comments to the national organic standards board...1 introduction the cornucopia institute is...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comments to the National Organic Standards Board Spring 2016 MeetingApril 25-27Washington, DC
![Page 2: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TheCornucopiaInstituteisengagedinresearchandeducationalactivitiessupportingtheecologicalprinciplesandeconomicwisdomunderlyingsustainableandorganicagriculture.Throughresearchandinvestigationsonagriculturalandfoodissues,TheCornucopiaInstituteprovidesneededinformationtofamilyfarmers,consumers,stakeholdersinvolvedinthegoodfoodmovement,andthemedia.TheCornucopiaInstitutewishestothankthethousandsoffamilyfarmersandtheirurbanallieswhofundourworkwiththeirgenerousdonations.TheCornucopiaInstituteP.O.Box126Cornucopia,WI54827608-625-2000voice866-861-2214faxcultivate@cornucopia.orgwww.cornucopia.org Coverdesign:DraftHorseStudio|drafthorsestudio.comCoverphotos:iStockCopyright©2016,TheCornucopiaInstitute
![Page 3: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
CONTENTSMATERIALSSUBCOMMITTEE.................................................................................................................2ExcludedMethodsTerminology..........................................................................................................2SeedPurity–NextSteps.........................................................................................................................7
LIVESTOCKSUBCOMMITTEE...............................................................................................................11HypochlorousAcid.................................................................................................................................11Lidocaine&ProcaineAnnotation....................................................................................................12AnnotationChangesParasiticides...................................................................................................17Ivermectin.............................................................................................................................................17Moxidectin............................................................................................................................................23Fenbendazole......................................................................................................................................25
POLICYDEVELOPMENTSUBCOMMITTEE....................................................................................27PolicyandProceduresManualRevisions.....................................................................................27SunsetTimelineReorganization.......................................................................................................27SPECIALCOMMENT...............................................................................................................................28CACS:EliminatingtheIncentivetoConvertNaturalEcosystems.................................28
HANDLINGSUBCOMMITTEE................................................................................................................35Agar-Agar....................................................................................................................................................35AnimalEnzymes......................................................................................................................................39CalciumSulfate-Mined........................................................................................................................45Carrageenan..............................................................................................................................................50GluconoDelta-Lactone..........................................................................................................................50TartaricAcid..............................................................................................................................................53Cellulose......................................................................................................................................................56PotassiumHydroxide............................................................................................................................61SiliconDioxide..........................................................................................................................................65Colors:β-CaroteneExtract..................................................................................................................68Lactates,SodiumandPotassium......................................................................................................74OatBeta-Glucan.......................................................................................................................................78HypochlorousAcid.................................................................................................................................81SodiumDodecylbenzeneSulfonate.................................................................................................81AncillarySubstancesProcedure.......................................................................................................84NutrientVitaminsandMinerals.......................................................................................................87
CROPSSUBCOMMITTEE.........................................................................................................................91CopperSulfate..........................................................................................................................................91OzoneGas...................................................................................................................................................95PeraceticAcid...........................................................................................................................................98EPAList3–InertsofUnknownToxicity...................................................................................103CalciumChloride..................................................................................................................................104AshfromManureBurning................................................................................................................108SquidandSquidByproducts...........................................................................................................110HypochlorousAcid..............................................................................................................................114SoyWax....................................................................................................................................................121ProhibitionofNonylPhenolEthoxylates(NPEs)inInerts................................................123
![Page 4: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1
INTRODUCTIONTheCornucopiaInstituteispleasedtooffertheNationalOrganicStandardsBoardourformalanalysisof,andrecommendationson,issuesandmaterialsupforreviewattheSpring2016meeting.Cornucopiaadamantlybelievesthatathoroughandappropriatereviewprocessneedstotakeplaceforallpetitionedmaterials,andthatallmaterialsshouldconformwiththeOrganicFoodsProductionActof1990(OFPA)andthefederalorganicstandards.WehopethattheBoardwillbenefitfromCornucopia’sindependentperspectiveinthesecomments.TheCornucopiaInstituteisa501(c)(3)publicinterestfarmandfoodpolicyresearchorganization.Cornucopiaengagesineducationalactivities,supportingtheecologicalprinciplesandeconomicwisdomunderlyingsustainableandorganicagriculture.Throughresearchandinvestigationsonagriculturalandfoodissues,TheCornucopiaInstituteprovideseducationalinformationtofarmers,consumers,otherstakeholdersinvolvedinthegoodfoodmovement,andthemedia.Weareproudtorepresentover10,000supportingmembers,includinganimpressivepercentageofthenation’scertifiedorganicfarmers.WedonotsellmaterialsseekingapprovalforSunsetreauthorization,andwedonotsellorganicproductsthatutilizeanysubstancesthatmightbepetitioned.Wehavenofinancialinterestintheapprovalofanyofthematerialsproposedforuseinorganicfoods.TheseformalcommentsfollowtheSpring2016TentativeAgendareleasedbytheUSDANationalOrganicProgram,beginningwithmaterialsunderreviewbytheMaterialsSubcommitteeandconcludingwiththoseunderreviewbytheCropsSubcommittee.Likewise,eachsubcommitteesectionfollowstheTentativeAgenda,beginningwithSunsetMaterials,followedbyProposalsandDiscussionDocuments.
![Page 5: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2
MATERIALSSUBCOMMITTEE
PROPOSALExcludedMethodsTerminology SUMMARY Thedefinitionof“excludedmethods”intheUSDAOrganicRegulations(7CFR205.2;TermsDefined)is:
“Avarietyofmethodsusedtogeneticallymodifyorganismsorinfluencetheirgrowthanddevelopmentbymeansthatarenotpossibleundernaturalconditionsorprocessesandarenotconsideredcompatiblewithorganicproduction.Suchmethodsincludecellfusion,microencapsulationandmacroencapsulation,andrecombinantDNAtechnology(includinggenedeletion,genedoubling,introducingaforeigngene,andchangingthepositionsofgeneswhenachievedbyrecombinantDNAtechnology).Suchmethodsdonotincludetheuseoftraditionalbreeding,conjugation,fermentation,hybridization,invitrofertilization,ortissueculture.”1
Sincethisdefinitionwasdevelopedin1995,anumberofnewtechnologieshaveemerged.Thesetechnologiesarebeingquicklyadopted,requiringareworkingaswellasanexpansionofthedefinitionof“excludedmethods”inordertoaddressissuescreatedbyrapidadvancesinbiotechnology.Thisupdateshouldoccurregularlytoaccountfortherapiddevelopmentofnewtechnologies.Theseinclude:
• Geneticallyengineeredvaccinesforlivestock;• Theuseofcellfusionwithinplantfamiliestocreatemalesterilityinbrassica
hybrids;• TheuseofGMOsusedtomakebiodegradablebioplasticmulches;• Theuseofgeneticallymutatedalgae;• Untraceableplantbreedingtechniquessuchasdoublehaploidproduction,gene
editingwithnoinsertionofforeignDNA,irradiation,embryorescue,genesilencingviaRNAipathway,andothers;and,
• Syntheticbiology,geneticallyengineeredinsects.Thefirstdiscussiondocument(2013)discussedtermsintheabovedefinition,definedanddiscussedothertermsrelatedtotraditionalbreeding,andintroducednewtermsthatcouldbeconsideredtobegeneticengineeringandsuggestedthatmoreworkwasneededtoclarifywhattermscouldbeconsideredexcludedmethods.
![Page 6: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
3
TheSecondDiscussionDocument(9/2014and4/2015)summarizedthepubliccommentsreceivedinresponsetothefirstdiscussiondocumentandproposedseveraloptionsforanupdateddefinition,aswellasforprinciplesandcriteriaforusewhenevaluatingthevariousgeneticmodificationissues.Additionaltermswerecollectedandthebeginningsofsomedefinitionswerestarted.Astructurewasproposed,similartotheoneinusebytheresearchInstituteofOrganicAgriculture(FiBL)inEuropethatinvolvesanitemizedchartwitha“yes/no”column,wherethespecifictechniquescouldbeitemizedandevaluated.Arecommendationwasinformallymadebythesubcommittee,butnotvotedupon,thattheserevisionstothedefinitionandstructureforevaluatingtechniquesberegulatedthroughNOPguidanceratherthanadditionalrulemaking.TheNOSBacknowledgedthattherewillbesomeunresolvedissuesthatwillneedcontinuedpublicdiscussion,becausetheyposeenforcementchallenges,aretotallyhiddenfromview,ornotenoughisknownaboutthemyet.Finally,theNOSBrequestedadditionalpubliccommentstohelpclarifyExcludedMethodsTerminologyforaccreditedcertifiersandorganicproducers.DISCUSSION TheCornucopiaInstituteappreciatestheworkdonebytheMaterialsSubcommittee(MS)todeveloptheExcludedMethodsTerminologyProposal.AsstatedbytheMS,aconcrete,flexible,andresilientregulatoryframeworkisurgentlyneeded,consideringthatcurrentbiotechnologydiscoveryandinnovation“israpidlyoutpacinganyregulatorystructure.” Cornucopiaagreeswithanapproachthatwouldseparateouttechnologies,terms,andissuesonwhichnoagreementhasbeenreachedyet,whilemovingforwardwherethereisconsensus.Thisunderscorestheimportanceofmaintainingregulationsthathavebroadsupport,yetarerelativelysimple,andaddressingcomplexissuesandnewtechnologiesviaguidance.CornucopiarequeststhattheNOPpostsproposedguidanceforpubliccomments.Thereare3partstothisproposal:
1. Adefinitionalframeworkfor“excludedmethods”thatusesaprocess-basedapproachtoaddtoandexpandtheoriginaldefinition;
2. Criteriaandprinciplesforuseinreviewsbasedontheupdateddefinition;and,
3. Aterminologychartcompilingthosetechnologiesthatareclearly“excludedmethods”basedonthedefinitionandcriteria.
DefinitionalframeworkBasicterms,to“beadoptedbytheNOSBasbeingExcludedMethods,”aredefined.CornucopiaagreeswiththedefinitionsdevelopedbytheMS;asstatedbythesubcommittee,“[t]hisseriesofdefinitionsprovideabetterframeworkthansolelytheexisting
![Page 7: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
4
definitiontofurtherelaboratethevarioustechnologiesthatwouldbeprohibitedaswellasthosewhichwouldbeallowed.”CriteriaandprinciplesforuseinreviewsbasedontheupdateddefinitionThissectionoftheproposalgivesasolidfoundationbystartingwithprinciplesthatdefineorganicproduction,usingboththeNOSBPrinciplesofOrganicProductionandHandlingandIFOAM’sPrinciplesofOrganicAgricultureasafoundationforcriteriatoreviewbiotechnologyprocesses.Thedevelopedcriteriaarebasedonprocess,ratherthanproduct,providingtheneededflexibilitytoaddressthenewtechnologiesbeingdevelopedataneverincreasingrate.Aterminologychartcompilingtechnologiesthatareclearly“excludedmethods”Thisisagoodstart;itisimportanttoidentifyallofthetermsrelatedtobiotechnologythatfallunderthedefinitionofexcludedmethods.Thissectionshouldbeaworkinprogress,asnewtechnologyiscontinuouslybeingdeveloped.ExcludedmethodsterminologyproposalCornucopiaagreeswithBeyondPesticidesthattheapproachadoptedtodevelopthisproposalissoundandconsistentwithorganicproductionpractices.Asystematicprocess-basedapproachneedstobeclearlyestablishedandutilizedinallregulatoryschemes,notjustorganic.Infact,newbiotechprocessesthat“areveryclearlygeneticengineeringtechniquesarenotregulatedbythecurrentgovernmentstructurebecausetheydonotinvolveDNAfroma‘pest’undertheUSDAAPHISregulatorystructure.”Thishasgeneratedamultitudeofproblemsfororganicproducersandothers.Relyingonaproduct-basedregulatoryscheme,particularlyonebasedonlimitedandoutdateddefinitions(suchasthedefinitionof“pest”),wasdemonstratedtobeunworkable.Sometechnicalcorrectionsandadditions,providedbyotherssuchastheCenterforFoodSafety,mayberequired,butCornucopiasupportstheoverallproposalanditsexpeditedenactment.
![Page 8: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
5
DISCUSSIONDOCUMENTExcludedMethodsTerminology TheNOSBstatesthat“ThisDiscussionDocumentcontainsthetechnologies,terms,andissuesthatwehavenotbeenabletoagreeonordonotyethaveenoughinformationonorthatposechallengesthatwehavenotyettakenup.Theseitemsareputoutfordiscussiontocollectfurtherpubliccomment.TheywillbereviewedatfutureNOSBmeetings.”Asstatedabove,Cornucopiaagreeswithanapproachthatwouldseparateouttechnologies,terms,andissuesonwhichnoagreementhasbeenreachedyet,whilemovingforwardwherethereisconsensus.Thisallowsforthegatheringoftheadditionalinformationandinputontechnologies,terms,andissueswhereconsensushasnotbeenreachedyet.Cornucopiacommentsaddressgeneralprinciplesandprocesses,leavingcommentsonscientificdetailstoothers.DISCUSSIONTheNOSBlistsseveralareasforfuturediscussionandworkonthissubject:
• Additionalcriteriaforevaluatingtechnologiesthatneedtobeconsidered.CornucopiasupportstheinclusionoftheadditionalcriteriafromFiBL,theResearchInstituteforOrganicAgriculturefromSwitzerland:1
• HowtodetectthosetechnologiesthatareexcludedbutmaynotprovidedetectablegeneticallyengineeredDNAwhentested.
• Enforcementoftheexcludedmethodprovisionsoftherulewhentheyarenottraceableandundetectable.
Theissuesofdetectionandenforcementaredifficulttoaddresswithintheorganicrulesandregulations.Theissueissimilartotheuseofpesticides,somecausedamagesatpresentlyundetectablelevelsortheknowledgeislackingastowhattheimpactsmaybe,orastowheretolookforpotentialharmfuleffects.Howtodealwithsuchissuesmustbepartlyreferredtothosewhoallowsuchtechnologiesuse–forexample,theUSDAderegulatinggeneticallyengineered(GE)organisms.GEcropsshouldnotbeallowedwithoutapracticaldetectionmethodandestablishedsafeguardstopreventuncheckedenvironmentalcontaminationbyunforeseengenetransfer.MaterialsSubcommitteeactionandvote
1FiBLResearchInstituteofOrganicAgriculture2015.DossierNo.2PlantBreedingTechniques:anassessmentfor
![Page 9: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
6
TheMSwouldlikepublicinputonthefollowingquestions:
1. Arethereanyadditionalcriteriaforevaluatingtechnologiesthatneedtobeconsidered?
2. DoyouhaveanyinsightsonhowtodetectthosetechnologiesthatareexcludedbutmaynotprovidedetectablegeneticallyengineeredDNA?
3. Pleaseofferanysuggestionsforenforcementoftheexcludedmethodprovisionsoftherulewhentheyarenottraceableordetectable.
4. Opinionsarewelcomeonthetermsinthechartabovethatmayormaynotbeclearlyprohibitedasexcludedmethods.
SubcommitteevoteMotiontoadoptthethirddiscussiondocumentonExcludedMethodsMotionby:ZeaSonnabendSecond:EmilyOakleyYes:6,No:0,Absent:0,Recuse:0CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituterecommendsthat:
• TheadditionalcriteriabytheFiBLbeincludedintheproposal;• TheNOSBcallupontheSecretaryofAgriculturetoreverseitspolicy,allowingan
increasingnumberofgeneticallyengineeredcropsinconventionalagriculture;• And,theNOSBrequestandsupportlegislationthatwouldplaceliabilityfor
damagesonthepatentholder,providingarecoursefororganicproducersfacingthegeneticcontaminationoftheircrops.
