NOSB gets it right 99% of the time

Rodale Institute farm director Jeff Moyer highlights the top decisions taken at the latest National Organic Standards Board Meeting in Savannah, Georgia this winter.

by Jeff Moyer, Rodale Institute Farm Director

Following the work of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is a little like watching the stock market these days. Lots of ups and downs and, if you only tune in for a brief moment, you may get the wrong sense of where the board stands or an incomplete picture of how the voting on a particular issue may end up. Such was the case with the November/December NOSB meetings in Savannah Georgia.

Each of the committees had a full plate of recommendations and materials to place before the Board for a vote. And, as is usually the case, there were some issues that struck at the very core of organic principles and values. The issues of primary concern were presented by the Crops, Livestock, Handling, and Compliance Accreditation and Certification committees. There was plenty of heated discussion and debate among the board members spearheaded by the committee recommendations and comments from you, the public.

I’ve always stressed the importance of farmer input. It is essential to the proper functioning of the system. Certainly industry and companies that profit from particular materials or recommendations are sure to voice their desires and wishes, but the voices from other segments of the organic community carry more weight and need to be heard.

For this meeting it was clear public comment delivered in writing and in person had an impact on the Board’s decisions. The ups and downs, or should I say yes or no votes, swayed in either direction. The Board worked day and night to write and rewrite their recommendations to “get it right.” And as they do 99 percent of the time, they got it right.

Livestock Committee: The big item on the livestock committee’s work plan was the final presentation of the animal welfare document. The major goals of the recommendation are to give all livestock access to the outdoors for fresh air and sunlight in a system that not only recognizes their need to express a normal behavior for the particular species but works to encourage the activity. This is accomplished by guaranteeing them enough space to move.

It was imperative that the Board move the final pieces of the recommendation passed in 2010 onto the work plan of the National Organic Program (NOP). Consumers of organic animal products demand that these additional regulations be added to the existing standard to insure that their expectations are being met and that their food dollars go to producers in tune with these demands. When these new regulations are put in place, organic livestock producers will be able to say that their industry leads the way in insuring that the welfare of their animals meets one of the highest standards in the world. This will include the animal’s entire life cycle from birth through the transportation to slaughter.

Crops Committee: The material ammonium nonanoate was the hot topic for the crops committee. As a synthetic, it has to be voted on by the Board to be placed on the national list of allowed materials for organic production. This was a highly contested material and one which strikes at the very core principles of organic production. Ammonium nonanoate is a salt of a fatty acid and, although it breaks down rapidly in natural environments, it is a broad spectrum herbicide that is not compatible with an organic production system. That being said, many farmers testified they wanted this type of material in their arsenal of tools to fight weeds. In the end the Board got it right and the material was voted down. Ammonium nonanoate will not be allowed in organic production systems.

Handling Committee: There were two highlighted items on the agenda for the handling committee; sulfur dioxide for use in organic wine production and two materials lumped together—arachidonic acid (ARA) and donosahexaenoic acid (DHA)—as an omega 3 additive to dairy products. All these items were thoroughly discussed, highly contested, and ultimately voted on.

Let’s look at sulfur dioxide for use in organic wine making. The public often associates organic wine with sulfite-free wine, and for good reason. Sulfur dioxide has not historically been a material approved for use in 100% certified organic wine. Many people have allergies to sulfites and choosing certified organic has allowed them to enjoy wine without worry. The NOSB received a petition to allow the use of sulfur dioxide in wine labeled as certified organic as it is already allowed under the “made with organic grapes” label. This may seem like a fine line since both products are available for purchase and both use 100% organically grown grapes. However, consumer voices were heard and today certified organic wine carrying the USDA seal is still available without added sulfites.

When it comes to the ARA and DHA materials added to organic dairy products, the reality is these materials have been added to organic dairy products for many years, have wide spread consumer support and are controlled by another governmental agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Any product containing these materials are generally boldly labeled allowing consumers to choose to purchase organic dairy products with or without DHA and ARA. So I say the Board got it right in recommending continued approval of these additives.

Compliance Accreditation and Certification Committee: This committee dealt with an issue that most impacts farmers and producers. The issue was the recommendation for the evaluation of Materials Review Organizations (MROs). Most farmers and producers use purchased products for their operations. All of these products and their ingredients must be approved by their certifier prior to their use in a certified operation, so farmers rely on MROs to help select allowed inputs. Many of the MROs disagree on the ultimate outcome of the product reviews leading to confusion at the production level. The National Organic Program (NOP) staff had asked the NOSB for guidance on how to improve the system and clarify the evaluation and review process against a standard set of protocols. With the new recommendation just passed and sent on to the NOP, the Board has taken a positive step to eliminating the confusion, standardizing the protocols and reducing the burden on farmers.

Overall the Board performed its statutory task of evaluating the materials petitioned and giving recommendations to the Program on a broad spectrum of issues. And in the end, got it right 99% of the time.