Commentary by Mark Kastel
Carrageenan
First, the (interim) good news.
The National Organic Standards Board voted to delist carrageenan as an approved non-organic material for use as a food ingredient. This should have been the logical outcome because of the mounting evidence of its inflammatory properties in the human gut, the development of intestinal lymphoma, and, more recently, a potential contribution to the development of type 2 diabetes.
But in their deliberations, most of the articulated support for removing carrageenan was based on input from “organic stakeholders.” The good news is that means all of you who made the effort to sign on to our letter or submit individual comments during the open docket prior to their meeting made a material impact on the outcome. Thank you for speaking out!
Three organizations — OrganicEye, the Cornucopia Institute, and Beyond Pesticides — were responsible for the vast majority of the comments submitted by individual citizens (with approximately 1700 signing the OrganicEye letter and over 300 individual submissions, some of which came from our members as well). This was people power in action.
However, it was disappointing that most of the members had obviously not carefully read the comprehensive comments, including citations for numerous independently conducted studies, submitted by our organization and others. The lead member guiding the debate made statements like, “The science is moving in that direction,” or calling it “mixed” (despite unbalanced studies suggesting that carrageenan might be safe having been paid for by corporate agribusiness).
Most disappointing was the new consumer/public interest representative on the board, Jed Murray, who voted against delisting after advocating for that position during the debate. Mr. Murray is a lobbyist with a trade association representing members mostly selling conventional produce. OrganicEye contends that his appointment appears to be in violation of the intent of Congress.
Déjà vu all over again?
Because carrageenan is processed with harsh/synthetic chemicals, NOSB members were poised to reclassify the material as a “synthetic.” But they chose to defer that vote until after voting on delisting.
If they had chosen to vote in favor of reclassification as a synthetic first, the USDA Secretary, based on the statutory guidance by Congress, would be bound to follow the board’s vote. That is not the case with “natural” materials.
Unfortunately, the last time the NOSB voted to delist carrageenan, it only took a few comments from the lobbyists at the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and its membership to convince the Secretary of Agriculture at the time to overrule the vote and put it back on the list of approved materials. If any of the current members had followed past NOSB deliberations and decisions, they would have been aware of that.
This means that we must still be on guard. OrganicEye will put the word out when the USDA publishes the draft rule in the Federal Register proposing the removal of carrageenan. It will be important for us all to chime in once again to impress upon the USDA Secretary that it would be a mistake to undermine the years-long process between organic stakeholders and the NOSB that resulted in its recommendation for removal.
Sadly, the inexperience of some NOSB members, along with the common biases due to board member associations with the corporate lobby, means that many of the other materials up for review which received far less scrutiny than carrageenan could also be of concern.
Classic mutagenesis
For many of us, induced mutagenesis — using either harsh, toxic chemicals or radiation to shock the genome of seeds to, somewhat randomly, create novel desirable traits (economic-agronomic, flavor-related, or nutritional) — meets the definition of a “prohibited method” in organics, which bans genetically engineered/modified crops.
But, as usual, the NOSB is bending over backwards to accommodate commercial interests and has kicked the can down the road, once again, on a decision whether or not to ban classic mutagenesis outright, grandfather in certain crops (like pink grapefruit), or allow a more laissez-faire approach. OrganicEye will continue to monitor their deliberations.
Testing
Although certifiers are required to test for agrochemical residues annually on the crops or finished products of 5% of their clients, the NOSB passed a recommended rule that would further define the approach.
However, we continue to feel that the greatest flaw is leaving the decision as to which clients and crops to test up to the discretion of the certifiers (private business enterprises) who have an economic incentive not to find problems. Certifiers risk either jeopardizing the relationship with their customers or, potentially, adding greatly to their labor costs if they’re forced to adjudicate a problem.
The National Organic Program (NOP) continues to treat certifiers as if they are all working in the public interest. Some certainly do, but many are behind some of the largest problems and scandals in the industry and need to be closely supervised, just as Congress intended when they passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).
We believe that testing should be performed, or targets determined, by the USDA.
Furthermore, OrganicEye has suggested that, for certain quantities of imports and certain high-risk commodities, 100% of imports or domestic sales be tested. Compared to the millions of dollars involved, the cost of testing would be inconsequential.
Targeted inspections
The NOSB and NOP are coming around to OrganicEye’s continuing suggestion that smaller family-scale farms with a history of excellent compliance be subject to a full on-site inspection less frequently than once a year.
Their hand has been forced, in part, by the fact that the “unintended consequences” of tightening regulations pertaining to supply chain audits, in an attempt to crack down on import fraud, have snared smaller farmers and caused them to go through great amounts of extra work to maintain their certification. Sadly, though understandably, many of those farmers are now giving up certification if they are local, direct marketers.
The NOP/NOSB have not, however, signed on to our suggestion that the freed-up funds be earmarked for a stepped-up random inspection program utilizing forensic accountants and veteran inspectors with broad agronomic and processing backgrounds. The current qualifications of inspectors vary greatly and include some who are much less experienced than the questionable operators they are going toe-to-toe with.
Reality check
As I pointed out in my oral testimony, between livestock factories, hydroponics, and literal boatloads of fraudulent organic imports, we are gravitating to a system of “organic food without the need for organic farmers.”
The USDA has hitched their wagon to the corporate agribusiness lobby, and we need to continue to work together to return the organic movement to a farm-based, ecologically sound production model — and the last, best haven for families seeking truly safe food.
I also criticized the Trump/Rollins USDA for taking eight months to seat replacement board members, causing the NOSB to work shorthanded. This also meant the five new board members had to vote on material reviews and other policy issues without having participated in the subcommittee deliberations or the previous meeting last spring.
We allege that this is a violation of OFPA, the federal law mandating that the USDA Secretary create and maintain a 15-member committee with seats set aside for specific organic industry constituency groups — a number of which have not had full representation this year.
History seems to be on track to repeat itself in 2027. New NOSB members are generally announced in January, but the current application window does not close until December 31 of this year (many months later than the norm), likely guaranteeing a shorthanded board once again, given the traditionally lengthy vetting period. This also cuts into the time available for new member orientation, as well as reducing the amount of time provided for them to thoroughly review the many documents pertaining to the ongoing issues they will be charged with addressing.
We find this to be highly disrespectful of the public-private partnership that has been the hallmark of the organic regulatory system since it was designed by Congress in 1990.
Get important action items and the latest organic farming and food news delivered right to your inbox.