![Page 10: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
7
SeedPurity–NextStepsOrganicseedisthefoundationoforganicagricultureandshouldbeprotected.TheCornucopiaInstituteappreciatestheworkdonetodeveloptheDiscussionDocumentonNextStepsforImprovingSeedPurityandthecontinuedworkinthisimportantareaoforganicproduction.Thisissuethreatensalloforganicsandneedstobedealtwithbyapplyingtheprecautionaryprinciplefirstandforemost.Organicfarmersshouldberelivedofsomeofthefinancialburdencausedbyseedcontamination.DISCUSSIONDoyouthinkthatanyofthesuggestionsabove(A-D)areworkable?Whatwouldyouchangetomakethembetter?A.TheCornucopiaInstituteagreesthatmoredataregardingseedpurityissueswouldhelpdeterminethebestpathtotakeinthelongrun.Ingeneral,itisadvisabletosupportdevelopmentofdata-collectionprogramsfromsourcesotherthanthegovernment,whichmaybeaslowsourceoffundingforthisproject.However,itisimportanttorelyondataonlyfromareputablesourceandensurethatthatsourceisnamedtoencouragetransparency.Inaddition,anydatacollectioninvolvingtestingofseedstocksshouldbedonewithPCRtestingasopposetostriptesting.Whilestriptestingischeaper,itofteninaccuratewiththestandarderrorandsensitivitylevelforeachtestvaryingbymanufacturer.2Striptestscanaccuratelyshowwhensomethingis“hot”(i.e.contaminated),butbecausefalsenegativesarecommon.Aseedproducermayrelyonthisinaccurateinformationandusethoseseedsinothergrowingprogramsorusethoseseedsforsaletoorganicfarmers.3Inaccuratetestingexacerbatestheproblemofcontaminationwithinorganicseed.Ifaseedhasevenasmallpercentageofcontamination,theorganicfarmerthatgrowsthatseedcouldfindthemselvesoverthelegallimitandlosetheabilitytosellaresultingcrop“organic.”Thisisahugeeconomicburdenonorganicfarmersthatshouldnotbetolerated.Whilestriptestingcouldbeusedforaninitialscreen,PCRtestingshouldoccurattheessentialpartsofthedatacollectionanalysis.Otherorganizationssupportthismethodology,including
2“…striptestsarenotasaccurateasELISA…orDNAPCRtests.Becausetheycanbeperformedinthefield,thereisalsoahigherpotentialforhumanerror.Furthermore,proteinsareaproductofthegeneandhaveatendencytovaryindifferentenvironments.Theyarethereforenotrecommendedassufficientanalysisfororganicseed…BothELISAandstriptestsarefurtherlimitedintherangeofproteinsdetected.Differenteventsrequireindividualtestingfortheirpresence.Forexample,acornsamplecannotbetestedforallGEtraitssimultaneouslyandthesamesamplecannotbereusedwithdifferenttests.”TheOrganicFarmer’sHandbooktoGEAvoidanceandTesting(2014).Page57.Availableat:http://www.osgata.org/organic-seed-integrity/3ConversationwithJimGerritsen,PresidentoftheOrganicSeedGrowersandTradeAssociation(OSGATA)onApril12&13,2016.
![Page 11: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
8
theNon-GMOProject.4Cornucopiadisagreesthatimplementationofprotectivemethodsshouldbedelayedtowaitforfurtherdatacollection.Whilethatdataisbeing,collectedweshoulderronthesideofcaution.Thismeansquicklydevelopinganinterimguidancetodealwithseedpurityissueswhilemoredataiscollected.Thisguidanceshouldcontainstopgapmeasuresandlayoutstrategiesforcertifiersdealingwithseedpurityissues.Then,withadaptivemanagementstrategies,allaffectedpartiescanrespondtothechangingneedforseedpurity.SomeofthebestsourcesfordatawillcomefromNGOs,organicseedproducers,andorganicfarmers.Somenon-governmentsourceshavealreadydevelopeddatathatcouldbeutilized.Forexample,theOrganicSeedGrowersandTradeAssociationproducedahandbooktitled“ProtectingOrganicSeedIntegrity:TheOrganicFarmer’sHandbooktoGEAvoidanceandTesting.”5Thedocument“BestManagementPracticesforProducersofGMOandNon-GMOCrops”alsoprovidesasuccinctguideforprotectingseedpurity.6Othersubjectswheredatashouldbecollectedtomoveprojectsforwardonseedpurityinclude:
• FindingnewerandcheaperlabworkmethodstoverifyseedpuritythatmaintainthesameaccuracystandardsasPCRtesting.
• Determiningspecificland-usestrategiesthatcanhelpparticularlysensitivecrops(suchascornwhich,asawind-pollinatedcrop,isparticularlyvulnerabletocontamination).
B.CornucopiawouldsupportarecommendationthattheUSDAestablishaSeedPurityAdvisoryTaskForcewithcertainqualifications.Thistaskforceshouldincludeenvironmentalscientists,organicseedproducers,seedbiologists,andrepresentativesofcertifyingagencies,ataminimum.However,anyoneappointedtothistaskforcemustbemembersoftheorganiccommunity.Theseexpertsareneededtohelpguidepolicyasseedpurityissuesevolveandassigningpeoplefromoutsidetheorganicindustryhasthepotentialto,duetoconflictsofinterest,underminewhatthetaskforceisintendedtoprotectandstudy.Inaddition,werecommendafastertimetablethan3-5years,astheseareissuesthatareplayingouttodaythatwillimpactthefutureoforganicproduction.Ifcreated,someareasonwhichthetaskforceshouldfocustheirworkinclude:
• Determiningthemethodstospreadthecostsofseedcontaminationthroughoutthewholeagriculturalindustrysoorganicproducerstonotcarrythebruntoftheburden.
• WorkingwithAccreditedCertifyingAgents(ACAs)topinpointcommonareasofconcern.
4Non-GMOProject:Guidelines.Availableonlineat:http://www.nongmoproject.org/product-verification/about-gmo-testing/guidelines/5TheOrganicFarmer’sHandbooktoGEAvoidanceandTesting(2014).Availableat:http://www.osgata.org/organic-seed-integrity/6BestManagementPracticesforProducersofGMOandNon-GMOCrops,ByJimRiddle,OrganicOutreachCoordinator.Availableonlineat:http://www.demeter-usa.org/downloads/GMO-Contamination-Prevention.pdf
![Page 12: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
9
• QuicklyreleasingorworkwiththeNOSBinreleasingguidance(s)tohelpmaintainseedpuritywhileregulationsarebeingmodified.
• Solicitingpubliccommenttoshapeguidanceandtheoveralldirectionofthetaskforce’sprojects.
C.CornucopiawouldsupporttheNOSBproducingguidance’stohelpstrengthenorganicseedprovisionsintheregulations.However,thisshouldbeonetacticofmanyandnottheonlysteptakenwithrespecttoseedpurity.TheNOPshouldformallyrecognizethattheburdenofgeneticcontaminationshouldfallonthepollutersandincorporatethatintoanyregulationsandguidance.TheNOPandUSDAshoulddevelopbothguidanceandregulationstobringconventionalagricultureintotheconversation.Evenoutsidethequestionoforganics,itbenefitsagricultureingeneraltohavemanypurelinesofseeds.Asenvironmentalpressuresfromclimatechangeandoverpopulationincrease,ourfoodsystemwillbecomemoreinsecure.Relyingonmonocultureincreasestheriskofagriculturalcollapse.Inthisrespect,organicproductionencouragesthedevelopmentandpurityofnon-GMseedsandcontributestofuturefoodsecurityforallagriculturalsectors.Withrespecttothespecificitemslistedunderthissection,Cornucopiasupportstherecommendationthatthe“NOPshouldprovidemeaningfultrainingtoACAsannuallyonhowtomonitorprogressincomplyingwiththeneedforcontinuingimprovementinseedsourcing”inparticular.TheNOPneedtohelptheACAshelporganicoperatorsandtaketheburdenofoutsidepollutionofforganicproducerswhoarealreadydoingalltheycantoprotecttheirowncropsfromcontaminationandhavingtoworkwithinthelimitationsoftheorganicseedmarket.D.Soybeanscouldprovideavaluabletest,becauseitisaneasiercroptocontrol.However,theneedtodevelopseedpurityprotocolsforat-riskcropsisurgentandshouldnotbedelayedwithendlesstestingoncropsthatarelessat-risk.Doyouhaveanewsuggestiontoaddunderletter"E"?
• Cornucopiabelievesthatensuringthepurityofseedsusedfororganicproductionisespeciallyimportantwhenorganicgrowersuseconventionalseed.7Asofyet,thisareahasnotbeensubjectedtothesameoversightastheuseoforganicseed.Thisoversightshouldberectifiedintheguidance.
• Cornucopiamaintainsthatthefocusshouldbeonconventional,notorganic,seed.AsdetailedinCornucopia’scommentsontheNOPseedguidanceinMarchof2013,addinganothertestorprotocoltotestorganicseedincreasesthecostsforcertifiersandproducers.Ifregulationsorguidanceisonlyappliedtoorganicseed,thiswillincreasetheoverallcostsofthatseedandhurtstheorganicmarket.Becauseofthis
7Conventionalseedcanbeusedinspecificcircumstancesaccordingto§205.204(a)(1)whichstatesthat“Nonorganicallyproduced,untreatedseedsandplantingstockmaybeusedtoproduceanorganiccropwhenanequivalentorganicallyproducedvarietyisnotcommerciallyavailable…”
![Page 13: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
10
harmfuldisincentive,anyseedpuritystandardshouldapplytobothconventionalandorganicseed.Thismeansthatanyconventionalseedusedinorganicagricultureshouldalsomaintaina0%threshold.
• Theexpensefortestingforseedcontaminationshouldfallonthepolluters.Nowhereelseinourlegalsystemdoesapropertyownerhavetopayoutoftheirownpocketsforthetrespassofanotherontotheirproperty–butthatiswhatishappeninginorganicagriculture.Thecurrentsystemisunbalanced,corrupt,andcauseseconomicharmtoorganicfarmers.Organicproducersshouldnothavetopaytheexpenseofconfirmingtheircropsarefreefromcontamination,andeconomiclossifitisproventobecontaminated,astheyareaninnocentvictim.Instead,manufacturersofGEcropsshouldcontributetoafundwhichorganicfarmerscandrawfromforPCRtesting.TheUSDAandAPHISshouldmandatethisfundingthroughtheirregulationofgeneticallyengineeredcrops.
IfyouthinkthatAisworkablehowandwherewouldyousuggestforthetestingdatatobecollectedandcompiled?Thesequestionsarealreadybeingactivelyaddressedbyorganicseedproducers.CornucopiasupportstestingusingPCRmethods,asrelyingoninaccuratetests(suchasstriptests)candestroyanorganicfarmer’sviability.IfyouthinkthatCshouldbetakenupbytheNOSB,arethereotherportionsoftheSeedGuidancethatshouldbestrengthened?Aspointedoutbymanystakeholders,theNOPseedguidanceissuedinMarch,2013failedtoaddressmanyofthepubliccommentsortheNOSBrecommendationsofthetime.Manyofthesecommentswerewell-researchedandshouldbeutilizedbytheNOPinthefuturetostrengthentheSeedGuidance.Inadditiontotheseissues,theseedpuritystandardshouldbebasedonazerotolerancesystem.Thatmeansthatorganicseedsshouldtestashavingnogeneticallyengineeredconstituents.Conventionalseedusedfororganicagriculturemeetthesamezerotolerancerequirement.
![Page 14: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
11
LIVESTOCKSUBCOMMITTEE
PROPOSALSHypochlorousAcidCommentslistedonpages114-120
![Page 15: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
12
Lidocaine&ProcaineAnnotationSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportsthechangesrecommendedbytheLivestockSubcommitteeregardinglidocaine&procaineontheNationalListunder§205.603syntheticsubstancesallowedforuseinorganiclivestock.Thesuggestedchangesaretoreducethewithholdingperiodformeatanddairyfromtreatedanimals.
Rationale:
! Lidocaine&Procainearerelativelysafe,effective,widelyavailable,localanestheticsusedtoreducepaininananimalduringveterinarysurgicalproceduresorduringdehorning.
! Lidocaineispredominantlyusedbyveterinariansbecauseitisfasteractingandlongerlasting,aswellasbeingapprovedforveterinaryuse.
! Potentialtoxicityisminimalwhenusedappropriately.! Safeandeffectivenon-syntheticalternativesarenotavailable.! Thecurrent90-daywithholdingperiodsseemexcessiveandmaydiscourage
producersfromusingtheseanesthetics.! Shorterwithholdingperiodsaresupportedbyresearch.However,someresearch
doesindicatetheproposed8-daywithholdingperiodmaynotbelongenoughtoremovetoxicmetabolites.However,a15-daywithholdingperiodformilkanda28-daywithholdingperiodformeatappearbesufficienttoreduceanyresiduestosafelevels.
DISCUSSIONThesyntheticdrugslidocaineandprocainewerefirstapprovedforuseinorganiclivestockproductionin1995.Procainewasdevelopedforcommercialusein1905,whilelidocainehasbeenincommercialusesince1949.Whilethecompoundssharesomesimilarityintheirmodeofaction,lidocaineisquickeracting,andmoreeffective,thanprocaine.8Additionally,itistheonlyanestheticactuallyapprovedforuseoncattlebytheFDA.9Assuch,lidocainehasbecomethemostlycommonlyusedlocalanestheticinveterinarymedicineintheU.S.10Lidocainehydrochlorideisawater-solubleinjectabledrugwhichactsquicklytonumbaninjectionsitetoreducethefeelingofpain.Itisregularlyusedforminimizingpainduringsurgeryordehorning,fortreatingpainfulwounds,orasanepidural.Whilethelocal
8OpinionoftheScientificCommitteeoftheNorwegianScientificCommitteeforFoodSafety10June2005:Riskassessmentoflidocaineresiduesinfoodproductsfromcattle,swine,sheepandgoats:withdrawalperiodsformeatandmilk.www.vkm.no/dav/8b9b95e522.pdf9GeofSmith,DVM,MS,PhD,“ExtralabelUseofAnestheticandAnalgesicCompoundsinCattle”VetClinFoodAnim29(2013)29–45http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.00310https://instruction.cvhs.okstate.edu/.../pdf/14LocalAnesthesia2006b.pdf
![Page 16: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
13
syntheticanestheticprocainecanalsobeused,itsactionisslowertotakeeffectanditdoesnotlastaslong.Thus,itoffersnoadvantagesasanalternativetolidocainefororganicproducers.InarecentsurveyTheCornucopiaInstituteconductedwithcertifiedorganiclivestockproducers(excludingpoultry),10farmersoutof28respondents,thusfar,mentionedthattheyusedthe2%lidocainehydrochlorideononeoftheiranimalsforpainrelief.Thisprobablydemonstratesthatitisacommonlyuseddrug.Whileitispossibletooverdose,whenlidocaineisusedasdirecteditisconsideredsafe,andnon-addictive.Itisnotadrugthatisindemandforillicituse.Twopercentlidocainehydrochlorideisonlyavailableforusebyalicensedveterinarianorunderthedirectsupervisionofalicensedveterinarian.ConcernsaboutwithholdingintervalFororganiclivestockuse,thecurrentwithholdingperiodafteradministeringlidocaineissevendaysformilkand90daysformeat.It’squestionableastowhethersuchalongwithholdingperiodisnecessaryformeatanimals.Averyrealconcernisthattheexcessivelylongwithholdingperiodmaydiscouragelivestockproducersfromusinglidocainetoreducepainwhenitwouldbeinthebestinterestoftheanimal’swelfaretousethedrug.Livestockproducersfaceincreasingscrutinybythegeneralpublicandmediaovertheircareofanimals.Whenawound,injury,orprocedureislikelytocauseananimalpain,livestockproducersshouldbeencouragedtoprovidetreatmentforthatpain,asthehumanetreatmentoflivestockisapriorityforbothproducersandconsumers.Therefore,thereshouldnotbeanunsubstantiatedbarriertotreatinglivestockforpain,suchasanexcessivewithholdingperiodforacommonlyused,relativelysafedrug,suchaslidocainehydrochloride.Drugresiduesinmeatandmilkareaconcerninmodernlivestockproduction,asresiduescancausepotentialhealthhazardstohumans.Withholdingperiodsaresettoreducetheriskofanypotentialhazards.Additionally,theNOPhastypicallyadoptedwithholdingperiodsthataredoublethestandardwithholdingperiodsforconventionallivestockproduction,basedonconsumerperceptionoftheextraprecautionstakeninorganicagriculture.The90-daywithholdingrequirementformeatanimalsinorganicproductionseemsexcessiveandisnotsupportedbyresearch.11ThecurrentFARADrecommendedwithdrawalperiodsforlidocaineandprocaineforconventionalmeatanddairyis24hours.
