The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced an April 26-29, 2011, public meeting of its National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which will review recommendations pertaining to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Under the Organic Foods Production Act, the list governs the synthetic substances that may be used, and the nonsynthetic substances that cannot be used, in organic production and handling operations. NOSB will consider exemptions and prohibitions for a variety of substances scheduled for sunset review, including ethanol, tetracycline, nickel, sodium nitrate, and newspaper and other recycled papers. It will also discuss animal handling, transit and slaughter recommendations, as well as other NOSB policy and procedure changes. The agency will accept pre-registration for public comments before April 10, 2011. See Federal Register, March 4, 2011.
Tag Archives organic
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) has issued draft guidance “to address the labeling, composition of and use of percentage statements in ‘made with organic (specified ingredients or food groups).’” Under NOP regulations, conventional non-organic ingredients produced without the use of genetically modified organisms, sewage sludge or ionizing radiations, as well as natural and synthetic substances exempted from the NOP’s prohibited ingredients list, may comprise up to 30 percent of a product labeled “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” Such labeling may also display the percentage of organic ingredients in the product, but must be accompanied by the appropriate “made with organic” statement. According to NOP, acceptable variations of percentage claim statements include: (i) ‘‘X% Organic,’’ (ii) ‘‘X% Organic Ingredients,’’ (iii) ‘‘Contains X% Organic Ingredients,’’ and (iv) ‘‘Made with X% Organic Ingredients.” Other percentage claims “may be acceptable as long as they are not misleading,”…
Beyond Pesticides, a Washington, D.C.-based organization opposed to the use of pesticides, has issued a call for comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) supporting recommendations by the National Organic Standards Board that would prohibit the use of engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products. According to the organization’s blog, the board passed the recommendations during its October 25-26, 2010, meeting. Among other matters, the recommendations include a working definition for engineered nanomaterials and propose that engineered nanomaterials be prohibited in both organic production processing and packaging. The board also called for NOP to schedule a symposium on the topic to consider whether the definition is adequate and enforceable and the best regulatory approach to address the matter. Beyond Pesticides is concerned about the unknown “long-term impacts of nanomaterials on human health and the environment.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service has announced the availability of five draft guidance documents for National Organic Program (NOP) certifying agents and certified operations. The documents cover the following topics: (i) Compost and Vermicompost in Organic Crop Production (NOP 5021); (ii) Wild Crop Harvesting (NOP 5022); (iii) Outdoor Access for Organic Poultry (NOP 5024); (iv) Commingling and Contamination Prevention in Organic Production and Handling (NOP 5025); and (v) The Use of Chlorine Materials in Organic Production and Handling (NOP 5026). Once finalized, the guidance will become available through “The Program Handbook: Guidance and Instructions for Accredited Certifying Agents (ACAs) and Certified Agents,” which provides “those who own, manage, or certify organic operations with guidance and instructions that can assist them with complying with the [NOP] regulations.” To this end, NOP will accept written comments on the drafts until December 13, 2010. See The Federal Register, October 13,…
The American Organic Hop Grower Association (AOHGA) has reportedly persuaded a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) subcommittee to reverse a recommendation that aimed to keep hops on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which governs the use of synthetic and non-synthetic materials in organic production and handling. In advance of an October 25-28, 2010, public meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, NOSB had requested feedback on a number of National List exemptions, including one that currently permits the use of non-organic hops in organic beer. Although the NOSB Handling Committee initially backed a continuation of this policy due to the limited availability of organic hops, AOHGA faulted NOSB for holding hops “to a higher standing than virtually any other agricultural product” by allegedly insisting that all 150 varietals become available in organic form before removal from the list. AOHGA thus urged organic beer brewers and other supporters to petition the…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has announced an October 25-28, 2010, public meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, to review proposed recommendations for the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which governs the use of synthetic and non-synthetic materials in organic production and handling. NOSB will accept written comments and requests for oral presentations until October 12, 2010. The agenda covers petitioned material and sunset review recommendations for a number of substances, as well as proposed guidance on nanotechnology, “Made With” organic claims and changes to the NOSB policy and procedure manual. In particular, the meeting will address the NOSB Materials Committee’s recommendations for prohibiting engineered nanomaterials in organic production, processing and packaging. According to the committee, concerns about nanotechnology include “the ability of the regulatory agency, the National Organic Program (NOP), to fully control two of the major sources of contamination in final organic food…
Concerned about certified-organic agricultural interests in his state and consumer confidence in the “organics” label, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to “ensure that foreign imports, especially from China, meet the same high standards as domestically produced organic products.” In his September 20, 2010, letter, Schumer refers to media accounts questioning the validity of organic claims for Chinese agricultural exports and a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) audit that revealed “potential problems with oversight of Chinese-produced organic products.” Schumer urges the agency “to review its system of oversight for foreign certifiers, especially those operating in China,” to ensure that current practices comply with U.S. standards. Schumer states, “[G]iven China’s extremely poor track record on ensuring the safety and quality of its products, it is imperative that USDA thoroughly scrutinize its program to certify Chinese organic products to determine if it is managed and funded appropriately.”…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of one defendant and several claims in multidistrict litigation (MDL) alleging that a dairy certified as organic and the retailers selling its milk violated state deceptive trade practices laws because the dairy did not comply with national organic program standards. In re: Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Mktg. Sales Practices Litig., No. 09-2762 (8th Cir., decided September 15, 2010). While finding express and conflict preemption as to those matters dismissed, the court also determined that some claims could survive, depending, on remand, how the district court rules on defendants’ motions to strike the consolidated class complaint and the plaintiffs’ motion to amend that complaint. Dismissed outright from the 19 consolidated putative class actions was the company that certified Aurora Dairy as an organic supplier. According to the court, “to the extent state law permits outside parties, including consumers, to interfere…
The American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section’s Animal Law Committee will convene a teleconference on September 28, 2010, to discuss farmed animal welfare and related labeling issues. Temple Grandin, a Colorado State University professor well-known for her work in animal science, will be among the panel of experts to discuss (i) “commercial speech and the role of liability for false advertising under federal and state law in the labeling of food products”; (ii) “the movement to promote more detailed labeling regarding animal welfare and to create verifiable compliance”; (iii) “what, if any, legal meanings are ascribed to terms such as ‘humane,’ ‘cage-free,’ ‘free-range,’ ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ and how are they used in practice vis a vis animal welfare”; and (iv) “the rapidly shifting world of scientific awareness and consumer perceptions regarding what constitutes satisfactory animal welfare, and its impact on producers’ ability to provide accurate labeling.”
The U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA) has announced that as of September 1, 2010, the agency handed over several responsibilities to the departments of Health (DH) and Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Under the restructuring—which does not currently apply to operations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—FSA in England will continue to handle the following safety aspects of food labeling: (i) “expert scientific advice on the food safety aspects of date marking”; (ii) “assessment and labeling of ingredients/foods with food safety implications (e.g. allergens, glycols, high caffeine, high glycyrrhizinic acid)”; (iii) “food safety aspects of organic food and of foods controlled by compositional standards”; (iv) “treatments and conditions of use with food safety implications (e.g. quick frozen foods, raw drinking milk and pasteurisation, food contact materials)”; (v) “GM and novel foods (including use of nanotechnology)”; (vi) “animal feed, including Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding”; (vii) “food safety…
