National Organic Standards Board Research Articles

Blanket NOP rules and regional realities: from the field

AbstractThere are fewer Certified Organic producers in the Mid-South US (southern half of Missouri, western Kentucky and Tennessee, northern Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma) than in other regions of the country such as the Upper Midwest, West Coast, or Northeastern US. Taus et al. (2013) The Professional Geographer 65, 87–102, posit that these clusters suggest regional characteristics impact adoption of organic agriculture and admit that regional studies lack consensus on the role of factors that drive adoption. This paper seeks to understand if there are regionally distinct challenges and opportunities for organic production in the region. Fourteen certified organic producers in Missouri were interviewed and areas of challenges and opportunities specific to their certification were identified within the three a priori themes of (1) biophysical characteristics, (2) marketing infrastructure and (3) financial feasibility. We suggest directions for future policy support from the National Organic Program (NOP) and bolstered feedback structures within the National Organic Standards Board to address regional disparities.

Do consumers value hydroponics? Implications for organic certification

AbstractRecent controversy about the inclusion of hydroponics in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic program has highlighted uncertainty about marketing hydroponic crops. In a controversial vote in November 2017, the National Organic Standards Board chose not to recommend that hydroponic farms be banned from organic certification. It is still unclear, however, how consumers perceive and value hydroponic production. This study used a nonhypothetical choice experiment to estimate consumers’ willingness to pay for hydroponic and traditional lettuce both with and without organic certification. No hydroponic premium was found, but exposing consumers to different kinds of information about hydroponics significantly affected consumers’ preference formation. Findings generally suggest that the National Organic Program should consider ways to ensure the stability of organic premiums as perceptions about hydroponics evolve.

THE ECONOMIC PAMPHLETEER: The Industrialization of Organics

First paragraph: In my previous Economic Pamphleteer column, Soul of the Local Food Movement, I argued that the modern local food movement was born out of the industrialization of organics, and that if “the local food movement is to fulfill its transformational potential, it must not betray the trust and confi­dence of its customers and supporters” (Ikerd, 2017, p. 6). This point was reinforced in early November 2017, when Francis Thicke, a long-time organic farmer and advocate of organic farming, gave what I would call a “farewell warning” upon completing his five-year term as a member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). He wrote, “I learned, over time,…that industry has an outsized and growing influence on USDA—and on the NOSB (including through NOSB appoint­ments)—compared to the influence of organic farmers, who started this organic farming move­ment” (Thicke, 2017, para. 2). He added, “Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to find that big business is taking over the USDA organic program because the influence of money is corroding all levels of our government” (para. 7)....

Treating separated liquid dairy manure derived from mesophilic anaerobic digester effluent to reduce indicator pathogens and Salmonella concentrations for use as organic fertilizer

Dairy manure has much potential for use as an organic fertilizer in the United States. However, the levels of indicator organisms and pathogens in dairy manure can be ten times higher than stipulated use guidelines by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) even after undergoing anaerobic digestion at mesophilic temperatures. The objective of this study was to identify pasteurization temperatures and treatment durations to reduce fecal coliforms, E. coli, and Salmonella concentrations in separated liquid dairy manure (SLDM) of a mesophilic anaerobic digester effluent to levels sufficient for use as an organic fertilizer. Samples of SLDM were pasteurized at 70, 75, and 80°C for durations of 0 to 120 min. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, and Salmonella concentrations were assessed via culture-based techniques. All of the tested pasteurization temperatures and duration combinations reduced microbial concentrations to levels below the NOSB guidelines. The fecal coliforms and E. coli reductions ranged 2from 0.76 to 1.34 logs, while Salmonella concentrations were reduced by more than 99% at all the pasteurization temperatures and active treatment durations.

The value of added sulfur dioxide in French organic wine

The addition of sulfur dioxide is a longstanding and common practice in the winemaking industry. Sulfur dioxide preserves wine, preventing oxidation and browning. However, in the U.S., wine labeled as organic cannot contain added sulfur dioxide. A petition put forth to the National Organic Standards Board for the allowance of added sulfur dioxide in organic wine was recently rejected. In France, added sulfur dioxide is allowed in organic wine, but not used in all organic wine. This variation in use allows the estimation of the value of added sulfur dioxide in French organic wine, which sheds light on the possible benefits of a policy change in the U.S. For red wines, the addition of sulfur dioxide reduces the suggested retail price of wines to be consumed immediately after purchase, but the effect becomes positive for wines that are intended to be cellared for at least one to three years before consumption. The effect for most white wines is neutral to positive. The magnitude of the effect for both red and white wines varies by eco-certification type.

Secret ingredients: who knows what's in your food?