11OpinionoftheScientificCommitteeoftheNorwegianScientificCommitteeforFoodSafety10June2005:Riskassessmentoflidocaineresiduesinfoodproductsfromcattle,swine,sheepandgoats:withdrawalperiodsformeatandmilk.www.vkm.no/dav/8b9b95e522.pdf
![Page 17: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
14
However,a24-hourwithdrawaltimemightbeinsufficient.A2015reviewbyEuropeanMedicinesAgency’sCommitteeforMedicinalProductsforVeterinaryUse(CVMP)suggeststhata28-daywithholdingperiodissufficientformeat,anda15-daywithholdingperiodissufficientfordairyproducts,toreducepotentialgenotoxicitytoalevelbelowanyconcern.12Researchindogs,cats,sheep,horses,andratsdemonstratesrapideliminationoflidocaineanditsmetabolites,usuallywithinseveraldaysofadministration.13Researchavailablefromcattlesuggeststhathalf-livesofdrugsaretypicallyshorterincattlethanindogsandcatsorhumans.14Astudycompletedin2009onHolsteindairycattledemonstratedalmosttotalclearanceandlow-detectableresiduesinthemilkwithin36hoursoflidocaineadministeredasaninjectedepidural.Thisstudyiswidelyusedtosupportthestandardwithholdingperiodsoffourdaysformeatand72hoursfordairy.15Yet,theCVMPreviewmentionedabovesupportslongerwithholdingperiods,becauseoneofthemetabolitesoflidocainecalledisagenotoxiccarcinogeninratsandresearchhasnotestablishedalevelofexposurerequiredforcarcinogenicity.TheCVMPsetathresholdforconsumptionat0.15μgfor2,6xylidineresidueinmeatandmilk.Basedontheexpectedhalf-lifeanalysisfromamaximumdoseoflidocaine,awithdrawalperiodof15daysformilkand28daysformeatbringstheresiduelevelswellbelowthatthreshold.5Inthecaseoflidocaineandprocaine,therecommendedchangetoawithholdingperiodofeightdaysformeatandsixdaysformilkmaybearationalcompromiseuntilthereisfurtherevidenceforeithershorteningorlengtheningthewithdrawalperiod.Thiswithdrawalperiodwouldallowforpracticaluseoflidocaineandprocaineandstilllikelyminimizeanyissueswithresiduesinmeatanddairyproduction.NOSBLivestockSubcommitteeactionMay19,2015LidocainewasevaluatedagainsttheOFPAcriteriaandfoundtosatisfythemall.SubcommitteevoteMotiontoremovefrom§205.603Yes:0,No:6.Theleadboardmemberinthediscussionofthismaterialindicatedthatshewoulddevelopaproposaltomodify/reducethewithdrawalperiod.12CVMPAssessmentReportRegardingtheRequestforanOpinionUnderArticle30(3)ofRegulation(EC)No726/2004.CommitteeforMedicinalProductsforVeterinaryUse.EuropeanMedicinesAgency.EMA/CVMP/118717/2015.April10,2015.13Ibid.14BaggottJD.ThePhysiologicalBasisofVeterinaryClinicalPharmacology.Oxford:Blackwell,200115Sellers,G.,Lin,H.C.,Riddell,M.G.,Ravis,W.R.,Duran,S.H.andGivens,M.D.2009,PharmacokineticsoflidocaineinserumandmilkofmatureHolsteincows.JournalofVeterinaryPharmacologyandTherapeutics,32:446–450.
![Page 18: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
15
July21,2015LidocaineandProcaine-AnnotationChange.TheLSvotedpreviouslyagainstremovinglidocaineandprocaineaspartofSunsetreview,butisdevelopingaseparateproposaltochangetheannotations.TheLSproposedquestionsaboutareducedwithholdingtimeandcommenters,includingseveralproducersandorganizations,weresupportiveofthestepdown.Theleadindicatedthatthereisstrongsciencebehindthisidea.Theleadmadesomemodificationstothedraftdocumentbasedonthediscussion.Subcommitteevote:Motiontochangeannotationsforlidocaineandprocaineon§205.603Lidocaine-asalocalanesthetic.Userequiresawithdrawalperiodof5daysafteradministeringtolivestock.Procaine—asalocalanesthetic,userequiresawithdrawalperiodof5daysafteradministeringtolivestock.Vote:Yes:4,No:0August4,2015LSnotesLidocaineandprocaine.Bothofthedocumentsproposingannotationchangeswererevisedandwillbeputforthasdiscussiondocsinsteadofproposals.Inlightoftherevisions,theLSchosetorevoteonthe2017Sunsetproposaltoremoveprocaine.TheoriginalvotewasconductedonMay19.TheLSdoesnotfeelthattheyneedarevoteonlidocaine,asthesechangeswillnotaffecttheoutcomeofthatvote.Subcommitteerevote:AdditionalDiscussion:Yes:4,No:2Lidocaine/Procaineannotationchangediscussiondocument.TheLSaddedspecificquestionsforbothlidocaineandprocaineforwhichtheyareseekingpubliccomment.MotiontoaccepttheLidocaine/Procaineannotationchangediscussiondocument.AdditionalDiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0January19,2016Toamend§205.603(b)Astopicaltreatment,externalparasiticideorlocalanesthetic,asapplicable.Lidocaine—asalocalanesthetic.Userequiresawithdrawalperiodof90days8daysafteradministeringtolivestockintendedforslaughterand7days6daysafteradministeringtodairyanimalsProcaine—asalocalanesthetic.Userequiresawithdrawalperiodof90days8daysafteradministeringtolivestockintendedforslaughterand7days6daysafteradministeringtodairyanimals.Subcommitteevotes:Motion#1.Thatthedeletedlanguageberemovedandunderlinedlanguageaddedat:§205.603(b)Astopicaltreatment,externalparasiticideorlocalanestheticasapplicable.Lidocaine—asalocalanesthetic.Userequiresawithdrawalperiodof90days8daysafteradministeringtolivestockintendedforslaughterand7days6daysafteradministeringtodairyanimals.Yes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:0,Recuse:0
![Page 19: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
16
Motion#2.Thatthedeletedlanguageberemovedandunderlinedlanguageaddedat:§205.603(b)Astopicaltreatment,externalparasiticideorlocalanestheticasapplicable.(7)Procaine—asalocalanesthetic.Userequiresawithdrawalperiodof90days8daysafteradministeringtolivestockintendedforslaughterand7days6daysafteradministeringtodairyanimals.Yes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:0,Recuse:0CONCLUSION
Lidocaineisawidelyused,readilyavailable,andrelativelysafelocalanestheticwithnobetteralternatives.TheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherecommendationsoftheLivestockSubcommitteetoshortenthewithholdingperiodsformeatanddairyanimalsaftertreatmentwithlidocaineorprocaine.
![Page 20: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
17
AnnotationChangesParasiticidesIvermectinSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposestherecommendedchangesmadebytheLivestockSubcommitteeastheyapplytoIvermectin.Instead,TheCornucopiaInstituteisinagreementwithLivestockSubcommittee’s5:1votetoremoveIvermectinonJune2,2015.However,sincedelistingcannotbedoneatthismeeting,TheCornucopiaInstituterecommendsthatIvermectinbesentbacktotheLSforreview.Rationale:
• Ivermectinisharmfultotheenvironment,asitsresidueinmanure,fromtreatedlivestock,islethaltodungbeetles,andcanpoisonaquaticspecies.
• Ivermectinhaslostitseffectivenessagainstmanytypesofinternalparasitesduetoitsoveruseinlivestockproduction,andrelatedresistance.
DISCUSSIONSinceitsintroductionin1981,asananthelmetic/dewormerforlivestock,Ivermectinhasbecomethepredominantparasiticideduetoitslowcost,itsbroadspectrumofeffectivenessandvarietyoftreatmentmethodsinwhichitcanbeused.16Ivermectinispartofaclassofchemicalcompoundscalledthe“macrocycliclactones.”Ivermectinisinthemacrocycliclactonesubgroupofavermectins.TheyareobtainedinfermentationprocessesusingStreptomycesandsubsequentpurificationand/orchemicalmodificationofthefermentationproducts.Ivermectinstimulatesthereleaseofgammaaminobutyricacid(GABA)fromnerveendingsandenhancesbindingofGABAtospecialreceptorsatnervejunctions.Thissuppressesnerveimpulses,leadingtoparalysisand,eventually,deathoftheparasite.Themodeofactionissimilarforbothnematodesandarthropods.Ivermectinisabroad-spectrumparasiticideanddisplaysantimicrobialactivity,whichhasledsomesourcestoconsideritan“antibiotic.”IfIvermectinisconsideredanantibiotic,itisdifficulttoreconcileitsuse,giventhecategoricalprohibitiononantibioticsforuseinorganicsystems.Parasiticideusehasbeentoleratedinorganiclivestockproductiononalimitedbasistoalleviateanimalsuffering.Toletananimaldiebecauseofanextensiveparasiteinfectionis
16http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
![Page 21: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
18
inhumaneandalsonotcompatiblewithasystemoforganicagriculture.However,theparasiticideFendbendazoleiseffectiveandmuchmoreenvironmentallybenign.17AttheNOSBSpringmeetingin2015,Dr.HubertKarremanrecommendedinhiscommentsthatIvermectinbeSunsetted.“ThiswastheoriginalintentwhenwevotedtoallowFenbendazolewhileIwasLivestockChairoftheNOSB.Thetranscriptsofthatmeetingclearlyreflectthatintent.Ivermectinistoxictodungbeetles,whichareanintegralpartofpasturelandecology.”EnvironmentalconcernsTheavermectins,ofwhichIvermectinisapart,areextremelybroad-spectrumbiocidalagentsandarevariablycategorizedasparasiticide,anthelmintics,acaricides,insecticides,ormacrolideantibiotics.FreeIvermectinwillbindtothesoil.Onceinthesoil,aswellasinthefeces,Ivermectinhasbeenlinkedtothekillingofdungbeetles.18ThesamestudyshowedthatFenbendazoledidnothavethesametoxiceffectsondungbeetles.AnotherstudyfromOhioStateUniversityconfirmedthatfecalconcentrationsofcattlegivenIvermectinwerelethalorsub-lethaltomanydungbreedinginvertebratesbeneficialtotheecosystem.Thisresultwasreplicatedinsubsequentstudies.19A2002studyshowedthatsixcommonlyusedveterinarymedications(includingbothIvermectinandFenbendazole)causedlivestockmanuretomoreslowlydecay,whichlikelyindicatesanegativeeffectondungbeetlesoronthedecayingmicroorganismsthatnormallywouldbreakdownthemanureinamatterofafewmonths.20Iflivestockmanurebreaksdownmoreslowly,notonlycanitharbormoreparasitesandflylarvaebutthisalsopreventstherecyclingofnutrientsthatissoessentialforgoodmanuremanagement.Vegetationalsodoesnotgrowwellunderintactmanurewhich,overtime,meansadegradationofpasturehealth.The2015TechnicalReportonParasiticides,compiledbyUSDA/AMSAgricultureAnalyticsDivision[authorsunknown],fullydocumentsthestudiesmentionedabove,thatdemonstrateIvermectin’stoxicitytodungbeetles,andtheconsequentialnegativeeffectsontheenvironment.21
17Wall,R.andL.Strong.(1987).EnvironmentalConsequencesofTreatingCattlewiththeAntiparasiticDrugIvermectin.Nature327:418-421.18Ibid.19Madsen,M.(1990).TreatingcattlewithIvermectin:EffectsontheFaunaanddecompositionofdungpats.JournalofAppliedEcology.27:1-15.20Sommer,C.andB.M.Bibby.(2002).Theinfluenceofveterinarymedicinesonthedecompositionofdungorganicmatterinsoil.EuropeanJournalofSoilBiology.38(2):155-159.21TechnicalReportonParasiticides.(2015).CompiledbyUSDA,AMS,AgriculturalAnalyticsDivisionfortheUSDANationalOrganicProgram
![Page 22: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
19
HumanandlivestockhealthconcernsBecausemanymacrocycliclactonesarelipophilic(meaningtheyhaveanaffinitytofatsanddonotdissolvewellinwater),substantialconcentrationswillbefoundinedibletissuesofthelivestock.Asmuchas5%oftheadministereddrugcanbesecretedintheanimals’milk.Forthisreason,Ivermectinisnotapprovedforuseondairyanimals(buttopicalMoxidectin,anothermacrocycliclactone,isallowed).22Essentialityandalternatives Allthreeoftheseparasiticidesdescribedinthesecommentshaveshownsomeproblemswithvariablelevelsofresistancedevelopmentbysomeparasites.Theresearchisnotreallyconclusive;whatworksononefarmoroneflock/herdofanimalsmaynotworkonanother.Becauseofthis,itisimportanttofirstidentifywhichparasitesarepresentandatwhatlevels.Ifthelevelsofparasitismrequireinterventionandallothermethodshavefailed,thenafarmermustpicktheparasiticidemosteffectiveagainstthatparticularparasite.Ifawormerusedbyaproducerdoesn’tappeartoofferthedesiredcontrol,adifferentonemayhavetobetried.Thisisonereasonwhyitisimportanttohaveafewchoicesofanthelminticsincasetheparasitesareshowingresistancetooneofthewormers.Therearealsomanyalternativestousingsyntheticparasiticidesandrestricteduserequirementsshouldfavorthese.Aswithalllivestockdiseases,organicfarmersshouldimplementavarietyofpreventativepracticestoavoidhavingparasiteissues.Somealternativesinclude:selectionofdisease-resistantbreedsandbreedingstock,cullingsusceptibleanimals(roughly10%-15%ofaherdwillshed80%oftheparasiteeggs),rotationalgrazing,preventingovergrazing(inwhichthelivestockisforcedtoeatlowerontheplantswherethelarvaetendtoaccumulate),plantingofnaturallyanthelminticplantsinthepastures(Sericealespedeza,chicory,andplantainareafewexamples),andothermanagementapproaches.Naturalremediesonceananimalhasparasitesmayincludegarlic,wormwood,psyllium,quassia,pumpkinseedmeal,papayaseeds,diatomaceousearth,activatedcharcoal,andothermethods,althoughtheirefficacyisunconvincing.23,24Jackson-O’Brien’sresearchshowedthatapumpkinseedmealoraldrenchshowedsomepromise,butthatgarlic,ginger,andpapayaseedsshownoefficacy.
