National Organic Standards: Lessons from the US Experience
	Suzanne Vaupel

The US experience in developing national organic standards began almost 12 years ago and will continue into the next millennium. It is still not clear how the standards will turn out. This prolonged process has come at a tremendous cost to the organic community in time and resources. It also has delayed other important initiatives, such as promoting organic foods to consumers, assisting farmers in making the transition to organic, and lobbying for favourable government policies and increased research in organic farming methods. An analysis of this long and unfinished process can offer some valuable lessons for the organic community in other countries regarding the problems encountered in developing national standards.

Summary of the Process

            To understand the lessons from the US experience, it is necessary to review the process over the last decade and the reasons it has been so protracted. In the 1980s, organic standards in the US consisted of private standards established by several certification organisations and a few state statutes that regulated organic agriculture to differing degrees. There were no requirements for organic products to be certified.

            In the late 1980s, as the popularity of organic food was increasing, some members of the organic community sought the national government’s involvement in the organic food industry, primarily to achieve minimum national standards that consumers could rely on. The initial attempt was limited to writing a definition of ’organic’ into national law, but the process grew into the development and passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). Once the process was underway, many became involved to ensure the integrity of the organic label.

            At the time, legislation to establish national standards appealed to many in the organic community for several reasons. It would guarantee consumers that all food labelled as organic met a minimum standard, and it would facilitate interstate trade by removing the spectre of 50 different state standards. Nevertheless, other members of the organic community, particularly small farmers, opposed government intervention and red tape.

            During the Congressional debate on organic legislation from 1988 to 1990, the organic community established a consensus on standards for crop production and a broad outline for processing and livestock standards, which were relatively new at the time. A broad lobbying effort pushed for national legislation. The organic community was represented by three main groups: the Organic Farmers Association Council (OFAC), representing farmers; the Organic Food Alliance (OFA), representing processors and the trade; and the Organic Foods Production Association of North American (OFPANA), at the time a small organisation that was the predecessor of the Organic Trade Association. (OFA later merged with OFPANA, and OFAC no longer exists.) The lobbying effort was supported by a coalition of 27 environmental and consumer organisations called the Organic Working Group.

            Most of the consensus standards developed by the organic community were reflected in the final language of OFPA. However, the organic community could not influence all aspects of the bill, and controversy remained over several issues, notably the relationship between private certifiers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

            OFPA required the appointment of a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to be composed of organic farmers, handlers, retailers, certifiers, scientific experts in environmental protection and related fields, and representatives of public interest or consumer groups. However, USDA did not appoint the NOSB until January 1992, and not all the appointed members had experience in the organic industry before being appointed. Beginning in 1992, the NOSB held open meetings to deliberate national standards. The public was allowed to make formal statements and to participate in the deliberations. Numerous people from the organic community took part in the NOSB meetings, and the Organic Trade Association took a lead role in presenting the views of its members.

            The NOSB submitted its initial recommendations for organic standards to USDA in August 1994, and submitted supplemental recommendations thereafter. The NOSB recommendations remained in the “black box” of government until USDA released its proposed regulations for organic standards in December 1997. The proposed standards surprised the organic community because they no longer resembled the standards that were recommended by the NOSB or the principles of organic production that are accepted throughout the world.

            USDA’s proposed organic regulations contained numerous loopholes that would have allowed many prohibited substances to be used in organic agriculture. The most well known loopholes, known as the “Big Three,” would have opened the possibility of allowing genetic engineering, irradiation, and sewage sludge in organic production.

            The public overwhelmingly opposed the proposed standards. During the public comment period, which is required by US law, more than 280,000 comments were submitted to USDA in opposition to the proposed standards. Universal opposition caused USDA to withdraw the proposed regulations in May 1998. The Department promised to propose new standards by the end of the year that would be acceptable to the organic community and the public. By the fall of 1999, however, USDA had not yet proposed new standards, and it was predicting that proposed standards would not be released until spring of 2000.