British chef and food activist Jamie Oliver ignited a firestorm in January 2011 when he mentioned on the Late Show with David Letterman that castoreum, a substance used to augment some strawberry and vanilla flavorings, comes from what he described as “rendered beaver anal gland.”1 The next year, vegans were outraged to learn that Starbucks used cochineal extract, a color additive derived from insect shells, to dye their strawberry Frappuccino® drinks2 (eventually, the company decided to transition to lycopene, a pigment found in tomatoes3). Although substances like castoreum and cochineal extract may be long on the “yuck factor,”4 research has shown them to be perfectly safe for most people; strident opposition arose not from safety issues but from the ingredients’ origins. But these examples demonstrate that the public often lacks significant knowledge about the ingredients in foods and where they come from. This is not a new development; the public relationship to food additives has a long history of trust lost, regained, and in some cases lost again. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 19385 was passed shortly after the deaths of 100 people who took an untested new form of a popular drug, which contained what turned out to be a deadly additive.6 The new law was consumer oriented and intended to ensure that people knew what was in the products they bought, and that those products were safe. The law has been amended over the years in attempts to streamline and bring order to the sprawling task of assessing and categorizing the thousands of substances used in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. One result of this streamlining is that under current U.S. law, companies can add certain types of ingredients to foods without premarket approval from the thin-stretched Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In other words, there are substances in the food supply that are unknown to the FDA. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that a “growing number of substances … may effectively be excluded from federal oversight.”7 Is this a problem? The answer depends on whom you ask.

Engineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Products: Understanding a NewIngredient

In October 2010 the National Organic Standards Board recommended that engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) be prohibited from food products bearing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s coveted Organic label.1 If the department adopts the recommendation, ENMs will find themselves in the same officially taboo category as genetically modified organisms when it comes to organic foods—nanotechnology-enabled innovations like flavor- and texture- enhancing ingredients and shelf life– extending packaging will be off the menu. Prior to issuing its recommendation, the board received thousands of public comments and petition signatures supporting the ban and virtually none opposing it. Although an official decision could take years, supporters are confident the recommendation will be adopted, and it will go down as one of the first lines drawn in the sand when it comes to the reach of this relatively new and potentially transformative technology in the American marketplace. Nanotechnology-enabled products are quietly proliferating on U.S. store shelves, despite nagging questions about the safety of synthetic nanoparticles and the products that contain them. “[I]n our regulation of food and most consumer products, we don’t implement the precautionary principle. Things go to market before we know whether or not they’re really safe for human beings over the long term,” says Alexis Baden-Mayer, a lawyer with the Organic Consumers Association, an advocacy group, who attended the meeting and campaigned for the ban. Baden-Mayer and other observers perceive a distinct lack of public awareness about how common ENMs are becoming in the market-place, and she hopes discussion among consumers of organic products will help change that. “Consumers don’t know much about nanotechnology, and the first time they may hear about it is now when they learn that the organic regulations are going to prohibit [it],” she says. The International Organization for Standardization defines a nanomaterial as a material with any external dimension between 1 and 100 nm.2 (By comparison, a double strand of DNA is about 2 nm thick.) Nanoparticles, which have been the focus of most nanotoxicology studies to date,3 are one subset of nanomaterials. Nanoparticles include structures of various shapes, such as nanotubes, nanowires, quantum dots, and fullerenes. They also occur naturally in substances like air, smoke, and sea spray, and “incidental” nanoparticles are created during processes such as combustion and food milling, churning, freezing, and homogenization. (Naturally occurring and incidental nanoparticles were not included in the National Organic Standards Board’s recommendation to ban ENMs.) Nanotechnology—the deliberate synthesis and manipulation of nanomaterials—began in the 1980s. Today thousands of ENMs are manufactured in a kaleidoscope of substances, shapes, and sizes for use in a wide range of products and industrial processes that take advantage of their novel physical, thermal, optical, and biological properties. These properties may be determined by the ENM’s chemical composition, size or shape, crystal structure, solubility, adhesion (the force that holds the nanoparticle components together), or surface chemistry, charge, or area.3 Industry analysts have been forecasting “game-changing” advances as a result of nanotechnology in renewable energy, computers, communications, pollution cleanup, agriculture, medicine, and more.4 Clothing, sunscreens, cosmetics, sporting equipment, batteries, food packaging, dietary supplements, and electronics are just a few of the types of nanotechnology-enabled goods in use by U.S. consumers. But safety questions arise around the nanoparticles in some of these products. The novel biological and physical properties of some ENMs pose unique challenges to comprehensive safety research, and investigators are working to figure out just how hazardous they might be to people, wildlife, and the environment. Compared with larger particles, nanoparticles’ tiny size means tissues may take them up more readily. It also can give them an unusual ability to travel throughout the body, including into cells and cell nuclei, and across the placenta and the blood–brain barrier, as demonstrated in rodent studies.5,6 No cases of human illness or death have been definitively attributed to ENMs. However, a number of researchers and consumer and environmental advocates have warned that the abundant unknowns make it necessary to proceed with caution lest we repeat the history of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, the insecticide DDT, and other innovations that seemed valuable when they were introduced, proceeded with little oversight, and ultimately caused major health or environmental problems.