22Baynes,R.E.,M.Payne,T.M.Jimenez,A.R.Abdullah,K.L.Anderson,A.I.Webb,A.Craigmill,J.E.Riviere.(2000).ExtralabeluseofIvermectinandMoxidectininfoodanimals.VeterinaryMedicineToday:FARADDigest.217(5):668-671.23Allen,J.,M.Boal,P.Doherty.(1998).IdentifyingandTestingAlternativeParasiticidesforUseintheProductionofOrganicLamb.OrganicFarmingResearchFoundationFinalReport98-03.24Jackson-O'Brien,D.(2012).EfficacyofNaturalDewormersintheControlofGastrointestinalNematodesofSmallRuminants.SustainableAgricultureResearchandEducation(SARE).NortheastSARE2012FinalReport
![Page 23: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
20
PreliminaryResultsofCornucopia’sCertifiedOrganicLivestockProducerSurveyInourlatestsurveyofcertifiedorganiclivestockproducers,32%saidthattheyusedatleastoneofthesethreesyntheticwormersonoccasion,themostcommonbeingIvermectin(7outof28respondents).Alternativestoutilizingchemicalwormersthatwerementionedbysurveyrespondentsinclude(byorderoffrequency):diatomaceousearth(7),pumpkinsorpumpkinseeds(2),Pyganic(1),rotationalgrazing(1),keepingaclosedherd(1),homeopathy(1),copperboluses(1),garlic(1),herbs(1),andNeem-a-tox(1).Severalmentionedthatmuchmoreresearchneedstogointoalternativestosyntheticwormers,asparasitesareanongoingissueforalmosteverylivestockproducer,regardlessofhowwelltheyfarm.Therewillalwaysbesomelevelofparasitecolonizationinlivestock.CompatibilitywithorganicagricultureInlightoftheNOSB’sotherpoliciesonanimalhealth,useofsuchmaterialswouldnotbeconsideredcompatiblewithasystemoforganicagriculture.Theadministrationofanysyntheticanthelminticswouldresultinthelossoforganicstatusoftheanimal.However,thelongwithdrawalperiodsrequiredintheannotations(90daysfordairyanimals,lastthirdofgestationforbreedingstock,prohibitedinslaughterstockcompletely)arebelievedbysometobeareasonablecompromiseinsteadofacompletelossoftheorganicstatusfortheanimals.Inanycase,justasintheadministrationoftherapeuticantibiotics,producersshouldnotwithholdtreatmentfrominfestedanimalstohavethemconsideredorganic.Suchanimalsmustbetreatedanddivertedtotheconventionalmarketifnecessary.Compatibilitywithasystemofsustainableagriculturemustbeevaluatedonseverallevels.Oneisthewelfareoftheanimalsbeingraised.Inadditiontoalleviatinganimalsufferingrelatedtoitchingandafailuretothrive,parasitescanhavemoreseriousconsequencesfortheanimalsthemselves.Internalparasitismisacommoncauseofanemiainsmallruminants.25Infact,afrequentreasonforusinganthelminticsinsmallruminantsissalvage(i.e.,treatmenttosavethelifeoftheanimal),notjustparasitecontrol.26Also,averyinfected,wormyanimalwilloftenbecondemnedbyUSDAinspectorsatslaughter,sothereisanadditionaleconomiclossfromparasitism.Yet,sustainabilityofsyntheticparasiticideswillalwaysbecompromisedbyinterdependentfactors,suchastheunder-dosingofanimalsbyownerstreatingtheirownlivestock(orwormingtheentireherdwhetherneededornot),leadingtoanincreaseinanthelminticresistance,environmentalcontamination,andresultingingreateruseofanthelminticswithlowercontrolachieved.Therefore,theNOSBshouldnotconcernitselfwithwhetherornot
25Waldridge,BM(1998)WeightLossandlethargy:diagnosticchallenge.VeterinaryForum(May):72-73.26LuginbuhlJM(1997)Roundwormsingoatherds.LivestockNewsletter.http://jackson.ces.stat.nc.us/newsletters/livestock/jan-feb97
![Page 24: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
21
infectedanimalsshouldbetreated;theconsensusisthattheyshould.Therealquestioniswhattodowithtreatedanimalsandwhattodowithoperationsthatregularlyusesyntheticparasiticidesprophylacticallyonalargeportionoftheirherds.Again,theannotationsprohibitroutineuse,sothisshouldnotbeanissueforcertifiedorganicoperations.Istheuseofsyntheticparasiticides,evenwiththerestrictiveannotation,compatiblewiththeprinciplesandpracticeoforganicagriculture?Thisisanespeciallypoignantquestion,assomeexpertsviewthismaterialasan“antibiotic.”However,fromananimalwelfareperspective,whenparasiticidessuchasIvermectinareused,asalastresorttosavethelifeofananimal,theyarecertainlynecessary.Thequestionisshouldthatanimalbeforcedtobedivertedfromorganicproductionasisinthecaseafteradministrationoftherapeuticantibiotics.InregardstotheuseofIvermectin,theanswerisyes.NOSBLivestockSubcommitteeactionOnJune2nd,2015theLivestockSubcommitteefoundthatIvermectinfailedtomeettheOFPAcriteriaregardingenvironmentalimpacts,becauseitisharmfultodungbeetlesandthesoil.Subcommitteevote:MotiontoremoveIvermectinfrom§205.603Yes:5,No:1,Absent:2However,theNOSBrelistedallparasiticides,includingIvermectinatthe2015FallNOSBmeeting.January19,2016:TheLivestockSubcommittee(LS)has,asrequestedbycommentersduringtheSunsetconsiderationofthesematerials,reconsideredthelistingofallthreeandmakestheseproposals:Motion#1.Toamend§205.238(b)(2)asfollows:Dairystockanimals-cows,whenusedaminimumof90daysafteruseofIvermectin,or2daysafteruseofFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin,priortotheproductionofmilkormilkproductsthataretobesold,labeled,orrepresentedasorganic.ANDMotiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)asfollows:MilkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalcowcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor90days,followingtreatmentwithIvermectin,or2daysfollowingtreatmentwithFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin,priortotheproductionofmilkormilkproductsthataretobesold,labeled,orrepresentedasorganic.Motion:JRSecond:FTAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0
Motion#2.Toadd§205.238(b)(3)asfollows:Dairyanimals-goats/sheepwhenusedaminimumof90daysafteruseofIvermectin,or36daysafteruseofFenbenzadoleor
![Page 25: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
22
Moxidectin.ANDMotiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)asfollows:“…Milkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalgoat/sheepcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor90daysfollowingtreatmentwithIvermectin,or36daysfollowingtreatmentwithFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin.Motion:JRSecond:FTAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofIvermectinon§205.603asarestrictedparasiticideandencouragestheNOSBtosendthismaterialbacktotheLSforreview.Ivermectinisharmfultodungbeetlesandsoillife,canactasanantibiotic,andisnotconsistentwithOFPAcriteria.
![Page 26: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
23
MoxidectinSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherecommendedchangessuggestedbytheLivestockSubcommitteeastheyapplytoMoxidectin:
MilkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor:2daysfollowingtreatmentofcattle;36daysfollowingtreatmentofgoats,sheep,andotherdairyspecies.
NOSBLivestockSubcommitteeactionJune2,2015:ThesubcommitteemotiontoremoveMoxidectinfrom§205.603asatreatmentforlivestockwasYes:4,No:2.However,theNOSBrelistedallparasiticides,includingMoxidectinatthe2015FallNOSBmeeting.SubcommitteevotesJanuary19,2016:Motion#1.Toamend§205.238(b)(2)asfollows:Dairystockanimals-cows,whenusedaminimumof90daysafteruseofIvermectin,or2daysafteruseofFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin,priortotheproductionofmilkormilkproductsthataretobesold,labeled,orrepresentedasorganic.And,Motiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)asfollows:MilkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalcowcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor90daysfollowingtreatmentwithIvermectin,or2daysfollowingtreatmentwithFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin,priortotheproductionofmilkormilkproductsthataretobesold,labeled,orrepresentedasorganic.Motion:JRSecond:FTAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0Motion#2.Toadd§205.238(b)(3)asfollows:Dairyanimals-goats/sheepwhenusedaminimumof90daysafteruseofIvermectin,or36daysafteruseofFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin.ANDMotiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)asfollows:“…Milkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalgoat/sheepcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor90daysfollowingtreatmentwithIvermectin,or36daysfollowingtreatmentwithFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin.Motion:JRSecond:FTAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0Motion#3.Toamend§205.603(a)(18)(iii)asfollows:Moxidectin(CAS#113507-06-5)—forcontrolofinternalparasitesonly.Motion:JRSecond:TFFurtherdiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0
![Page 27: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
24
Motion#4.Toamend§205.238(b)(4)toadd(3)Fiberbearinganimals,whenusedaminimumof90dayspriortoproductionoffleeceorwoolthatistobesold,labeledorrepresentedasorganic.ANDMotiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)toadd-Allowedforfiberbearinganimalswhenusedaminimumof90dayspriortoproductionoffleeceorwoolthatistobesold,labeledorrepresentedasorganic.Motion:JRSecond:TFAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0
![Page 28: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
25
FenbendazoleSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherecommendedchangessuggestedbytheLivestockSubcommitteeastheyapplytoFenbendazole:
“Prohibitedinslaughterstock.Mayonlybeusedinemergencytreatmentfordairyandbreederstockwhenorganicsystemplan-approvedpreventivemanagementdoesnotpreventinfestation.Milkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalcannotberepresentedasorganic,eitheras“100%organic”orascontributingorganicingredientsina“95%organic”or“madewithorganic”productfor90daysfollowingtreatment.Inbreederstock,treatmentcannotoccurduringthelastthirdofgestationiftheprogenywillbesoldasorganicandmustnotbeusedduringthelactationperiodofbreedingstock.Onlyforusebyoronthelawfulwrittenorderofalicensedveterinarian.Syntheticparasiticidesmustnotbeadministeredonaroutinebasis.”
NOSBLivestockSubcommitteeactionJune2,2015FendbendazolewasfoundtosatisfyallOFPAcriteria.TheNOSBrelistedallparasiticides,includingFendbendazole,atthe2015FallNOSBmeeting.Subcommitteevotes:Motion#1.ToremoveFendbendazolefrom§205.603Yes:0,No:6.August18,2015LSnotes.Paraciticides. (Ivermectin, Moxidectin, and Fendbendazole). The LS developed a discussion document in an effort to clarify the annotations. The LS also feels that the withholding periods for these materials are excessive, and will suggest changes. The Subcommittee will include several questions for public comment.January19th,2016Motion#2.Toamend§205.238(b)(2)asfollows:Dairystockanimals-cows,whenusedaminimumof90daysafteruseofIvermectin,or2daysafteruseofFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin,priortotheproductionofmilkormilkproductsthataretobesold,labeled,orrepresentedasorganic.ANDMotiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)asfollows:MilkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalcowcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor90daysfollowingtreatmentwithIvermectin,or2daysfollowingtreatmentwithFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin,priortotheproductionofmilkormilkproductsthataretobesold,labeled,orrepresentedasorganic.Motion:JR,Second:FT,Additionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0
![Page 29: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
26
Motion#3.Toadd§205.238(b)(3)asfollows:Dairyanimals-goats/sheepwhenusedaminimumof90daysafteruseofIvermectin,or36daysafteruseofFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin.And,Motiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)asfollows:“…Milkormilkproductsfromatreatedanimalgoat/sheepcannotbelabeledasprovidedforinsubpartDofthispartfor90daysfollowingtreatmentwithIvermectin,or36daysfollowingtreatmentwithFenbenzadoleorMoxidectin.Motion:JR,Second:FT,Additionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0Motion#4.Toamend§205.603(a)(18)(i)asfollows:Fenbendazole(CAS#43210-67-9)onlyforusebyoronthelawfulwrittenorderofalicensedveterinarianMotion:JRSecond:FTAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0Motion#5.Toamend§205.238(b)(4)toadd(3)fiberbearinganimals,whenusedaminimumof90dayspriortoproductionoffleeceorwoolthatistobesold,labeledorrepresentedasorganic.ANDMotiontoamend§205.603(a)(18)toadd-Allowedforfiberbearinganimalswhenusedaminimumof90dayspriortoproductionoffleeceorwoolthatistobesold,labeledorrepresentedasorganic.Motion:JRSecond:TFAdditionaldiscussion:noneYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0,Absent:0
![Page 30: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
27
POLICYDEVELOPMENTSUBCOMMITTEE
PROPOSAL
PolicyandProceduresManualRevisionsRefertosupplementaldocument.
DISCUSSIONDOCUMENTSunsetTimelineReorganizationTheCornucopiaInstitutegenerallysupportsanyrecommendationforSunsetreorganizationthatdoesnotimpedepubliccomment,thetimegivenfortheNOSBtoreviewcomments,orviolatesOFPA.Werecognizethathavinganunbalancednumberofmaterialreviewsfromoneyeartoanotherleadstoafranticworkloadinsomeyearsandamoremanageableworkloadotherinothers.EfficiencyshouldbeanimportantpartofNOSBadministration,solongasitdoesnotimpactthequalityofthereviews.However,becausesomematerialsmaybereviewedearlierthantheywouldhavebeenundertheoldsystem,itisimportantthatthereisamechanismtoallownewinformationtobeintroducedintheinterveningyears.Otherwise,amaterialreviewedearlierthanitsfive-yearSunsetdatecouldmissnewresearch,comments,orotherinformationnecessarytothedecision-makingprocess.WerecommendthatthereisasysteminplaceforongoingcommentonanyNOSBmaterial.InthepasttheNOSB,supportedbytheorganiccommunity,hasaskedtheNOPtosetupanopendocketsothatopencommunicationscouldtakeplacebetweenmeetings.Thecurrent30-daycommentperiodaftertheNOSBmeetingagendaandmaterialsarereleasedisnotenoughtimetothoroughlyrevieweachagendaitem.Inaddition,thereisnotenoughtimebetweenwhencommentsaresubmittedtoregulations.govandthetimetheNOSBmeetingbegins.Boardmemberscannotproperlyreadandinterpretallcommentssubmittedwithoutexorbitanttimecommitments.
