📣 Take Action this weekend and tell @USDA to follow National Organic Standards Board (#NOSB) recommendations. #KeepOrganicStrong

📣 Take Action this weekend and tell @USDA to follow National Organic Standards Board (#NOSB) recommendations. #KeepOrganicStrong

📣 Contribute your voice to a strong organic! Comments are due to the National Organic Standards Board by 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, May 4, but get them in early!

A consortium of EU-based scientists and bioethicists raise concerns about the implications and threats of artificial intelligence for genetic engineering.

The importance of organic cited as increased pesticide use and infant deaths tied to bat declines—NOSB comments due by Sept. 30, 11:59 pm EDT.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2022) Without continuously improving organic standards and certification, advocates maintain that there is no holistic way to combat the existential crises associated with petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers—the multiple and growing health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. Have you been confused at the egg case in your grocery store where egg carton labels proclaim “cage-free,” “free-range,” and “pasture raised” organic eggs? The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is accepting comments on proposed regulations to protect the welfare of livestock and poultry on organic farms. The Organic Livestock and Poultry Standard (OLPS) is a slightly revised version of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) rule, which was promulgated after many delays in January 2017, then withdrew the rule before it became effective. USDA acknowledges that a failure to act on OLPS undermines the organic market, saying “a market failure exists in the organic label,” and the intent of new standard is to “clarify and ensure consistent application of the USDA organic standards.” The inconsistent application of organic standards by certifiers has resulted in a plethora of add-on labels that ensure that organic livestock and poultry production meet the expectations of organic consumers. However, the proposed OLPS […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23-26, 2022) Comments are due 11:59 pm EDT September 29.  The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing October 25-27—concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov by 11:59 pm EDT September 29. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2022 issues page. In the spirit of “continuous improvement,” we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. Here are some high priority issues for us: > The NOSB must take a precautionary approach in view of the unknown. Peroxylactic acid (POLA) is petitioned as an antimicrobial agent to be used in processing meat. While a comprehensive review of the needs for sanitizers and disinfectants in organic processing may reveal a need for additional materials, the existing data concerning POLA […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2022)  Plastics are a huge environmental problem, yet organic production and handling continue to exacerbate the problem instead of solving it. There are opportunities for change with different mulching systems, intercropping, and packaging materials. It is time to ensure organic’s commitment to addressing the existential crises associated with a petroleum-based economy and lead the way in combatting the climate crisis by ending plastic use in agricultural production and food packaging. Tell the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) it must lead in phasing out plastic at all stages of production and handling. Plastic production and use aggravate the climate emergency via the production and use of plastics. Researchers have found, “The U.S. plastics industry is responsible for at least 232 million tons of CO2 gas emissions per year. This amount is equivalent to the average emissions from 116 average-sized (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants.” Plastic is intentionally added to organic farms in the form of mulch, netting, tree guards, plant containers, irrigation tubing, feed bags, and many other items. The largest use, and the one that has received attention by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is plastic sheet mulch. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), in recognition […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2022) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 1. This precedes the upcoming public hearing on April 19 and 21—concerning how organic food is produced. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. For details on the all the issues of importance to organic integrity, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage. The NOSB is responsible for guiding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in its administration of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), including the materials allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as we depend on organic production to protect our ecosystem, mitigate climate change, and enhance our health The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic producers and consumers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2022 issues page. Here are some high priority issues for us: Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) is a quaternary ammonium compound (quat or QAC) that is being petitioned for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2021) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September 30. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 13-14 and online meeting October 19-21—in which the NOSB deliberates on issues concerning how organic food is produced. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Fall. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong (KOS) and the Fall 2021 issues page. In the spirit of “continuous improvement,” we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requires that all synthetic materials used in organic production be approved by the NOSB, included on the National List, and reassessed every five years. Among the issues up for consideration at this meeting is a material that the National Organic Program (NOP) has taken off the NOSB’s sunset agenda for several years—sodium nitrate. There are also issues affecting organic integrity that need to be addressed—systemic fraud and plastic—as well as decisions about other materials that are described on the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2021) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through April 5. This precedes the upcoming public hearing on April 20 and 22—concerning how organic food is produced. Also, by April 5, sign up to speak (3 minutes) at the virtual NOSB hearing. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov. As always, there are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this Spring. For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2021 issues page. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is considering a petition to allow the antibiotic kasugamycin to be used in organic apple and pear production. Earlier NOSB members struggled long and hard to erase the stigma of antibiotic use in organic fruit production—something that was left over from the transition of so many chemical-intensive fruit orchards after the Alar “scare” in which apple and apple products were contaminated with the cancer-causing plant growth regulator daminozide. Do we now want to step on that treadmill again? The reasons for rejecting the kasugamycin petition are the same as the reasons for eliminating the antibiotics streptomycin and tetracycline in crop production. Now that we have learned what a pandemic […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2019) The Fall 2019 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by October 3, 2019. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label. Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov until 11:59 pm ET October 3, 2010. Reservations for in-person and webinar comments close at the same time. The proposals of the NOSB, as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are published for public comment.  Beyond Pesticides/OrganicEye is providing the public with a listing and analysis of the issues under consideration by the Board when it meets in Pittsburgh, PA on October 23 – 25, 2019. You can view USDA’s announcement of the NOSB’s meeting and proposals here. Issues before the NOSB include materials allowed in organic production as well as some policy issues. Materials are either being considered for initial use in organics or the subject of a five-year Sunset Review. To be allowed, materials must have evidence demonstrating that they meet Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requirements of essentiality, no adverse effects on humans and the environment, and compatibility with organic practices. Major issues before the NOSB at the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2018) The comment period closes Wednesday, April 4 at 11:59 pm for the Spring 2018 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Meeting. Decisions governing the substances allowed in organic food production are subject to public input twice a year. Public participation in this process is critical to the quality of the decisions and meeting both consumer and farmer expectations. In this context, Beyond Pesticides analyzes the proposals before the NOSB, shares its analysis and comments with the public, and urges people to engage the process and make their views known to decision makers. Details are provided below. In addition to the other priorities in our previous alert (preventing fraud in organic, removing incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic crop production, and the use of bisphenol A [BPA] and other chemicals in organic packaging), we focus attention here on some genetic engineering (GE) issues, contaminated inputs, and “inert” ingredients. New to Regulations.gov? See our two-minute tutorial. Comment now! Beyond Pesticides provides you with our positions, which you can use as the basis for your comments. If you have limited time, you can use the sample comments on priority issues, below. If you have more time, please use the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2017) A French study published last week has found that higher pesticide use does not mean larger profits, demonstrating that farmers can reduce their usage of pesticides without worrying about their profits being affected, in most cases. Similar studies have shown that organic and conventional yields are comparable, supporting the case for farmers to transition from high pesticide use to healthier, safer, and more profitable alternatives. The study, led by Martin Lechenet, a PhD student with the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, looked at data from 946 French farms, including yields, pesticide application rates, soil characteristics, and local climate conditions. The researchers then used a model to focus on the relationship between pesticide application rates and productivity or profitability. They found that, in 77% of the farms, higher pesticide use was not linked to a higher profit. The researchers then estimated that pesticide use could be reduced by 42% without any negative effects on current profit levels in 59% of farms in their national network. According to the researchers, their results demonstrate the ability to reduce pesticide usage for most farmers in current production situations. In addition, other studies support the finding that farmers do not have […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 19, 2017) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) opened a 60-public comment period January 17 on a controversial proposal to establish a federal research and promotion check-off program that has split the organic community, with many family farmers and small farm operators disagreeing with the larger organic industry groups, represented by the Organic Trade Association (OTA), on the benefits that they will derive from a mandatory payment requirement. The application to USDA for a check-off, originally submitted by OTA in 2015, has drawn sharp division on questions of benefits and cost to farmers. OTA believes that the check-off will generate resources to lift the organic market. This program is different from traditional check-off programs, which promote individual commodities. USDA oversees check-off programs under the Commodity, Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. According to OTA, the check-off creates an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for certified organic products, whose overarching goal is to strengthen the position of certified organic products in the marketplace. OTA says this would be achieved by funding research to benefit the organic industry, improving access to information and data across the organic sector, and educating consumers about the benefits of organic, resulting in increased demand for organic […]