            Now, almost 10 years after OFPA was passed, there still are no national organic standards in the US. The organic community as well as the public and the press are questioning what went wrong and what could have been done differently. Looking back over the developments of the past decade, we can begin to understand the problems that have been encountered and how the process could have been different. While some of the issues may be specific to the US, others are universal, and analysis of them can help the organic community in other countries as they develop national standards.

Analysis of the Process

            To analyse the problems in the national standards-setting process, we must focus on the “black box” of government and how it resulted in such consequential changes to the consensus recommendations submitted by the NOSB. During the three years in which the NOSB recommendations remained in this “black box”, neither the public nor the organic community nor the NOSB was informed of the changes that were being considered and adopted. This closed process is contrary to the transparency required by the international community for standards-setting processes.

            Procedurally, we know that the proposed regulations were drafted by the staff of the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) and then were submitted to at least four levels of review: the USDA Office of General Counsel; other agencies within USDA; other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration; and finally the Office of Management and Budget, which is the policy arm of the President. It appears that changes and revisions were required at every step of this process.

            Although we do not know exactly what occurred in the “black box”, it is clear that several crucial factors affected the handling of the organic standards. First, the various arms of government that reviewed the organic regulations and had final authority over them had little or no knowledge of the principles and practices of organic agriculture. They also did not understand the private organic guarantee system, which includes private certification and accreditation based on international guidelines that have been adapted to the organic industry.

            Second, USDA had no experience with such a comprehensive regulatory programme, which covered all crops, livestock, and processing, and extended from the field to the table. This wide-ranging programme did not fit into the USDA structure, which is segmented into specialised programmes.

            Third, USDA and other officials imposed onto the organic programme the policies and directives from the administration that were being implemented throughout the Department and other government agencies. The resulting distortions of the NOSB recommendations indicate the dual role played by USDA in responding to the specific Congressional mandate on behalf of the organic industry while maintaining its over­arching policies to promote agribusiness and industrialisation of American agriculture.

            Fourth, the influence of agribusiness and various special interest groups was seen in the USDA’s formulation of the organic standards. Whether these groups met directly with government officials to discuss organic regulations does not matter, since their views are well-integrated into USDA policies. Alternative interests more akin to organic agriculture, such as sustainable agriculture and support for small farmers, are also rep­resented within USDA, but they do not have as much support as policies promoting agribusiness.

Other Models for Developing Organic Standards

            Analysis of the “black box” process for writing organic standards indicates some of the problems that can be encountered with governmental control over the final form of organic standards. Since passage of OFPA in 1990, however, other models for adopting organic standards have been developed.

            One model is the development of voluntary standards by private industry through national standards organisations that are part of the International Standards Organisation (ISO). The ISO also has developed an extensive system of guidelines for the standards-setting process and for certification and accreditation programmes. This model is commonly used in other industries for developing standards for the manufacture of prod­ucts and the provisions of services as diverse as metric screw threads, underground storage tanks, medical devices, and marine management. In the US, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) are two standards organisations that participate in the ISO system.

            This model of using voluntary private standards has the support of governments. The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has directed US agencies to use voluntary standards that have been developed by the private sector instead of government standards if they are not inconsistent with US law (OMB Circular A-119). There are many examples of private standards that are referenced into US regulations. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe also recommends that governments reference in legislation the standards developed by national, regional, or preferably international standards bodies.

            This ISO model was used for developing organic standards in Canada under the Canadian General Standards Board. Stakeholders participated in a consensus process to write voluntary standards that were released in 1999. The organic industry in Canada will use the standards for several years to gain experience with them. If the standards prove satisfactory, they will be referenced into law and enforced by the federal government. Since the reference and not the actual standards will be in the law, the standards can be amended through the same stakeholder process without the need to go back through Parliament.

            In the US, private organic standards have been developed and adopted by the Organic Trade Association after the failure of the USDA proposed standards. The industry also is exploring with IFOAM the possibilities for a system of private accreditation. However, USDA is continuing to develop government standards, and it is unclear what will happen to the private standards if government standards are adopted.