![Page 31: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
28
SPECIALCOMMENTCACS:EliminatingtheIncentivetoConvertNaturalEcosystemsintoOrganicProductionBACKGROUNDInMay,2009theNationalOrganicStandardsBoard(NOSB)madesomespecificrecommendationsaskingtheNOPtoestablishstandardsforbiodiversity,includingbiodiversitystandardsforaccreditationandcertifieraudits.27InDecember,2014,theNOPpublishedthe5020DraftGuidanceNaturalResourcesandBiodiversityConservationforCertifiedOperationsintheFederalRegister,requestingpubliccomment.Thefinalguidancewascompleted,afterconsiderationofpubliccomment,inJanuary,2016.28TheNOPacknowledgedtheywereonlyaddressingacoupleoftheNOSB’s2009recommendations.Theysetasidetherecommendationstoincorporatebiodiversitystandardsintotheproceduresforaccreditationandcertifieraudits;andtherecommendationforuseofmaterialsevaluationcriteriathatfosterconsiderationofbiodiversityconservationwhenaddingordeletingmaterialsfromtheNationalListofAllowedandProhibitedSubstances.InFebruary,2015theWildFarmAlliance(WFA)releasedacommentontheNOP’s5020DraftGuidance.Ingeneral,WFAconsideredtheguidanceapositivesteptowardaddressingissuesofbiodiversityandconservationwithinorganics.However,theyalsohadsomevalidconcernsregardingtheNOPpolicy.ChiefamongtheseconcernswasthepracticaleffectoftheNOP’spolicytowaivethethree-yearwaitingperiodfortransitioningtoorganicproductionfromlandthathasneverhadchemicalapplications.WhileWFAacknowledgedthatthistransitioningpolicyservesacriticalpurposeandshouldberetained,theyalsopointedoutthatanunintendedconsequenceofthistransitionpolicyistoincentivizetheconversionofnativeecosystemstoorganicproduction.WFAultimatelymadesomerecommendationstodevelopregulatoryorguidancelanguagetodiscouragesuchconversion.TheCornucopiaInstituteagreeswithWFAthatsupportingconservationpractices,addressingnaturalresourceissues,andsupportingbiodiversityconservationwithinagricultureisessential.Theconversionofnativeecosystemsinparticularisaserious
27FormalRecommendationbytheNationalorganicStandardsBoardtotheNationalOrganicProgram[PDF].Subject:BiodiversityConservation.May6,2009.Availableonline:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Final%20Rec%20Biodiversity.pdf28GuidanceNaturalResourcesandBiodiversityConservation[PDF].NOP5020.AgriculturalMarketingService.EffectiveDate:1/15/16.Availableonline:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%205020%20Biodiversity%20Guidance%20Rev01%20%28Final%29.pdf
![Page 32: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
29
problemthatmustbedealtwithinatimelymanner.Whenuntouchednativeecosystemsaredestroyed,thereisnowaytogetthembacktoapristinecharacter.Habitatlossisthesinglemostpervasivethreattowildlifeandnativeplantlife.Finally,incentivizingtheconversionofnativeecosystemsiscontrarytostandingorganicpolicyandhurtstheintegrityoftheorganiclabel.DISCUSSIONBiodiversitylossisaglobalcrisisAstheNOPstatesinitsguidefororganiccropproducers:“Sustainabilitycanbedefinedasmeetingtheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.”29Thelossofnativeecosystemscompromisestheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirneeds.
• Plantandanimalbiodiversityisanindicatorofenvironmentalhealth.30• Biodiversityisgreatestinundisturbedenvironments,likenativeecosystems.These
areasserveasvitalhabitatforplantsandanimals,andmaybevitaltothesurvivalofsomespecies.Biodiversityformsthefoundationofthevastarrayofecosystemservicesthatcriticallycontributetohumanwell-being.31
• Agricultureisoneoftheprimarycausesofecosystemandbiodiversityloss.32Intheinterveningdecade,therehasbeenanincreaseinlandusedforagriculture(includingorganicproduction)andthatpressurecontinuestoday.33
• Agriculturalpracticeseffecthowfarmingimpactsbiodiversitymorethananyotherfactor.A2010reportonglobaldiversityfoundthat,despiterecentefforts,thedeclineinbiodiversityhasnotslowed.Thereportcalledforstrengtheningeffortstoprotectbiodiversity“…byreversingdetrimentalpolicies,fullyintegratingbiodiversityintobroad-scaleland-useplanning…[and]fundingandimplementingpoliciesthattacklebiodiversityloss…”34Changingorganicpolicysothatthereis
29GuideForOrganicCropProducers,ByPamelaColemanNationalCenterforAppropriateTechnology(NCAT)AgricultureSpecialist.November2012.Availableonline:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Guide-OrganicCropProducers.pdf30Article2.UseofTerms(Definitions).ConventiononBiologicalDiversity.Lastaccessedonline3/31/2016at:https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-0231MillenniumEcosystemAssessment,2005.EcosystemsandHumanWell-being:BiodiversitySynthesis.WorldResourcesInstitute,Washington,DC.Chapter1,p.18.Availableonlineat:http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf32Tomorrow'sApproach:FoodProductionandEcosystemConservationinaChangingClimate,byJanetRanganathanandCraigHanson,WorldResourcesInstitute.Lastaccessedonline3/30/2016at:http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/tomorrows-approach-food-production-and-ecosystem33HabitatLoss.NationalWildlifeFederation.Lastaccessedonline3/31/2016at:https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Habitat-Loss.aspx34GlobalBiodiversity:IndicatorsofRecentDeclines.StuartH.M.Butchart,etal.Science328,1164(2010);DOI:10.1126/science.1187512.Availableonline:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marc_Hockings/publication/43354916_Global_Biodiversity_Indicators_of_Recent_Declines/links/0fcfd50646704ecf9b000000.pdf
![Page 33: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
30
noincentivetoconvertnativeecosystemsisavitalstepinprotectingbiodiversity.
Thequestionofwhethersomething“hasapositiveimpactonbiodiversity”shouldbeaskedforeverystageoforganicproduction.ThesequestionscanbeansweredwithassistancefromWFAandotherpublicinterestorganizations.Forexample,WFAproducedavaluableguideregardingBiodiversityConservationinOrganicAgricultureSystemsinApril,2012.35Thisguideiscomprehensiveinitsreviewofhoworganicregulationsandguidancedocumentsrequirethatbiodiversitybeconsideredthroughouteveryfacetoforganicproduction.Consumersexpecttheirorganicfoodtocomefromasourcethatisecologicallysound.Thismeansthat,ataminimum,themethodsoforganicproductionshoulddonoharmtobiodiversityandecologicalsystems.Or,asthe2001NOSBPrinciplesofOrganicProductionandHandlingstate:“Organicagricultureisanecologicalproductionmanagementsystemthatpromotesandenhancesbiodiversity[emphasisadded],biologicalcycles,andsoilbiologicalactivity.”36NativeecosystemsprovidevaluableecosystemservicesAsdefinedbytheNationalWildlifeFederation,an“Anecosystemserviceisanypositivebenefitthatwildlifeorecosystemsprovidetopeople.”37Theconversionofnativeecosystemsalsocausesthelossofthesevaluableecosystemservices,whichservehumanitybycleaningairandwater,preventingflooding,mitigatingclimatechange,andofferingamyriadofotherbenefits.38Restorationofnativeecosystemsisavaluabletoolthatshouldbeencouraged,butpreservationofalready-existingecosystemsshouldbeahigherpriority.OrganicregulationsdonotexplicitlyprotectnativeecosystemsfrombeingconvertedtoorganicproductionInthecurrentorganicregulations,itisrequiredthatlandsbeingconvertedtoneworganicfarms“[h]avehadnoprohibitedsubstances,aslistedin§205.105,appliedtoitforaperiodof3yearsimmediatelyprecedingharvestofthecrop…”39Thismeansthat,forproductstoqualifyfortheorganiclabel,noprohibitedmaterialscanbeappliedforaperiodofthreeyears.Becausenativeecosystemsareconsidered“pristine”(i.e.freefromagrochemicalsalready),thisrequirementprovidesaperverseincentivetoconvertnativeecosystemto35BiodiversityConservationDraftGuidance-WildFarmAlliance[PDF].Availableat:http://www.wildfarmalliance.org/resources/NOP_WFA_BDGuidance.pdf36NOSBPrinciplesofOrganicProductionandHandling.AdoptedOctober17,2001.Article1.1.37EcosystemServices.NationalWildlifeFederation.Lastaccessedonline3/28/2016:https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Conservation/Ecosystem-Services.aspx38ClimateChangeImpacts–EcosystemsImpacts.U.S.EnvironmentalprotectionAgency.Lastaccessed4/4/2016at:https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/ecosystems.html397CFR§205.202(b)
![Page 34: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
31
organicproduction.Farmerscanimmediately“plowup”nativegrassland,forest,scrubland,andriparianzonesandstartfarmingthemorganicallyrightawaytoovercomethisthree-yearwaitingperiod.AsdetailedbytheWFAdocument,thisconversionisoccurringthroughouttheU.S.asanunintendedconsequenceofthethree-yearrequirement.RECOMMENDATIONSTheCertification,Accreditation,andComplianceSubcommitteeandNationalOrganicStandardsBoardshouldtacklethisissueInAugust,2015,theNOSB’sCompliance,Accreditation&CertificationSubcommittee(CACS)reviewedtheWildFarmAlliancedocument“EliminatingtheIncentivetoConvertNativeEcosystemsintoOrganicCropProduction.”Theycametotheconclusionthat“conversionofnativeecosystemsintoorganiccropproductionisaseriousproblem,butthatitistoolargeinscopefortheCACSorNOSBtotakeup.”40TheCornucopiaInstitutedisagreeswiththissentiment:theNOSBisspecificallyassignedtotackleproblemswithorganicagricultureandmakerecommendationsaboutorganicstotheSecretary.CACSshouldapproachtheproblemofde-incentivizingtheconversionofnativeecosystemsbecausetheyarepositionedtodoexactlythiskindofanalysiswithintheNOSB.Thisissueisoneofcertificationandcompliance,andthereforefallsfirmlyinCACS’wheelhouse.41Inaddition,biodiversityconservationwasatopicofdiscussionattheMay2008NOSBmeetingandresultedinthefullBoarddirectingaJointCropsandCompliance,Accreditation,&CertificationCommitteetoreviewimplementationofstandardsand,asnecessary,preparefurtherguidanceforBoardconsideration.42Asalreadydiscussed,biologicalbiodiversityisakeypartofthisissue.CACSdoesnotneedtosolvetheseissuesinavacuum–thesciencebehindconservingnativeecosystemsiswellestablished.TheFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO)oftheUnitedNationsdevelopedaguidetohelpdealwiththecompetingchallengesofconservingbiodiversityandsensitiveareaswhilealsoprovidingthebasisforthesocialandeconomicdevelopmentoflocalresidents.43Thisoutlookissensibleandtakesintoaccountbothsustainabilityandtheeconomicincentivesfarmersface.Inaddition,FAOrecommendsthat
40https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CACS%20Notes%202015.pdf41Certification,Accreditation,&ComplianceSubcommittee.AgriculturalMarketingService.Availableonline:https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/subcommittees/certification-accreditation-and-compliance42SeedetailsintheFormalRecommendationbytheNationalOrganicStandardsBoardtotheNationalOrganicProgram[PDF].Subject:BiodiversityConservation.May6,2009.Availableonline:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Final%20Rec%20Biodiversity.pdf43TheScopeofOrganicAgriculture,SustainableForestManagementandEcoforestry.Producedby:NaturalResourcesManagementandEnvironmentDepartment.Availableonline:http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5558e/y5558e03.htm
![Page 35: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
32
thedevelopmentoforganicstandardscontinueacknowledgingtheimportantpartvoluntarylabelingsystemshaveinconsumerchoiceandawareness.WildFarmAlliance’srecommendationsIntheircommentontheNOP’s5020DraftGuidanceNaturalResourcesandBiodiversityConservationforCertifiedOperations,WFAmadeseveralrecommendationsastohowtoimprovetheguidancedocument.Ultimately,theWFAnotedthatthe“theNationalOrganicProgramshouldhavebarriersthatdiscouragetheconversionofintact,biodiverseecosystemstoagriculturalcroplandwithinfiveyearsfromthedateofapplicationforcertification.”Ingeneral,theCornucopiaInstitutesupportsallofWFA’srecommendationsontheissueof“EliminatingtheIncentivetoConvertNaturalEcosystemsintoOrganicProduction,”withafewclarificationsandadditions.First,WFAmadethefollowingrecommendations(showninpart;pleaseseeWFA’spieceforthefulltext):
Inthe“RoleofCertifiedOrganicOperations”section,thesenewbulletselementsshouldbe
added:• Certifiedoperationsshouldnothavecleared,burned,drained,cultivated,orotherwise
irrevocablyalteredestablished,diverseandabundantecosystemssuchas,butnotlimitedto,forests,woodlands,shrublands,grasslands,riparianhabitats,orwetlandareas,fororganicagriculturalcropproduction,inthefiveyearsprecedingthedateofapplicationforcertificationofaparcel...Thisrestrictiondoesnotstopoperationsfromharvestingwildcropsorfrommanagingproductionsystemsthatsustainthediversityandabundancefoundintheseecosystems,suchasmechanicalcollectionofnativeseedsorlowimpactgrazing.Organicoperationsmustnotconvertecologicallyatriskecosystemstoorganicagriculturalproduction…
TheCornucopiaInstitutesupportsthislanguagefromWFAwiththefollowingedits:“…fororganicagriculturalcropproductionororganiclivestockproduction,inthefiveyearsprecedingthedateofapplicationforcertificationofaparcel.”Werecommendthisadditionbecauseintensivelivestockoperationscanirrevocablydamagenativeecosystems.Whileitispossiblethatlow-intensitygrazingthatmimicsthebehaviorofnativeherbivorescanretainnativeecosystemsinavitalstate,leavingtheoptionopentoalllivestockoperationscouldbeafatalloophole.AsWFAstateslaterinthisaddition,“lowimpactgrazing”couldbeallowed,butthisshouldbedifferentiatedfromothermethodsoflivestockproductionthatareutilizedinorganicagriculture.CornucopiasupportstherestofWFA’sadditionabovewithoutcomment.WFAcontinuedwiththeirrecommendations,statingthatanewbulletshouldbeaddedtothe“RoleofCertifiers”inthe5020Guidancedocument:
![Page 36: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
33
• “Certifiersmustensurethatanoperationhasnotcleared,burned,drained,cultivated,orotherwiseirrevocablyalteredestablished,diverseandabundantecosystemssuchas,butnotlimitedto,forests,woodlands,shrublands,grasslands,riparianhabitats,orwetlandareas,fororganicagriculturalcropproductioninthefiveyearsprecedingthedateofapplicationforcertificationofaparcel(foraparcelcomingoutofConservationReserveProgram,seecomment#7below).Thisrestrictiondoesnotstopoperationsfromharvestingwildcropsorfrommanagingproductionsystemsthatsustainthediversityandabundancefoundintheseecosystems,suchasmechanicalcollectionofnativeseedsorlowimpactgrazing.Organicoperationsmustnotconvertecologicallyatriskecosystemstoorganicagriculturalproduction.”
• “Thecertifiers’OSPformsmustcollectsufficientinformationforthecertifiertoassesstheconservationvalueofeachparcelcoveredbythecertificationapplication…”
CornucopiasupportstheaboveWFArecommendationregardingcertificationwiththefollowingcommentsandsuggestions:
1. Thelanguage“Organicoperationsmustnotconvertecologicallyatriskecosystems
toorganicagriculturalproduction,”shouldbeemphasizedoveranythingelse.Someecosystemsaresorarethateveryeffortshouldbemadetopreservethem.WhileCornucopiasupportsendingtheincentivetoconvertnativeecosystems,itshouldbeprohibitedoutrighttoconvertecosystemstoorganicagriculturethatareknowntobesensitive,imperiled,orunique.
2. Asaminimumbar,anativeecosystemshouldbeconsideredsensitive,imperiled,or
uniquewheneveritisconsideredhabitatforendangeredorthreatenedspecies,orspeciesunderconsiderationforlisting,ortheecosystemitselfprovidesanessentialecosystemservicethatcannotbeduplicatedatalocallevel.
3. Arecommendationforwhatshouldbeincludedinthecertifiers’OSPforms
regardingconservingnativeecosystemsshouldbedevelopedtoassistcertifiersintheirduties.Certifiereducationshouldcomefromasourceknowledgeableinspottingsensitiveandnativeecosystems,andpreparedtocommunicatewithoperatorsaboutconservingthisland.
4. CACSshouldeitherdeveloporrecommendtheNOPcommissionthedevelopmentof
teachingdocumentsforcertifiersandoperatorswhichshouldincludeinformationonidentifyingnativeecosystemsandincentivizingtheirpreservation.
CONCLUSIONProtectingsensitivehabitatsfromdegradationorconversiontootherusesiscriticalforconservingtheincreasinglyatriskbiodiversityoftheplanet.Nativeecosystemsprovidehabitatthatisessentialforbiodiversity,ecosystemservices,andlongtermsustainability.