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2016) Last week, a study,  Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis,  published in The Lancet  journal, concludes  that exposure to pesticides and other chemicals found in common household items, such as toys, makeup and detergent, costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually in  health care costs and lost wages. The chemicals in question, endocrine disruptors (EDCs), interfere with the body’s hormone system, which can lead to a variety of health problems. According to Environmental Health News, the researchers estimate the costs by looking at exposure data and then projecting 15 medical conditions that are linked to endocrine disruptors and their associated health costs and lost wages. The findings came from calculations made by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Environment Program. A group of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were the worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for nearly two-thirds of estimated health problems. These chemicals were estimated to annually cause about 11 million lost IQ points and 43,000 additional cases of intellectual disability, costing around $268 billion. Pesticide exposure, the second most costly chemical group in the U.S., […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 30, 2016) Stand up for organic! The public comment period has opened on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) proposed recommendations affecting  organic standards, materials and policy. The fall 2016 meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by October 26, 2016. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label. Make your voice heard before the comment period closes. We’ve made tremendous progress in creating an organic food production system. Let’s not let USDA turn back the clock. Beyond Pesticides has  begun to analyze the numerous recommendations and are providing you  with our positions that we hope you will use as the basis for your comments. We will provide positions on additional topics in the near future. Please feel free to develop your own comments or cut and paste ours. If you cut and paste our comments into regulations.gov, please first put a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance if these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer or other concerned party. Some of the major issues before the fall 2016 National Organic Standards Board include: Chlorine Dioxide Gas: Beyond Pesticides is appalled that the […]