The New USDA: Cultivating Change

In proclaiming the week of August 23–29 National Community Gardening Week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack noted, “Community gardens provide numerous benefits including opportunities for local food production, resource conservation, and neighborhood beautification. But they also promote family and community interaction and enhance opportunities to eat healthy, nutritious foods. Each of these benefits is something we can and should strive for.” Vilsack’s statement was the latest in a string of signals in the past 7 months that suggest significant changes are afoot at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). On 29 July 2009 Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan inaugurated a new rooftop garden at the offices of the USDA Economic Research Service. In early spring, Vilsack “broke pavement” for a vegetable garden known as the People’s Garden, which was planted in front of USDA headquarters across from the National Mall. And a March 2009 planning meeting to discuss the People’s Garden and other sustainability initiatives, chaired by Vilsack, included people not typically seen at USDA meetings in the past: representatives from community garden associations, local food policy councils, botanical gardens, and the Rodale Institute, a nonprofit organization in Pennsylvania dedicated to organic farming research. Vilsack “talked about sustainability, linking agriculture, food, and human health in a way that you haven’t heard [from USDA],” recalls Rose Hayden-Smith, a fellow at the Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and master gardener for the California Cooperative Extension service.

Disciplining Microbes in the Implementation of US Federal Organic Standards

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a citizen panel charged with the job of recommending to the US Secretary of Agriculture guidelines for certified organic agriculture, can be analyzed as a ‘boundary organization’. By linking organic farmers' knowledge with peer-reviewed science, the board builds the base of organic agriculture for legitimacy and also develops a new product: federally certified organic agriculture. Examination of organic standards on composting, with a focus on characterizations of composting microbes, reveals the very compromised ability of the NOSB to effect change, however, despite its efforts to build common ground between institutions with very different cultures and historical interests. A focus on discourses of microbes provides insights into the accomplishments of and limits to the influence of the NOSB as well as the larger organic movement. Organizational tactics of the NOSB are best understood within the larger context of institutional commitments to specific forms of agriculture.

Tracking “Organic” Agricultural Research in the United States, 1970–1989: What Federal Legislative and Selected USDA-Sponsored Documents Reveal

ABSTRACT This paper enumerates Federal government documentation of the period 1970–1989 pertaining to organic agriculture in the United States, identified in the Congressional Information Service's Cumulative Indices and bibliographies published by the United States National Agricultural Library. These Congressional hearings, Federal legislation, and selected U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-sponsored documents provide an historical context for the 1990 legislation that created the National Organic Program (NOP) and the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The paper provides chronological tabulations of the historical documents and discusses the communication difficulties and relationships revealed therein between the Congress, the USDA, and organic producers of the time.

Addressing the Information Needs of Organic Farmers: The Confessions of an ATTRA Specialist

Addressing the Information Needs of Organic Farmers: The Confessions of an ATTRA Specialist

An experiment in digital government at the United States National Organic Program

Digital communications technology isreconfiguring democratic governance. Federalagencies increasingly rely on Internet-basedapplications to improve citizen-governmentinteraction. Early efforts in the area ofdigital government have created newparticipatory opportunities as well asformidable governance challenges. Federalagencies are working within and across theirboundaries to find an e-rulemaking format thatis cost-effective, legally appropriate,user-friendly, and well suited to diverse modesof rulemaking activities. One of the overridingissues emerging from this process is thedefinition of meaningful public participationin rulemaking. An examination of an early caseinvolving the USDA's National Organic Programproposed rule summarizes comments related togenetic engineering, biosolids, irradiation,and the role of the National Organic StandardsBoard. The USDA's experience suggests a numberof complex challenges that must be met toeffectively integrate Web-based communicationsinto the federal rulemaking process.

Emergence of U.S. Organic Agriculture—Can We Compete? Discussion

The theme of this session is the expansion and market competitiveness of organic agriculture. Because no single definition exists in economics or agriculture of the terms competitiveness and organics, let me start by offering some definitions. The National Organic Standards Board defines organic agriculture as an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. The focus of the definition is on ecologically compatible production systems, not on the product itself, or allowable (or nonallowable) specific inputs. In contrast, a discussion on markets and competitiveness focuses on the product itself. In an introductory economics textbook, competitiveness is defined as striving among a number of rivals in a contest aimed at purchasing or selling a particular product (Bronfenbrenner, Sichel, and Gardner). Firms producing organic products compete with one another for a share of the organics market, but the arena for the contest is much more cen-