![Page 37: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
34
WhiletheNOP’sthree-yearwaitingperiodfortransitioningtoorganicproductioniscriticalinmaintainingorganicintegrity,inandofitself,theconsequenceofthispracticefliesinthefaceofbiodiversityconservation.Withoutremovingthewaitingperiodrequirement,CACSandtheNOSBasawholecanhelpprotectbiodiversitybydiscouragingtheconversionofnativeecosystems.Tothisend,theyshoulddevelopandrecommendregulatoryorguidancelanguagetothateffect.TheNOSBhasstatedthat“Organicproductionandhandlingsystemsstrivetoachieveagro-ecosystemsthatareecologically,socially,andeconomicallysustainable.”44AsstatedinaWorldResourcesInstitutearticle,“[f]utureapproachestoconservingecosystemsmusttacklethethreeinterlinkedchallengesofclimatechange,ecosystemservicesdegradationandrisingdemandforfood.”45Organicproductioncaneitherbepartofthesolutionorpartoftheproblem.Withoutactionontheincentivetoconvertnativeecosystems,organicagricultureiscontributingtothelossofvitalecosystems,theservicestheyprovide,andglobalbiodiversity.Organicregulationsmustpreventtheincentivetoconvertpristineecosystemstoorganicproduction.
44NOSBPrinciplesofOrganicProductionandHandling.AdoptedOctober17,2001.Article1.5.45Tomorrow'sApproach:FoodProductionandEcosystemConservationinaChangingClimate,byJanetRanganathanandCraigHanson,WorldResourcesInstitute.Lastaccessedonline3/30/2016at:http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/tomorrows-approach-food-production-and-ecosystem
![Page 38: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
35
HANDLINGSUBCOMMITTEE
2018SUNSETMATERIALS
Agar-AgarSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteisneutraltowardtherelistingofagar-agarunder§205.605(a)asanonorganicsubstanceallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic”or“madewithorganic.”TheCornucopiaInstitutewouldsupportrelistingagar-agarifanannotationisaddedstating“fromGelidiumspeciesonly,processedwithoutalkalinetreatmentandsourcedfromareasmanagedforsustainability.”AnewLimitedScopeTechnicalReviewshouldbeprepared.The2011TechnicalReviewdidnottakeintoaccountsustainabilityconcernsassociatedwithoverharvestandclimatechange.Inaddition,theFederalDrugAdministration(FDA)hassomeopenquestionsabouttheeffectofagar-agaronhumanhealththatshouldbeinvestigatedfurther.Rationale:
! Gelidiumisthealgaespecies(oftencalledseaweed)firstusedforagar-agarproduction,whiletheotherspecieshighlightedintheTechnicalReview,Gracilaria,mustbetreatedwithchemicalstobecommerciallyviable.Thisprocesscreatesalkaliwastewater.
! Thewildharvestofredalgaedisruptsnativemarineecosystemswhenitisoverharvestedandnotmanagedappropriately.
! Thehealtheffectsofagar-agarhavenotbeendeeplyexplored,buttherearesomeconcernsthatshouldbeexploredfurther.
! Thereareseveralalternativestoagar-agar.Someofthesearelikelymoredangerousforhumanconsumption(likecarrageenan)ormaynotmeetthedemandforaveganornon-porkproduct.
DISCUSSIONAgar-agarisaproductderivedfromredmarinealgaethatiswidelyusedasanadditiveinfoodasathickener,texturizer,emulsifier,flavorenhancer,andotherqualities.Themainusesofredseaweedsareasfoodagarandcarrageenan.ThehighestqualityagarcomesfromtheredalgaefoundinthefamilyGelidiaceae(ofwhichthespeciesGelidiumisapart).
![Page 39: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
36
ThelowerqualityagarsarefoundintheGracilariaceaefamily.46Agar-agarisoftenusedasavegetariansubstituteforanimalgelatinandhasmanyofthesameuses.Theredalgaeusedforagar-agarproductioncanbeeithercultivatedorharvestedinthenaturalenvironment.47Muchofthenaturalharvestcomesfromgatheringthealgaethatisuntetheredfromitsgrowingbasebystorms.Thisisdonebynetsofsuctiontubes.Harvestcanalsobedonebydiverswhoplucktheseaweedsfromwheretheyareanchoredtomarinerocks.Thecultivationofredalgaehasnotalwaysbeeneconomicallyviable.Gelidium,inparticular,hashistoricallynotbeeneconomicallyviablewhencultivatedbecauseitgrowsslowly.48HoweverGracilariacultivationiswidespreadandmoreeconomicallyviablewhencultivated.TheTechnicalReviewsTheoriginal1995TechnicalAdvisoryPanel(TAP)reviewwascompiledbySteveTaylorandDr.RichTheuer(aformeragribusinessexecutiveandconsultanttotheindustry).InthisTAP,thefoodadditivesafetyinformationwasonlycompiledfortheGelidiumvarietyofseaweed.Gracilaria,andtheissueswithprocessingthatvarietytoobtainagar-agar,werenotexploredintheTAP.Inaddition,theyemphasizedthattheamountofagar-agarusedinfoodisself-limitingbecauseitisexpensive.Since1995theuseofagar-agarhasincreasedasconsumersrejecttheuseofgelatininprocessedfoods.ThemostrecentTechnicalReviewforagar-agarwascompiledbyICFInternationalfortheUSDANationalOrganicProgram(thenamesoftheauthor(s)werewithheld).AspointedoutinCornucopia’sSpring2012comments,this2011TechnicalReviewwasunclearabouthowGracilariahastobeprocessedbeforeitiscommerciallyviable.49Tomakeagar-agarGracilariaalwayshastobetreatedwithanalkalisolutionandundergoesachemicalchangeduringthisprocess.Agar-agarproductsderivedfromGracilariaspeciesarethereforesyntheticandshouldnotbelistedunder§205.605(a).
46Agars,TheSeaweedSite:informationonmarinealgae.Availableonline:http://www.seaweed.ie/uses_general/agars.php47Seaweedsusedasasourceofagar(2003).Producedby:FisheriesandAquacultureDepartment,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.Availableonline:http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4765e/y4765e05.htm48Seaweedsusedasasourceofagar(2003).Producedby:FisheriesandAquacultureDepartment,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.Availableonline:http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4765e/y4765e05.htm49TheCornucopiaInstitute’sCommentstotheNationalOrganicStandardsBoard.Spring2012meeting,Albuquerque,NM.SubmittedMay3,2012.Pp.8.Availableonlineat:http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CORNUCOPIA-Comment-NOSB-May-2012.pdf
![Page 40: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
37
Essentialityandalternatives Aslistedinthe2011TechnicalReview,therearemultiplealternativestoagar-agarcurrentlyonthemarket.Agar-agarisaflavorlessgellingagentandcanbereplacedbygelatin,pectin,guargum(orothergums),xanthangum(derivedfromcorn),andotherthickenersoremulsifiersincludingarrowrootorpotatostarch.SomeofthesealternativesareeitheralreadyavailableinorganicformorareontheNationalListfortheseuses.Carrageenanisoftencitedasanalternativetoagar-agar.Howevercarrageenan'shealthconcernsassociatedwithitsingestionaresevere(andwell-documentedbyaplethoraofpublicly-fundedresearch).Thissubstanceshouldnotbeconsideredasaviablesubstitute.Consideringthenumberoflistedalternativestoagar-agarproducts,itappearsagar-agarisnotessentialfororganichandling.HumanandenvironmentalhealthAgar-agarisconsideredGRASbytheFDAduetoitslonghistoryasafoodadditive.50FDAalsonotedthatsomestudieshaveshowndeathinlabanimalswithhighratesofconsumption.Inaddition,theFDAacknowledgedthatseaweedscanuptakeharmfullevelsofheavymetalslikemercuryandthat,whiletheexpectedrateofconsumptionofagar-agarshouldnotbeharmful,theydonotknowwhattheeffectofanincreaseddietaryintakewouldmean.Theincreasinguseofagar-agarinveganfoodmayhaveunexploredeffectsonhumanhealth.Asacknowledgedinthe2011TechnicalReview,themajorenvironmentalconcernswithagar-agarproductionareassociatedwiththealkalinewastewaterandoverharvestinginmarineenvironments.Theharvestofredalgaeforagar-agarposesarisktosensitivemarineecosystems.Seaweedisa“keystone”species,whichprovidesnutrientsandenergyforanimalsandactasafilterforseawater.51Studiesonseaweedharvestingeneralshowthatthebiodiversityandresilienceofthemarineecosystemsisharmedbytheharvestofredalgae.52CONCLUSIONCornucopiaisneutraltowardstherelistingofagar-agarduetotheopen-endedlistingthatallowsGracilariaasasourceofagar.Inaddition,therearesustainabilityconcernsassociatedwithredalgaeharvestthatshouldbeaddressedifagar-agarisrelisted;thisiswhyTheCornucopiaInstituterecommendstheadditionofanannotationstating“from50SelectCommitteeonGRASSubstances(SCOGS)Opinion:Agar-agar.Availableat:http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS/ucm260847.htm51HowvegandemandforagariskillingMorocco’sredseaweed,byLindaPappagallo.October,2014.Lastaccessedonline4/8/2016at:www.greenprophet.com/2014/10/how-vegans-demand-for-red-gold-algae-is-killing-moroccan-ecosystem/52DorianeStagnolD,RenaudM,DavoultD.“Effectsofcommercialharvestingofintertidalmacroalgaeonecosystembiodiversityandfunctioning.”March,2013.Availableonline:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771413001121
![Page 41: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
38
Gelidiumspeciesonly,processedwithoutalkalinetreatmentandsourcedfromareasmanagedforsustainability.”
![Page 42: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
39
AnimalEnzymes SUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofanimalenzymesasnon-agricultural,nonorganicsubstancesallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic”or“madewithorganic”under7CFR§205.605(a).Animalenzymesareanecessaryprocessingmediumforsomeorganicfoodsandthereislimitedavailabilityoforganicanimalenzymes.Otherthanenzymesderivedfromageneticallyengineeredsource,nootherproductshavetheexactqualitiesneededformakingcertaintypesofcheeseandculturedproducts.Inconjunctionwitharecommendationtorelistanimalenzymes,TheCornucopiaInstituterequeststhatanyancillarysubstancesusedtogetherwithanimalenzymesbelabeledonproductpackaging.Thepublicwillalsobenefitfromhavingthesourceofanyaddedenzymesinaproduct(whetheritismicrobial,vegetable,oranimal-derived),labeledclearlyonthepackaging.Inaddition,TheCornucopiaInstitutesupportsthedevelopmentofaTechnicalReviewinvestigatingthecurrentavailabilityoforganicalternativestoanimalenzymes(suchasvegetablesourcespossessingthesameproperties)andasurveyofthepotentialavailabilityofanimalenzymesderivedfromorganicallycertifiedlivestock.Rationale:
! Theuseofanimalenzymesiswidespreadandtheyareanessentialnon-syntheticmaterialfortheproductionoforganiccheeseandsourcream.
! Somealternativesdoexist,includingmicrobialrennetandvegetablerennet.However,theseenzymesmaygiveadifferent(oftenbitter)charactertoafinishedfoodproductthatisundesirable.Certaincheesevarietiesdependexclusivelyonanimal-basedrennet.
! Ancillarysubstancesareaddedtopreserve,orotherwiseaffectanimalenzymesinsomeway.
! Productlabelsarenotrequiredtoidentifythesourceoftheenzymeusedwhichcanbefrustratingorevendangeroustoconsumerswithspecificdietaryneeds.
DISCUSSIONEnzymesareproteins.TheanimalenzymesincludedontheNationalListasnon-agricultural,nonorganicsubstancesallowedasingredientsintheprocessingoforganicproductsarerennet,catalase,animallipase,pancreatin,pepsin,andtrypsin.53Mostenzymesinuseinorganicproductiontodayaredigestiveenzymesthatareextractedandrefinedfromthestomachsofruminantsandhogs.Rennetisusuallyusedastheprimeexampleofananimalenzyme.Theotherenzymesutilizedinorganicproductionareextractedfromotherpartsoflivestockanimals.Forexample,catalaseisextractedfrom
537CFR§205.605(a).Animalenzymes.
![Page 43: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
40
bovineliver,pancreatinisextractedfromanimalpancreases,and“animallipases”areextractedfromruminantandhogpancreaticglandsandthepre-gastricjuicesofyoungruminants.54Animalenzymesareprimarilyusedtocurdlemilkfortheproductionofcheeseandsourcream.55AllanimalenzymesincludedontheNationalListhavebeenpreviouslyclassifiedasnon-syntheticunder7CFR§523205.605(a).Therewerenosyntheticversionsofanimal-derivedenzymesidentifiedintheTechnicalReviewsororiginalTechnicalAdvisoryPanel(TAP),whichwascompletedin2000.Enzymesderivedfromedible,non-toxicplants,nonpathogenicfungi,ornonpathogenicbacteriaarealsoallowedinorganicproducts.56PastNOSBdeliberationsTheBoardfirstconsideredtheuseofanimalenzymesfororganicprocessingandasingredientsinNovember2000.The2000TAPreviewpreparedbytheOrganicMaterialsReviewInstitutewaspresentedatthismeeting(authors:identitieswithheldbyUSDA).TheProcessingCommitteeconsideredproposedannotationsfromtheTAPreviewthatrestrictedadditivesandpreservativesusedinenzymepreparations.Thoughtherewasinformationonsixotherenzymes,animal-derivedrennetwasthemodelandfeaturedastheprimarypointofthediscussion.Rennetistheblankettermforseveraloftheenzymeslistedandanimal-derivedrennetincludesseveraltypesofenzymes.Ultimately,theBoarddecidedtolist6specificanimalenzymesasallowed,withoutannotation.InNovember,2007theHandlingCommitteeinitiallyissuedarecommendationagainstrelistingofanimalenzymes(alongwithothersubstancesincludingcarrageenan)duetoalackofpubliccommentinsupportofrelisting.Oncethisrecommendationwasreleased,publiccommentscamein,universallysupportingthecontinuedlistingofanimalenzymes.Withthisnewinformation,thecommitteedeterminedthattherewasademonstratedneedforcontinueduseinhandlingandbecauseanorganicsubstitutewasunavailableatthetime.TheHandlingCommitteereconsidereditsearliervoteandanimalenzymeswererelisted.AfullTechnicalReportcompiledbyICFInternationalonanimalenzymesisavailablefrom2011(authors:identitieswithheldbyUSDA).Thefocusofthediscussionwasonanimal-derivedrennet.The2011TechnicalReportalsodiscussedthemostwidelyusedsubstituteforanimal-derivedrennettoday:enzymesproducedfromgeneticallymodifiedorganisms.GeneticEngineeringisan“excludedmethod”,thusGMOenzymesarenotallowedinorganicproduction.
54EnzymePreparationsUsedinFood(PartialList).FederalDrugAdministration.LastUpdated:08/14/2015.Availableonline:http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/EnzymePreparations/default.htm55Enzymes–APrimeronUseandBenefits.EnzymeTechnicalAssociation.June2001.AvailableOnline:http://www.enzymeassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/benefits_paper.pdf567CFR§205.605(a).
