of the USDA Organic seal, the USDA has issued labeling protocols (click here for USDA fact sheet) for fresh, and processed products containing organic ingredients. Only the top two listings may use the USDA Organic seal on the product. Here is a summary:
“Certified Organic” applies only to products grown organically. It does not apply to products that may be used in organic production. In other words, a carrot, a bag of potato chips, or cotton may be certified organic, but the potting soil or biological pesticide used in growing these products is not certified organic. The closest thing to the USDA organic seal for products used in organic agricultural production is the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) listing, but this is an independent agency not run by the USDA National Organic Program. Companies pay to have their products evaluated by OMRI, and OMRI tests them to see if they comply with the National Organic Standards.
Return to top
The Winter 2005-2006 issue of Pesticides and You expressly illustrates why a strong organic standard with integrity is so important. It must be held up as the solution to the pesticide problem. For example, if the two victims of pesticide poisoning, described in this issue, were living in communities where organic is the norm, they probably would not have been poisoned. Similarly, as the debate over the safety of 2,4-D continues and the regulatory risk assessment and risk management processes continue to be politicized (both the subject of articles), it is clear that the real solution is the widespread adoption of organic practices.
This issue also contains
a special focus on pesticides and water, and the widespread failures to
protect the nation’s waterways from pesticide contamination. Agriculture
is only one source of the pesticide contamination, and along with advocating
for organic agriculture, Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for organic
lawn care. The National Coalition for Pesticide Free Lawns is a broad
coalition with members in over 20 states that is working to eliminate
toxic pesticide use in land care.
Return to top