Weakened Organic Food Rule Under Attack

CAROL NESS /SF Chronicle 26feb03

A new Republican-pushed law that threatens to undermine federal organic food standards suddenly looks vulnerable today, with President Bush's agriculture secretary coming out against it and repeal legislation attracting backers from both parties.

The law, a rider slipped into the $397 billion federal spending bill that passed two weeks ago and signed by Bush, would allow poultry and beef to be raised on nonorganic feed but still be labeled organic.

It was inserted at the last minute by Senate Republican leaders on behalf of Fieldale Farms, a Georgia poultry producer that complained that organic feed is hard to come by.

Organic farmers, retailers and consumers have mounted a full-on fight against the provision. Today, Democrats in the Senate and House plan to announce bipartisan support for bills that would repeal the change.

The administration had not made its views on the organic provision known until late Tuesday, when Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said in a statement that she is "concerned that the language inserted in the Omnibus Appropriations Act could weaken the National Organic Program."

Veneman, who worked with organic farmers and consumers to put the nation's first organic standards into effect in October, fended off efforts by Fieldale to win an exemption to the feed standard last year.

In her statement, she said the best way to ensure the integrity of organic labeling "is to maintain the organic standards as USDA implemented them in October 2002."

Her opinion comes as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Sam Farr, D- Carmel, plan to announce that they have signed up both Republicans and Democrats to back bills to repeal the change.

As of Tuesday evening, Leahy's bill had attracted 23 sponsors, including both of California's senators and 10 Republicans. Farr's office had rounded up 11 sponsors, one a Republican.

Without bipartisan support, a repeal wouldn't have a chance in the Republican-majority Congress, said Chris Riley, a spokesman for Sen. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.

It was Deal who got Senate Republican leaders to add the organic provision to the spending bill at the last minute, on behalf of Fieldale.

The farm was raising chickens on regular or organic feed, depending on supply, and selling them as organic until the federal standards took effect in October.

Fieldale contends it can't find enough organic corn to feed its chickens. Petaluma Poultry and other producers say supply isn't the problem, but that organic feed is more expensive.

Next week, the USDA will clarify the issue in a report on the availability and cost of the nation's organic feed.

Farr, author of California's first-in-the-nation organic food standards in 1990, said that adding the rider for Fieldale -- with no public discussion and without the knowledge of most legislators -- was "politics at its worst."

"Out of shame and embarrassment they ought to just repeal it," he said. "I don't think that the majority is proud of this provision."

The fact that food industry giants General Mills and Tyson came out strongly against the change may have helped attract Republican senators to repeal the bill, said Leahy spokesman David Carle.

Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, said the rider "has put the Republicans in a tough position, because there are a lot of Republican organic farmers."

Scowcroft, who worked with USDA for more than a decade to shape the federal organic standards, added that "this is really an anti-business amendment, and the last thing the party wants to be seen as is anti-business.

"It says: You entrepreneurs who created the organic business are out of business because we changed the rules on you after 12 years."