Posted in Agriculture, Alternatives/Organics, Atrazine, Azoxystrobin, Biosolids, Carbendazim, Chlorpyrifos, Imidacloprid, Metolachlor, Myclobutanil, National Organic Standards Board/National Organic Program, neonicotinoids, Oxidative Stress, Persistence, Pesticide Efficacy, Plastic, pyraclostrobin, simazine, soil health, synergistic effects, tebuconazole by: Beyond Pesticides No Comments

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2016) In an effort to block the impending implementation of Vermont’s genetically engineered (GE) food labeling law, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MO) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) have struck a deal aimed at continuing to keep consumers in the dark about the ingredients in the food they eat. Vermont’s law, signed on May 8, 2014 by Governor Peter Shumlin (D), is set to go into effect on July 1, 2016. After the state defeated a legal challenge brought by the Grocery Manufacturers of American and other industrial food companies, opponents pivoted their efforts to Congress, where they pushed for the so-called DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, which would have codified a voluntary labeling system nationwide and preempted Vermont’s law. The DARK Act was passed through the House, yet failed to secure enough votes in the Senate. Despite Senator Stabenow voting against the DARK Act earlier this year, she has now reached a DARK deal that, in effect, would continue to deny Americans important information about the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in the food we eat. While proponents this DARK deal say it will require a mandatory national labeling scheme, the Senate bill includes no […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2016)  Make your voice heard! The public comment period has opened on National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) proposed recommendations affecting  organic standards, materials and policy. Comments are due by April 14, 2016 at 11:59 PM. As usual, there are many important issues that are under  NOSB consideration. Your voice is integral to maintaining organic integrity and the value of the USDA organic label. We have begun to analyze the numerous recommendations and are providing you with our positions that we hope you will use as the basis for your comments. We will provide positions on additional topics in the near future. Please feel free to develop your own comments or cut and paste ours from the following web page: Top Priority Issues. Unfortunately, the only way to make your voice heard is to submit your comments to regulations.gov. If you cut and paste our comments into regulations.gov on major issues before the NOSB (below), please put a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance if these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer. Some of the major issues before the spring 2016 National Organic Standards Board include: ”¢ Inerts Three items on […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2015) France’s Ecology Minister Segolene Royal announced Sunday a  call to  stop  the sale of the popular Monsanto herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) from garden centers. The announcement comes just a couple of  months after the active ingredient, glyphosate, was classified in March as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the United Nation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). “France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides,” Royal said on French television. “I have asked garden centers to stop putting Monsanto’s Roundup on sale” in self-service aisles, she added. The announcement comes after a request by French consumer association CLCV (Consumption, Housing and Environment – Consommation, Logement et Cadre de vie)  to French and European officials to stop selling glyphosate-based products to amateur gardeners. Royal also announced last week that from January 2018 onwards, phytosanitary products —used to control plant diseases— would only be available to amateur gardeners “through an intermediary or a certified vendor.” Glyphosate is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, IARC’s new classification of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2015) Why do you buy organic? Recent research by Mintel, a business research firm, reveals that Americans buy organic for different reasons. The perception that the products are healthier (72 percent) is the biggest draw, even more so than any environmental or ethical reason (69 percent). Only 29 percent of consumers recognize that organic products are highly regulated, while 51 percent believe that the organic label is an excuse to charge more. While sales of organic products are on the rise, actual consumer penetration has plateaued. With the barrage of attacks by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the organic label, it comes as no surprise that consumer skepticism remains high. Many consumer and farm organizations believe that public trust will continue to decline if USDA continues its attack on the procedures and public process that has built the organic industry to its $40 billion size. A further look into why consumers choose organic reveals that female shoppers choose products to avoid certain characteristics — 43 percent do so because they do not contain unnecessary ingredients and chemicals, and the same percentage do so to avoid food grown with pesticides. Thirty-one percent of women and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2015)  Organic stakeholders have filed a lawsuit in federal court, maintaining that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated the federal rulemaking process when it changed established procedures for reviewing the potential hazards and need for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural substances used in producing organic food. A coalition of 15 organic food producers and farmer, consumer, environmental, and certification groups asked the court to require USDA to reconsider its decision on the rule change and reinstitute the agency’s customary public hearing and comment process. Read the complaint here. When it comes to organic food production, consumers and producers expect a high level of scrutiny and are willing to pay a premium with the knowledge that a third-party certifier is evaluating compliance with organic standards. The burgeoning $35+ billion organic market relies heavily on a system of public review and input regarding decisions that affect organic production systems and the organic label.   The multi-stakeholder National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)[1], appointed to a 5-year term by the Secretary of Agriculture, holds semi-annual meetings to solicit public input and to write recommendations to the Secretary on organic policy matters, including the allowance of synthetic and non-organic agricultural […]