![Page 44: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
41
Themostrecentevaluationwascompletedin2015bytheOrganicMaterialsReviewInstitute(authors:identitieswithheldbytheUSDA).ThisTechnicalReportwaslimitedinitsscope,onlydealingwiththeancillarysubstancesusedinconjunctionwithenzymes.Thissupplementaldiscussionwasrequestedperthe2014NOPMemoonAncillarySubstancesReview.Theseancillarysubstancesincludealonglistofstabilizers,diluentsorcarriers,preservatives,buffers,coatings,andenzymeinhibitors.Infact,additivescanmakeupthemajorityofanenzymeformulation.Theconclusionofthisreportwasthattheancillarysubstancesare“generallyrecognizedassafe”(GRAS).Thereportalsoconcludedthatthereareorganicalternativesforallthecommonancillarysubstances.In2011theHandlingCommitteerecommendedthatanimalenzymesremainlistedasallowedasnon-synthetic.Subcommitteevote:MotiontorelistAnimalEnzymestotheNationalListsection§205.605(a)in2011.Yes:14,No:0,Absent:No,Abstentions:0,Recusals:0ForthecurrentSunsetreviewperiod,theNOSBrequestedadditionalinformationonitemsthatwereaddressedbutunansweredinthe2000TAP.Specifically,thesewere:
1. Areanyanimalderivedenzymescurrentlybeingproducedfromorganiclivestock?Ifyes,onwhatscale?
2. Inthe2011TRonAnimalEnzymes,manufactureofthesubstanceisfocusedonrennet.Pleasesubmitinformationifthemanufactureofothertypesofanimalenzymesdifferfromrennet.
EssentialityandalternativesAlternativestoanimalenzymesdoexistasrennetcanbeproducedfromvegetablesandmicroorganisms.Thekeyistofindanenzymewithpropertiessimilartothatofanimal-deriveddigestiveenzymes.Therearealreadydiverserennetsubstitutesinuse,partlybecauseofthehighdemandandlackofsupplyofanimalenzymes.Somevegetableshavecoagulatingpropertiesthatcanservethesamepurposeasanimalenzymesincheesemaking.Conceivably,thesevegetableenzymescouldbederivedfromcertifiedorganicsources(forexample,nettleandfigbarkextractshavesimilarpropertieswhenrefined).Thereareatleastsomeorganicvegetablerennetcurrentlyonthemarket,thoughmuchoftherennetmarketedas“vegetable-derived”itisactuallyproducedfrommoldsandshouldfallunderthecategoryofmicrobialrennet.57,58Microbialrennetistypicallyderivedfromfermentationusingspecificmoldspecies.
57CulturesforHealth,SM.Productlisting.Lastaccessedonline3/23/2016at:http://www.culturesforhealth.com/organic-vegetable-rennet.html?gclid=CjwKEAjw_ci3BRDSvfjortr--DQSJADU8f2j6ecLmyFg_x8TId__1EUWczrSj_ZYPK6Ji8upXFT52hoCe-Dw_wcB
![Page 45: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
42
Despitetheirsimilarproperties,bothvegetableandmicrobialenzymesmaynotprovidethesameendproductwhencomparedtoanimalenzymes.Acertain“bitter”qualityisassociatedwithcheesemadefromvegetableormicrobialenzymes,59makinganimal-derivedenzymesapreferredchoiceamongmanycheesemakers.Thebitternessoftheproductoftenincreasesthelongeracheeseisaged,sowhilesoftcheesesmaydowellwithavegetableormicrobialenzyme,manyvarietiesofhardagedcheesecurrentlyrequiretheuseofanimalenzymestomaintainthesameproductstandards.Itisunknownastowhetherornotthesealternativescouldmeettheenormousdemandbyorganiccheeseproducersnationally,butitwouldlikelybeadifficulttransition.Asitstands,thereisaninsufficientanimal-derivedrennetsupplytomeetdemand,sorennetproducedfromgeneticallyengineeredorganismsisnowthemainsourceforthenonorganicmarket.60Themostwidelyavailableanimalenzymeisnotsuitablefororganicproduction,becauseitistheresultofgeneticengineering.Organicanimalenzymesarealreadyavailable,butthemarketavailabilityappearsverylimited.61Itispossiblethismarketcouldbedevelopedovertime,butforthepresent,notrueorganicalternativesexist.EnvironmentalconcernsIngeneralterms,therearenoknownenvironmentalconcernsrelatedtotheuseofanimalenzymes.Enzymesareproteinsfoundinallvertebratesandtheybreakdownquicklyintheenvironment.Inaddition,animalenzymesarewatersolubleandarequicklydilutedintheenvironment.Unfortunately,becausemanyoftheanimalenzymesutilizedtodayareoftenderivedfromconventionalagriculture,theirproductioninvolvestheuseofpesticides.Inaddition,conventionalanimalsthatarethesourceofenzymesareusuallyfedgeneticallyengineeredcrops.Theseissuescanhavewiderangingenvironmentalandhumanhealthconsequencesandareincompatiblewithorganicagriculture.Fortheabovereasons,encouragingthedevelopmentoforganicallysourcedanimalenzymesshouldbeapriority.
58NewEnglandCheeseMakingSupplyCo.Productlisting.Lastaccessedonline3/23/2016at:http://www.cheesemaking.com/shop/organic-vegetable-rennet.html59AgboolaS,ChenS,andZhaoJ.2004."Formationofbitterpeptidesduringripeningofovinemilkcheesemadewithdifferentcoagulants".CharlesSturtUniversity,Бэтхерст,NewSouthWales,Australia.DairyScience&Technology(ImpactFactor:1.6).11/2004;84(6).DOI:10.1051/lait:2004032.Availableonline:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46089920_Formation_of_bitter_peptides_during_ripening_of_ovine_milk_cheese_made_with_different_coagulants60Chymosin.GMOCompass.Lastaccessedonline3/30/2016at:http://www.gmo-ompass.org/eng/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html61Seeproductexample:NewEnglandCheeseMakingSupplyCo.Productlisting.Lastaccessedonline3/23/2016at:http://www.cheesemaking.com/shop/animal-rennet-tablets-20-tablets.html
![Page 46: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
43
HumanhealthconcernsAccordingtotheFDA,animalenzymesareGRASbasedontheircommonuseinfoodforasignificantstretchofhumanhistory.62,63,64Theamountofenzymeremaininginafinishedfoodproductisusuallyatraceamount,inpart,becauseenzymesare“usedup”intheprocessofmakingcheese.Despitetherecognitionthattheseproductsaresafe,increasingallergiesandfoodsensitivitiesmakeitimportantthatallcomponents(includingancillaryingredients)arelistedonproductpackaging.Comprehensivelabelingisanimportantpartofmaintainingtransparencyandorganicproducersshouldbewillingtoidentifyboththeenzymesandtheirsourceaswellasanyancillarysubstancesusedintheirenzymepreparations.WhileallergensotherthanthemajorfoodallergensarenotsubjecttoFoodAllergenLabelingandConsumerProtectionActof2004labelingrequirements,itisalwaysbettertoerronthesideofcautionwithallergensasfoodallergiesandsensitivitiesarebecomingmorecommonintheUnitedStatesandindevelopedcountriesworldwide.65,66Consumersmaychooseorganicfood,becausetheyfeeltheyaresaferthanthealternative,anditisimportanttomaintainthistrustfortheorganiclabelasawhole.Whiletheriskislow,fromanoccupationalperspective,animalenzymescancauseskinandeyeirritation.67Allergiestowardenzymescanalsodevelop,thoughthisisusuallymoreofaconcernwithenzymesusedinindustrialsettingratherthanthroughexposureinfood.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofthe2018Sunsetmaterialanimalenzymesat7CFR§205.605(a).Animalenzymesdonotposeaseriousrisktohumanhealthortheenvironmentandareessentialfororganicproductionofsomevarietiesofcheese
62EnzymePreparations.U.S.FoodandDrugAdministration.Availableonline:http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/EnzymePreparations/default.htm6321CFR184.168564GuidanceforIndustry:FrequentlyAskedQuestionsAboutGRAS.U.S.FoodandDrugAdministration.December2004.Availableonline:http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/ucm061846.htm#Q165GuidanceforIndustry:AFoodLabelingGuide(6.IngredientLists).FederalDrugAdministration.January2013.Availableonline:http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064880.htm#label66AboutFoodAllergy–FactsandStatistics.FoodAllergyResearch&Education.Availableonline:https://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats67WorkingSafelyWithEnzymes.EnzymeTechnicalAssociation.Availableonlineat:http://www.enzymeassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Working-Safely-With-Enzymes-English.pdf
![Page 47: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
44
andotherfoods.Asofyet,therearenodirectalternativestotheuseofanimalenzymes,thoughorganicalternativestoanimalandvegetableenzymesshouldbeexploredmorefullybeforethenextSunsetreview.Requiringclearandhonestlabelingfromorganicproducerswillmaintainconsumertrustandprotectindividualswithfoodallergiesandsensitivities.
![Page 48: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
45
CalciumSulfate-MinedSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteisneutralastotherelistingofCalciumsulfate(mined)asanon-agricultural,nonorganicsubstanceallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic”or“madewithorganic”under§205.605(a).68Giventhepotentialenvironmentalandhumanhealtheffectsassociatedwithmining,TheCornucopiaInstituterecommendsthatanewTechnicalReportbepreparedtofullyevaluateanddiscusstheseconcernsbeforetherelistingproceeds.Inaddition,therelistingforCalciumsulfate(mined)shouldincludeanannotationrequiringthatCalciumsulfateusedasingredientsorinprocessedproductscomefromsourceswithalowpotentialforenvironmentalandhumanharm,basedonthefindingsofanewTechnicalReport.Rationale:
! TheuseofCalciumsulfateiswidespreadandhasalonghistoryofbeingusedinfoodproductsasafirmingorcoagulatingagentandcalciumsupplement.
! Somealternativesmayexist,butitispossibletheywillnotresultinaproductconsumerswillaccept.Calciumsulfatemaybeessentialforproducingparticulartofuproducts.
! TheenvironmentalconcernsassociatedwithminingcanbeextensiveandwerenotfullyexploredbytheHandlingSubcommittee.
DISCUSSIONCalciumsulfate,alsoknownasgypsum,cancomefromanaturalsourceorthroughchemicalsynthesisasanindustrialbyproduct.ThelistingcurrentlyupforSunsetrestrictsCalciumsulfatetominedsources.NaturallyoccurringdepositsofgypsumaretheprimarysourceofminedCalciumsulfate;theUnitedStateshaslargedepositsofgypsumwhichcanbeutilizedforthispurpose.Gypsumisusedinfoodproductsasacoagulant(particularlytofu),andinbakingasaleaveningandanti-foamingagent.Itisalsoutilizedasasourceofdietarycalciuminsomefoods.TheFDAdescribesCalciumsulfateasanagentwithmanyproperties,includingpurposesasafirmingagent(asforcannedfruitsandvegetables),anticaking,andasastabilizerandthickener.69Gypsum’sotherusesareasasoilamendment,andasthemain
687CFR§205.605(a)Non-syntheticsallowed.69USFoodAndDrugAdministration,CodeofFederalRegulationsTitle21:CalciumSulfate,RevisedApril1,2009,USFoodandDrugAdministration.Availableonlineat:http://www.befoodsmart.com/ingredients/calcium-sulfate.php#sthash.VfIxxFG9.dpuf
![Page 49: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
46
componentinseveraltypesofbuildingplasterandsimilarmaterials.70Itiswidelyusedinthemanufacturingindustry.Aftermining,crudegypsumisgroundandseparated.Duringprocessing,anyimpuritiesareusuallyremoved.Calciumsulfateisalsoproducedasaby-productofotherindustrialprocessingapplications.TheNationalToxicologyProgramreleasedareviewofCalciumsulfatein2006.71PastNOSBdeliberationsThecurrentHandlingSubcommitteereliedonTAPsfrom1996and2001tomaketheircurrentrecommendationtorelistCalciumsulfate(mined).TheHandingSubcommitteeacknowledgedthattheywererelyingoninformationfromthepetitionandthe2001TAPreview,bothofwhichshowthatCalciumsulfateisconsistentwithorganiccriteria.Inthe1996TechnicalReport,WilliamA.Zimmer,DVM,wastheprimaryreviewerofthematerial.Inthisreview,helistedtheusesasasoilamendmentandasananimalfeed.Calciumsulfate’suseinfoodwasdiscussedinrelationtoitbeingsynthetic,notingthatsyntheticmanufactureofthesubstanceisrequiredforitsuseinfoodinordertoremoveitsimpurities.Thefinalrecommendationofthis1996reportwastolistCalciumsulfateasanallowedsynthetic.The2001TAPforCalciumsulfatewascompiledbytheOrganicMaterialsReviewInstitute(authors:identitieswithheldbyUSDA).ItfocusedonCalciumsulfate’suseintofuprocessingsincethatwasthepetitioner’sdescribeduse.ThisTAPissorelyoutofdate.Forexample,theTAPstatesthattherewasnoinformationontoxicologystudiesforCalciumsulfatefromtheNationalToxicologyProgram.However,justsuchareportwasproducedin2006.Thereportexploredindepththeeffectofgypsumfordifferentexposuremechanisms.Thoughthisreportdealsprimarilywithnon-dietaryexposuretoCalciumsulfate,theinformationcontainedisapplicabletotheriskstohumanhealthexperiencedinminingoperations.ThisnewinformationwasnotconsideredbytheHandlingSubcommittee.The2001TAPreviewalsodiscussedthecost-effectivenessofmininggypsum,whencomparedtogettingthematerialfromanothersource.Naturallyoccurringgypsumisanabundantmineral,butitisstillanon-renewableresourceinnature.IfCalciumsulfateisessentialtotheproductionofsomeorganicproducts,itwouldbenefittheindustryasawholetokeepapprisedastohowCalciumsulfateisproducedasaby-productandwhetherthatby-productcanserveasafoodgradesubstitutetominedCalciumsulfate.Now,in2016,thecost-effectivenessofminingversususingaby-productshouldbere-examined.
70Gypsum(factsheet).MineralEducationCoalition.Lastaccessedonline3/24/2016:https://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/gypsum71ChemicalInformationReviewDocumentforSyntheticandNaturallyMinedGypsum(CalciumSulfateDihydrate).NationalToxicologyProgram.CASNo.13397-24-5.Availableonline:http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/pubnomsupport/gypsum1_508.pdf
![Page 50: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
47
AlthoughadifferentsourceofCalciumsulfatemaynotalignwithorganicprinciplesofhandling,theremaybeoptionsavailablenoworinthefuturethatposelessrisktoenvironmentalandhumanhealth.Inparticular,miningmaynolongerbethemostsustainableapproach.AnewTRiswarranted:theseoptionsneedtobeexplored.AtthelastSunsetreviewofCalciumsulfatein2012,theNOSBstatedthatthe“[r]eviewoftheoriginalrecommendation,the2001TAPreview,historicaldocuments,the2007Sunsetrecommendation,andpubliccommentsdonotrevealunacceptableriskstotheenvironment,human,oranimalhealthasaresultoftheuseormanufactureofthismaterial.”72In2012theNOSBvotedtorelistCalciumsulfatein§205.605(a)asfollows:Calciumsulfate—mined.Thefinal2012voteswas:15yes,0no.Ultimately,thecurrentHandlingSubcommitteerecommendedthatthematerialberenewedunlesstheyreceivednewinformationfromthepublicabouthumanorenvironmentalissuesassociatedwithCalciumsulfate.ThereisenoughnewinformationavailableabouttheenvironmentalandhumanhealthrisksofCalciumsulfatethatanewTechnicalReportshouldbepreparedtocomprehensivelyexploreandevaluatethepotentialimpactofusingthismaterial.Essentialityandalternatives SomealternativesmayexisttotheuseofCalciumsulfateintofuandotherorganicproducts.Thesealternativesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:vinegars,lemonjuice,epsomsalts(Magnesiumsulfate),nigari(Magnesiumchloride),andGluconodeltalactone.73Someofthesealternativesareavailableinorganicform.However,Calciumsulfateisthemostversatilecoagulantforsoymilk,producingatenderertofu.Othercoagulantsmayimpartabitterflavororundesirabletexturetotheendproductthatmaydiscourageconsumers.Forsomeproducts,Calciumsulfatemaybeanessentialadditive.InformationonalternativesshouldbeupdatedbeforeCalciumsulfateisrelisted.Intheinterveningyearssincethe2001,TAPnewalternativesorprocessescomparabletotheuseofCalciumsulfateintofumayhavearisen.Inaddition,alternatesourcesofCalciumsulfatemaybeaviableorevenpreferablesourceofthisproductandthisoptionneedstobeexplored.
