ND Department of Agriculture
Testimony

June 5, 2000

Keith Jones, Program Manager
National Organic Program
USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP
Room 2945 So.
Ag Stop 0275
P.O. Box 96456
Washington, D.C. 20090-6456

Re: Docket No. TMD-00-02-PR

Dear Mr. Jones:

I would like to thank the National Organic Program for the substantial and marked improvement of the new proposed organic rules over those initially proposed in December, 1997. This time you have focused on the congressional intent of the Organic Foods Production Act, improved the national position with respect to product differentiation (eco-labels) and initiated control of genetic manipulation.

There are, however, areas of concern which I believe deserve further attention or refinement and for that reason, the North Dakota Department of Agriculture respectfully submits the following comments regarding the proposed rule to establish a National Organic Program (NOP) published in the Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 49, 7CFR Part 205.

The following comments will highlight these points:

    1.  The proposed rule does not allow private certifiers to exceed the national standard and be
         recognized in the marketplace.
    2.  The possible spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by pollen drift should be addressed.
    3.  Certain prohibitions/requirements concerning composting are excessive.
    4.  The definition of sewage sludge now proposed is incomplete.
    5.  The time/transition periods applicable to organic dairy operations are cost prohibitive.
    6.  The rule requirement for outdoor pasture for one species only should be amended to include
         all livestock.
    7.  The rule regarding the use of Chilean nitrate should include the NOSB recommendations.
    8.  The possible use of some GMOs in organic food should not be allowed.

These comments, as offered, represent a cooperative effort between the North Dakota Department of Agriculture and the North Dakota organic industry.

1. The proposed rule unduly restricts private certifiers from adopting and applying standards in excess of the national rule.

The proposed rule, Sec. 205.501(b)(2), allows the adoption of more restrictive rules only with the approval of the Secretary. All certifiers should be allowed to exceed the national standards as their market(s) demand. The State of North Dakota does not have a certification program and relies on private certifiers for this function. We are proud of the expertise and organic product(s) they consistently exhibit in response to domestic and foreign requests.

On previous occasions we have reminded the USDA of the congressional intent with respect to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). Once again we remind you of the statement made by USDA-AMS Administrator Daniel Haley to the Senate Committee considering the OFPA.

"The bill establishes minimum standards for agricultural products to be labeled ‘organically produced’ and prescribes the contents of an organic farm plan." (Statement of Daniel D. Hailey, Administrator, USDA-AMS, before the US Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Thursday, March 22, 1990.)

Any standards adopted must recognize and facilitate technological changes and advances realized by the organic industry and should encourage low-input sustainable production methods used in that industry.

The restrictive standards, as proposed, would cripple the private certification program in North Dakota and has the potential to destroy their markets and businesses which they have labored many years to build.

North Dakota is not afraid to compete with anybody on any level in the organic production of farm commodities. To be allowed to accomplish this, the national standard must be a basic standard from which local private certifiers can progress and improve.

2. The possible spread of GMOs by pollen drift should be addressed.

The proposed rule does incorporate the concept of not allowing the use of GMOs in the production of organic food. However, the definition contained in Sec. 205.2 fails to address some genetic concerns such as genetic trespass caused by drifting pollen. This omission should be corrected.

The most important fertilizer for an organic farmer is composted manure. The proposed rule requires the use of a "facility" which meets the requirements of the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s standard for a composting facility (Code 317). The NRCS practice standard was written for large scale operations and was designed to determine if those operations qualified for NRCS payments. The North Dakota organic farming community does not contain any large scale operations and the imposition of this rule, as written, would be excessively expensive, harsh and totally unreasonable. The text in Sec. 205.203(c)(3) should be amended to read as follows:

(3) A composted product produced in a facility in compliance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service'’ practice standard for composting facility (Code 31); composted plant and/or animal wastes; and

In addition, vermicomposting should not be prohibited. Worm compost or castings commonly contain only 1% Nitrogen and it could more properly be called a soil additive than a fertilizer. It is also a good source of humus. Soil itself generally contains more nitrogen naturally than worm castings.

4. The definition of sewage sludge now proposed is incomplete.

Sewage sludge and its byproducts have no place in the organic farming community. The definition at Sec. 205.2 should be amended to read:

"Sewage sludge does not includes ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works."

5. The time/transition periods applicable to organic dairy operations are cost prohibitive.

Currently there are no organic dairy operations in North Dakota. It is doubtful there will ever be an organic dairy operation in the state if the rule, as proposed, is adopted. All of our dairy operations are considered small by most, if not all, standards.

We do not allow corporate farming in the state and as a result, the large organic dairies subsidized by their corporate parent are also not present. North Dakota has lost many dairy operations in recent years. As of January 1, 2000 , we had 728 dairy operations compared to

1,245 on January 1, 1995. In other areas, going "organic" has kept the small dairy operation in business as opposed to going out of business altogether.

In the future, advances in the areas of transportation and/or technology and changes in population distribution may make it feasible and even advantageous to operate an organic dairy in this state. However, the failure to include a "New Herd Clause" for transitioning dairy operations would deny access to the organic industry for our small dairy operations. An entry herd clause that permits 80% organic feed for 9 months and 100% for 3 months has support from the organic producer community, the Organic Trade Association, the NOSB Livestock Committee, the Committee for Sustainable Agriculture and many others. The proposed rule should also support this position.

6. The rule requirement for outdoor pasture for one species only should be amended to include all livestock.

The provision should be amended to require access to outdoor pasture for all livestock.

Section 205.203(d)(2) of the proposed rule allows the use of a mined substance of high solubility when justified by soil or crop tissue analysis. This would allow the use of Chilean nitrate, potassium chloride and other high solubility natural products. Several credible and respectable certification agencies, the EU regulations and the IFOAM standards all prohibit the use of these natural products. The NOSB recommendations would allow their use but only if the annotations recommended by them were followed. Considering that the EU community is one of the biggest customers of North Dakota organic products, it would appear that the NOSB recommendations should be followed in order for North Dakota to maintain its position as a preferred provider.

We believe the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations should be closely followed and the use of all derivatives and products of GMOs in organic food should be prohibited.

The increase in organic farming in the agricultural community has been readily observed and noted for several successive years. The demand for organic food has continued to rise and new outlets for organic products are appearing daily. Ultimately, consumer and customer preference for organic products will rely on their confidence in the organic standards created through the National Organic Program. Those standards should be basic, minimum standards that foster the continued growth of organic farming.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Roger Johnson
Commissioner of Agriculture

Back to the Comments, Speeches and Testimony