Also in organic crop production, the NOSB recognized that the
proven effectiveness of chlorine materials in support of food safety
outweighs the risks and recommended the following annotation
changes: “Chlorine Materials (Crops): For pre-harvest use, residual
chlorine levels in the water in direct contact or as water from cleaning
irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For disinfecting or sanitizing equipment or tools or in edible sprout production,
chlorine products may be used up to the maximum labeled rates.”
Since the meeting in Seattle, the NOP has issued guidance on the use
of chlorine materials in the NOP Program Handbook for both handling and crop production.
In a close shave, the Board nearly voted away streptomycin, the
only National List material that apple and pear orchardists have for effectively combating fire blight. The consensus gained was to give scientists two years to come up with a new material; the expiration date is
now 2014. Lastly in crops, and in the realm of pest control, a two-thirds majority of Board members were not persuaded to relist smoke
bombs for rodent control to the National List, even though no viable
replacement was advanced by any member of the Board or public.
Processing Materials
Regarding materials used in organic food processing, several items
that were up for sunset review were voted to be relisted, including
enzymes, potassium iodide and tocopherols.
After much debate and discussion, nutrient vitamins and minerals
were also relisted with the current annotation “used in accordance
with 21 CFR 104.20, Nutritional Quality Guidelines for Foods.” The
debate centered on the ambiguity of the annotation, which doesn’t
clearly define a specific scope of permitted vitamins, minerals and nu-
trients. Because of this, certain nutrients such as DHA have been con-
troversial. To help clarify things, the NOP asked the NOSB to offer a
new recommendation to define substances that should be prohibited
or additional substances that should be allowed. The Handling Com-
mittee recommendation suggested the following annotation change:
“Materials required or allowed by law for the purpose of enrichment,
supplementation or fortification of foods, including infant formula,
and materials the use of which is supported by the FDA or the Insti-
tute of Medicine of the National Academies.”
The NOSB received over 2,000 written comments on this recom-
mendation, many from consumers concerned about synthetic materi-
als in organic food. The Handling Committee preferred that the
Board delay voting on this recommendation until it had time to
process the public comments. However, to ensure that the current list-
ing did not miss the sunset docket at USDA, the NOSB went ahead
and voted to retain nutrient vitamins and minerals as currently listed.
The Handling Committee stated that any proposed annotation
change for this material would be delayed until the Fall Meeting.
Livestock
The NOSB recognizes that animal welfare is fundamental to or-
ganic livestock farming and is spelled out in the OFPA. The regula-
tion, however, is just now taking shape
on many important animal welfare is-
sues for organic livestock. In Seattle,
the Board debated animal handling,
transit and slaughter and animal
stocking rates. Excellent public com-
ment informed the Board’s delibera-
tions. Comments on this ranged from
support for unifying acceptable prac-
tices, to rejection of a regulation that
would apply a single set of metrics to
the diverse farming systems within or-
ganic agriculture. Some commenters
also raised concerns that the pro-
posed standards would unduly bur-
den small operations by increasing
costs and paperwork, and therefore
discourage such operations from pur-
suing and maintaining organic certifi-
cation. After requests from the Board
and the public to take this recom-
mendation back to committee, the
Livestock Committee withdrew its rec-
ommendations and will continue to
work on this subject. This issue prom-
ises to be a key debate at the 2011 Fall
NOSB Meeting in Savannah, Georgia.
View From the Chair
One observation from the vantage
point of NOSB Chair is that our debates, whether among NOSB members or simply among members of the
organic community, are most productive when they are conducted in a
spirit of civility and collaboration.
NOSB meetings provide an excellent
forum for airing out differences.
Vigorous debate on the direction
of organic regulations has great value.
After all, organic is a relatively young
rule book still taking shape in many
ways. And it is reasonable that people
will have strong opinions and that
emotions can run high. However,
when we take our nuanced discussions out to consumers without providing them a complete context, the
results can be exactly the opposite of
our intent: We turn people off and
away from organic. I don’t believe any
of us in the organic food community