            Another model for adopting organic standards is a completely private system in which there is no government involvement. Under this system, the private sector maintains all the functions of standards-writing, certification, and accreditation. Examples include the systems established by the Sustainable Forestry Council and the Marine Stewardship Council. The public appears to accept and support these private systems, but they are still in the early stages of development and their market success cannot yet be evaluated. The IFOAM system, which includes the IFOAM Basic Standards, Criteria for Organic Accreditation, and the IFOAM Accreditation Programme, offers a basis for developing a private guarantee system for organic agriculture in countries that do not have national standards.

            A third model, which is similar to the process in the US, has been used successfully in some countries, such as Denmark and Argentina. In these countries, the standards were developed in co-operation with the organic community through a transparent system that was not submitted to a governmental “black box”. This process also is underway in Chile.

Lessons from the US Experience

            In the US, the organic community has become quite frustrated with the process for obtaining national standards through USDA. This evolution in thinking was illustrated ironically by two outpourings of public sentiment. During the lobbying effort for national legislation, the Organic Working Group gathered more than 230,000 signatures calling for a national organic bill. As already noted, after publication of its proposed standards, USDA received more than 280,000 comments opposing the government standards.

            With the experience gained through the various other models, it is now clear that national organic standards need not be written or controlled by government agencies. (A separate issue not addressed in this paper is the role of government in other aspects of organic agriculture, including enforcement of standards, promotion of organic food production and consumption, and research in organic production methods and marketing.) Several different models are possible for the standards writing process. Regardless of the framework, however, it is important that the process allows the organic community, including consumers, to participate in all aspects of the standards-writing process and to maintain authority over the final standards. One way these goals can be accomplished is through a consensus process for writing private standards that can then be referenced into regulations or statute. A government process in which the organic community keeps responsibility for the standards might also be possible.

            In order to maintain responsibility for organic standards, the organic community must have authority at each step of the standards-setting process, including the following:

            Selecting its own representatives to the standards-writing process. Appointment of representatives from the organic community by a government official or other entity denies the organic community the opportunity to select its most qualified representatives.

            Developing consensus on the standards. With various models available, it is less difficult to develop a national consensus on organic standards. The IFOAM Basic Standards are the most comprehensive international organic standards, since they cover crops, livestock, processing, and honey, and also include draft standards on aquaculture and textiles. Another international organic standard for crops is the Codex Alimentarius, which is based on IFOAM Basic Standards, the EU Organic Regulation and the US OFPA. With these general models available, national and regional groups can focus on developing any necessary local or regional deviations and harmonising them with international standards.  National groups can also influence further development of international organic standards by participating in the standards-writing processes of IFOAM and Codex.

            Writing the actual standards, not recommendations for standards. As was seen in the US, recommendations for standards are not necessarily followed. In order for the organic community to be heard, it must be involved in writing the actual standards.

            Review of the final standards. If the standards are reworded or modified by a governmental or other entity, it is important that the organic community has authority to review the final standards.

            Maintaining final authority over content of the standards. Without a requirement for agreement by the organic community, standards can be adopted that are not in harmony with the basic principles of organic agriculture and with international organic standards.

            Maintaining authority to amend the standards. As the organic industry continues to develop, it will be necessary to modify the standards. For example, when the NOSB was first considering livestock standards, only a minority of organic farmers were in favour of prohibiting all use of antibiotics. However, by the time the final recommendations were made to USDA, most had found that antibiotics were not necessary when livestock was fed 100% organic feed.

Conclusions

            The organic community in the US has experienced the difficulties of maintaining the integrity of the organic system when it has lost control over writing the organic standards. While it is still possible that USDA could adopt acceptable organic standards and a rigorous guarantee system, the price to the organic community already has been extremely high in terms of time, resources, and delay of other initiatives.

            Other models that ensure more participation and give more authority to the organic community can result in a more effective set of standards and organic guarantee system. Before seeking governmental involvement in writing national organic standards, alternative models for establishing a national organic system should be explored and evaluated by the organic community of the particular country. Under any of these models, the national standards should be harmonised with international organic standards.

 Copyright S.Vaupel, 1999.