Dole urges organics board to approve ethylene use
Dole urges organics board to approve ethylene use
WASHINGTON -- Dole Fresh Fruit International said that a federal review board's decision to postpone acting on whether to keep ethylene on a list of substances allowed on organically labeled bananas would leave farmers in a tenuous position.
At a Nov. 16 meeting, Franz Wielemaker, director of sourcing and development for Dole's organic program, said that the National Organic Standards Board should recommend that the U.S. Department of Agriculture continue listing ethylene as a post-harvest substance used for banana ripening.
The board's recommendation to postpone a decision on ethylene is worrisome for organic banana growers in Latin America, Mr. Wielemaker said at the meeting. By deferring it, "you're creating uncertainty for the farmers."
Dole also is pushing for the organic advisory board to recommend ethylene use in the regulation of pineapple flowering.
At least one group, the Organic Consumers Association, urged USDA not to allow ethylene for post-harvest ripening. "Natural ripening is in alliance with the spirit of organic farming, not chemically induced ripening for the sake of synthetically creating higher yields or facilitating long- distance shipping practices," said the association.
But the board, which assists USDA in developing standards for substances used in organic production, said that a deferral does not mean a denial, and that more information may be needed on ethylene. In the meantime, the board plans to continue reviewing it while growers can continue using it at least until 2007, when some materials are likely to be retired from the list.
This was just one of a long list of substances under review at a two-day meeting of the National Organic Standards Board, held here Nov. 16-17, that included the use of chlorine as a sanitizer and aspirin in livestock. The National Organics Program must approve these materials or they will be taken off the national list in October 2007 under a sunset review provision.
This list has been under the spotlight in recent months by a major court decision and hard-fought legislation on Capitol Hill that has proved divisive for consumers and organic food producers.
Congress took up the issue as a result of a June 2005 court ruling that found inconsistencies between the Organic Foods Production Act and the USDA-implemented National Organic Program. As a result, the court barred products processed with 38 synthetic ingredients from using USDA's coveted organic label. At the request of the Organic Trade Association, a group representing organic businesses, Congress enacted legislation last month to override the court decision, and President Bush approved it on Nov. 10.
Now USDA is left in the difficult position of having to respond to the court-imposed decision and deadlines despite the new legislation.
USDA is waiting for its lawyers to clear a statement on how it will respond to the court decision, said Barbara Robinson, USDA's deputy administrator for transportation and marketing programs. For industry, it's back to business as usual in terms of being able to use the 38 materials, she said, but USDA will need to comply with the components of the court decision that the new legislation did not touch.
Ms. Robinson said that the soon-to-be-released statement would outline regulations that will need to be proposed and emphasize the critical role of the board in reviewing materials allowed on organic products, which was not changed by the courts or Congress, she said.
The Organic Consumers Association had rallied its members to protest legislation to change the court decision, saying it would leave numerous synthetic processing aids to be used in organic food without any public review.
But Ms. Robinson said at the Nov. 16 meeting that this was not the case. "Congress did not give the secretary authority to put synthetics on the list," she said. "This is absolutely not the case." She also pledged to ensure that regulations undergo "an open, transparent, above-board collaborative process" with the public and the board.
At a Nov. 16 meeting, Franz Wielemaker, director of sourcing and development for Dole's organic program, said that the National Organic Standards Board should recommend that the U.S. Department of Agriculture continue listing ethylene as a post-harvest substance used for banana ripening.
The board's recommendation to postpone a decision on ethylene is worrisome for organic banana growers in Latin America, Mr. Wielemaker said at the meeting. By deferring it, "you're creating uncertainty for the farmers."
Dole also is pushing for the organic advisory board to recommend ethylene use in the regulation of pineapple flowering.
At least one group, the Organic Consumers Association, urged USDA not to allow ethylene for post-harvest ripening. "Natural ripening is in alliance with the spirit of organic farming, not chemically induced ripening for the sake of synthetically creating higher yields or facilitating long- distance shipping practices," said the association.
But the board, which assists USDA in developing standards for substances used in organic production, said that a deferral does not mean a denial, and that more information may be needed on ethylene. In the meantime, the board plans to continue reviewing it while growers can continue using it at least until 2007, when some materials are likely to be retired from the list.
This was just one of a long list of substances under review at a two-day meeting of the National Organic Standards Board, held here Nov. 16-17, that included the use of chlorine as a sanitizer and aspirin in livestock. The National Organics Program must approve these materials or they will be taken off the national list in October 2007 under a sunset review provision.
This list has been under the spotlight in recent months by a major court decision and hard-fought legislation on Capitol Hill that has proved divisive for consumers and organic food producers.
Congress took up the issue as a result of a June 2005 court ruling that found inconsistencies between the Organic Foods Production Act and the USDA-implemented National Organic Program. As a result, the court barred products processed with 38 synthetic ingredients from using USDA's coveted organic label. At the request of the Organic Trade Association, a group representing organic businesses, Congress enacted legislation last month to override the court decision, and President Bush approved it on Nov. 10.
Now USDA is left in the difficult position of having to respond to the court-imposed decision and deadlines despite the new legislation.
USDA is waiting for its lawyers to clear a statement on how it will respond to the court decision, said Barbara Robinson, USDA's deputy administrator for transportation and marketing programs. For industry, it's back to business as usual in terms of being able to use the 38 materials, she said, but USDA will need to comply with the components of the court decision that the new legislation did not touch.
Ms. Robinson said that the soon-to-be-released statement would outline regulations that will need to be proposed and emphasize the critical role of the board in reviewing materials allowed on organic products, which was not changed by the courts or Congress, she said.
The Organic Consumers Association had rallied its members to protest legislation to change the court decision, saying it would leave numerous synthetic processing aids to be used in organic food without any public review.
But Ms. Robinson said at the Nov. 16 meeting that this was not the case. "Congress did not give the secretary authority to put synthetics on the list," she said. "This is absolutely not the case." She also pledged to ensure that regulations undergo "an open, transparent, above-board collaborative process" with the public and the board.