72FormalRecommendationbytheNationalOrganicStandardsBoard(NOSB)totheNationalOrganicProgram(NOP).May25,2012.CalciumSulfate:Listingat§205.605(a)forSunset2013.73Forexamplessee:TofuCoagulantGuide:Whattobuyandwheretofindit.VietWorldKitchen.October,2012.Lastaccessedonline3/25/2016:http://www.vietworldkitchen.com/blog/2012/10/tofu-coagulant-guide.html
![Page 51: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
48
EnvironmentalconcernsThereareenvironmentalconcernsassociatedwiththeminingandrefiningofCalciumsulfate.Gypsumisproducedcommerciallymainlyfromsurfacingmining,asitisasedimentarysoftrock.74Someminingdoesoccurinpitmines.Food-gradegypsumisusuallytakenfromhighqualitydeposits,butitcanalsobearefinedby-productofindustrialprocesses.Thepotentialenvironmentalharmfromminingoperationcanbeextensiveandwerepoorlyexploredinthe2001TAP,andshouldbeconsideredinmoredepth.Allminingoperationsgeneratewaste.Thiswastemustbediscardedinsomeform,butisoftendepositedastailingsoraslandfill.Dependingonthecontentandtreatmentofthe“leftovers”fromminingoperations,therearedifferentenvironmentalrisks.Generally,miningwastecausesproblemswithwaterpollutionand,becausegypsumishighlysoluble,itmixeswithwaterandwashesawayeasily.Forgypsumtailings,themostcommonriskisthesalinationofrunoff,whichcanhavecatastrophicimpactsondownstreamecology.75Sedimentsanddustfromminewastecanalsowashintowaterwaysanddisruptsensitiveriparianecosystems.TheHandlingSubcommitteedidnotconsidertheseissueswhenitreviewedminedCalciumsulfate. Surfaceminingisalsoassociatedwithhabitatdestructionanddisplacementofwildlife.Noisepollutionandfugitivedustdriftfromdrillingandblastingcanextendtheareaofenvironmentaleffectfarawayfromanymine.Inaddition,miningcanleadtosubsidenceandgroundcollapse,whichperpetuatestheenvironmentaldamagelongaftermininginanareahasended.Thereareenvironmentalrisksrelatedtotheprocessingofgypsumaswell.TheEPAnotedthattheprocessingofrawgypsumdoesreleasepollutants,mostlyintheformofparticulatematterreleasedfromthemachineryusedtorefinethesubstance.76Therearealsoemissionsassociatedwithgypsumminingfromdrillingandblasting.Manyoftheseenvironmentaldangersassociatedwithgypsumminingcanbeminimizedbystrictmanagement.Rehabilitationofminesaftermineralextractioncanhelpreturnthepreexistingecosystemstoamorenaturalstate.Carefulmanagementofwaterresourcesandwasteproductsisnecessarytopreventseriousenvironmentaldamage.However,noneoftheseprotectivemeasuresarementionedinthelistingofCalciumsulfate.74Gypsum(factsheet).MineralEducationCoalition.Lastaccessedonline3/24/2016:https://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/gypsum75Minewastes:characterization,treatmentandenvironmentalimpacts,byBerndLottermoser.SpringerScience&BusinessMedia,Jul9,2010.Seep.74-88,178.76AP-42,CH11.16:GypsumManufacturing.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Availableonline:https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s16.pdf
![Page 52: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
49
HumanhealthconcernsandbenefitsIntheamountstypicallyfoundinfoodandsupplements,Calciumsulfateisn'tlikelytocauseadverseeffectsandis“generallyregardedassafe”bytheU.S.FoodandDrugAdministration.77Inpart,thisisduetotheextensivehistoricaluseofcalciumsulfateintofuandothercoagulatedfoods.TheNationalToxicologyProgramidentifiedadversehealtheffectsfromgypsumwhenitisinhaledormakescontactwiththeskinormucousmembranes.78Theserisksapplytotheworkforceingypsummineswhereworkerscaninhaleorotherwisebeexposedtogypsumdustkickedupfromdrillingactivity.Otherharmsassociatedwithminingincludeinjuriesfromblastinganddrilling.Thelong-termhumanhealtheffectsincludecatastrophicsubsidenceofthegroundaboveorsurroundingoldmines,whichcancausefatalitiesandpropertydamage.AllthesehumanhealthrisksfromgypsumminingshouldbeseriouslyandcarefullyconsideredbeforeCalciumsulfateisrelisted.Despitetherisksofminingtohumanhealth,Calciumsulfatemayplayanimportantroleinveganandvegetariandiets.TheadditionofCalciumsulfatetofoodsincludingtofuprovidesasourceofcalciumforpeoplethatchoosenottoeatmeat.79Whiletherearemanyotherplant-basedsourcesofcalciumthatarehighlydigestible,consumingtofuisaneasywayforvegansandvegetarianstomeetthisimportantnutritionalrequirement.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutestandsneutralontherelistingofCalciumsulfate(mined)becauseofenvironmentalconcernsthatwerenotfullyexploredorupdatedintheHandlingSubcommittee’sreview.WerecommendthatanewTRberequestedinordertofullyconsidertheenvironmentalandhumanhealthrisksofgypsumminingbeforeCalciumsulfateisrelisted.
7721CFR§184.123078ChemicalInformationReviewDocumentforSyntheticandNaturallyMinedGypsum(CalciumSulfateDihydrate).NationalToxicologyProgram.)CASNo.13397-24-5.Availableonline:http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/pubnomsupport/gypsum1_508.pdf79CalciumintheVeganDiet,byReedMangels,PhD,RD.FromSimplyVegan,5thEdition.Lastaccessedonlineat:http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/calcium.php
![Page 53: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
50
CarrageenanPleaserefertosupplementaldocument.GluconoDelta-LactoneSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposestherelistingofGluconodelta-lactone(GDL)under§205.605(a)asanallowednon-synthetic.Thislistingwouldbemorecompatiblewithorganicprinciplesofhandlingwithanannotationchangeincludingthephrase“fromanon-geneticallymodifiedsourceandmethodofproduction.”Inaddition,CornucopiasuggeststhatingredientslabelingforGDLincludeareferencetotheoriginalsourceoftheproduct.Thismakesiteasierforthosewithfoodallergiestoidentifypotentiallyallergenicingredientsandwouldincreasetrustinorganicfoods.Rationale:
! GDLisausefulproductinacidifyingfoodsandisoftenusedtoimpartdesiredqualitiesinsilkentofu.
! Othercoagulantsaremorereadilyavailableandworkaswell,ifnotbetter,intofuincludingCalciumsulfate,Magnesiumsulfate,nigari,andlemonjuice.CalciumsulfatealsoimpartsasilkentexturerenderingGDLnotessential.
! GDLisaproductoffermentationfromsugarsthataretypicallyderivedfromcornorrice.Thesesourcescouldbeproductsofgeneticengineering.
! IncreasingprevalenceoffoodallergiesmakesitimportantthatthecarbohydratesourceofGDLandsimilaringredientsarelistedonanypackaging.Thiscanbeassimpleas“Gluconodelta-lactone(cornderived)”inalist.
DISCUSSIONGDLiscurrentlya“Non-agricultural(Nonorganic)substancesallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas‘‘organic’’or‘‘madewithorganic…”80ThecurrentannotationforGluconodelta-lactonereads:“Gluconodelta-lactone—productionbytheoxidationofD-glucosewithbrominewaterisprohibited.”
807CFR205.605(a)
![Page 54: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
51
Asthe2016TechnicalReviewstates,GDLisprimarilyusedintheproductionoftofuintheorganicmarket.Itisalsousedasanacidifyingagentandpreservative,leaveningagent,andsequestrant.GDLiscreatedwhengluconicacidiscrystalized.Gluconicacidisnaturallyoccurringinplants,fruitsandotherfoodsincludinggrapejuiceandwine.81Forcommercialuses,GDLisusuallypreparedbymicrobialfermentationofacarbohydratesource.Cornisthemajorcommercialsourcethoughriceisusedaswell.82Becauseofthissourcing,itislikelythatGDLisobtainedfromsugarsorstarchesderivedfromgeneticallyengineeredcrops.TechnicalReviewsGDLwaspetitionedin2002.The2002TAPwascompiledbyOMRI(thenamesofthespecificauthor(s)werewithheld).83OneofthereviewersinthisTAPnotedthatGDLshouldbederivedfromanon-GMOsourceandproducedbyfermentationwithamicroorganism.ThefinalannotationdidnotincorporatethesuggestionthattheGDLbesourcedfromanon-GMOcarbohydrate(forexample,noglucosefromGMOcorn).Atthetime,therewaslittleinformationaboutwhetheramarketalreadyexistedfornon-GMOsourcesofcornorrice,butbecausetherearenon-GMOvarietiesofcornandrice,developmentofthismarketwasconsideredpossible.In2016anotherTechnicalReviewwaspreparedbyOMRI(thenamesofthespecificauthor(s)werewithheld).ThisTechnicalReviewwentintomoredetailaboutthealternativesavailableforsilkentofuandGDL’sotherusesinorganicfood.ThistechnicalReviewalsoacknowledgedthat“thestartingmaterials,suchascornstarchormolassesthatarenecessaryforproductionofGluconicacidareagriculturalproducts.”ThesematerialscouldcomefromaGMOsource.AdditionalinformationrequestedbyNOSB:
1.IsGDLbeingusedinapplicationsotherthantofuproductionfororganicprocessed
foods?2.IfGDLwasremovedfromthenationallist,arealternativetofucoagulantssuchas
calciumandsulfatesaltssufficienttoproduceallformsoftofu?! ResearchshowsthatGDLisactuallyutilizedmoreforhowitimpartsacertain
texturetotofuthanasacoagulant.AsstatedintheTechnicalReview,othercoagulantsaremorereadilyavailableandworkthesameifnotbetterforthatpurposeintofu.
81Glucono-delta-Lactone(GdL)Anaturalwayofleavening.Jungbunzlauer.October/November2008.Availableonline:http://www.jungbunzlauer.com/fileadmin/content/_PDF/GdL_-_A_natural_way_of_leavening_Oct08.pdf82GluconoDeltaLactoneIsanAll-VegetableIngredient.October01,2010.Lastaccessed4/10/2016at:http://www.vrg.org/blog/2010/10/01/glucono-delta-lactone-is-an-all-vegetable-ingredient/83GluconoDelta-Lactone.NOSBTAPMaterialsDatabaseCompiledbyOMRI.Availableonlineat:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Glucono%20Delta%20Lactone%20TR.pdf
![Page 55: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
52
3.ShouldGDLproducedfromenzymesbeprohibitedorfurtherrestrictedduetoconcernsaroundGMOs?! Yes,GDLproducedfromenzymesshouldbeprohibitedduetoconcerns
abouttheuseofmicroorganismsobtainedbyexcludedmethods(geneticallyengineered).
HumanhealthGDLisgenerallyconsideredsafebytheFDA.84SinceGDLoccursnaturallyinsomefoods(suchasfruitjuice),itislikelythatthissubstanceisnotharmfultohumanhealth.Intoxicologystudies,GDLwasfoundtohavenoeffectonhumanhealth,thoughlong-termeffectsofitsconsumptionwerenotstudied.85EssentialityandalternativesAsacoagulantfortofu,therearemanyalternativesavailableonthemarket,includingcalciumsulfate,magnesiumsulfate,nigari,andevenlemonjuice.However,whileGDLislistedforitsqualitiesasacoagulantintofu,thefocusisonhowitimpartsasoftertexturetosilkentofu.Apparently,thistexturemakesthesilkentofueasiertoworkwithanditistheprimaryreasonGDLisusedinthesevarietiesoftofu.However,sometofu“experts”notethatCalciumsulfateispreferred,evenforsilkentofu,asGDLgivesthetofuaJello-likequalityanddoesnotimpartthesameflavorprofile.86Forthesereason,GDLisnon-essential.CONCLUSIONCornucopiaopposestherelistingGluconodelta-lactone(GDL)under§205.605(a)asanallowednon-syntheticbecause,whileitappearssafeforhumanconsumptionandmayimpartdesiredqualitiesinsomefoods,itislikelyproducedfromageneticallyengineeredsourceproductanditisnotessential.AchangetotheannotationexcludingGMOproductswouldhelpthisproblemandmakeGDLmorecompatiblewiththeorganiclabelifothercommenterssuccessfullyshowthatGDLisessential.Finally,thecarbohydratesourcingofGDLshouldbeidentifiedsoconsumerswithfoodallergiesorsensitivitiescaneasilyidentifypossibletriggers.
84https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.131885FAONutritionMeetings.ReportSeriesNo.40A,B,C.WHO/FoodAdd./67.29.Availableonlineat:http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/40abcj42.htm86AllAboutSilkenTofu:AnInterviewwithAndreaNguyen.Accessedonline4/10/2016:http://www.thekitchn.com/silken-tofu-an-interview-with-andrea-nguyenexpert-interview-171294
![Page 56: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
53
TartaricacidSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofTartaricacidunder§205.605(a)Non-syntheticsallowed.However,becausethislistingmaydiscouragetheuseoforganicTartaricacidfromorganicgrapewine,TheCornucopiaInstitutestronglyrecommendstheadditionofanannotationspecifyingthatthenonorganicformofTartaricacidcanonlybeusedwhentheproductisnotcommerciallyavailableinorganicform.ThisannotationwouldcreateanincentivefortheutilizationofTartaricacidfromorganicgrapewine,andwouldincreasethecommercialavailabilityofnaturalTartaricacidfromorganicsources(e.g.;organicgrapewine)aswellasprovideanadditionalsourceofincometoorganicvintners.Rationale:
! ThecurrentlistingdoesnotpromotetheuseofTartaricacidderivedfromorganicgrapewine.
! ThecurrentlistingdoesnotmotivatethecommercialproductionofTartaricacidderivedfromorganicgrapewineorfromotherorganicsources.
! ThedevelopmentofasufficientcommercialsupplyofTartaricacidfromanorganicsourcewouldresultinthedelistingofTartaricacid,theultimatepurposeoftheNationalList.
DISCUSSIONTartaricacidisanaturalorganicacidthatispresentinmanyplants,particularlyingrapes,bananas,andtamarinds.Itisalsooneofthemainacidsfoundinwine.Tartaricacidisusedtocreateseveraldifferentsalts,includingtartaremetic(Antimonypotassiumtartrate),creamoftartar(Potassiumhydrogentartrate),andRochellesalt(Potassiumsodiumtartrate).TheprimaryusesassociatedwithTartaricacidrelatetoitssalts.87Tartaricacidanditssaltshaveaverywidevarietyofapplications,suchasacidulant,pHcontrolagent,preservative,emulsifier,chelatingagent,flavorenhancerandmodifier,stabilizer,anti-cakingagentandfirmingagent.Ithasbeenusedinthepreparationofbakedgoodsandconfections,dairyproducts,edibleoilsandfats,tinnedfruitsandvegetables,seafoodproducts,meatandpoultryproducts,juicebeveragesandsoftdrinks,sugarpreserves,chewinggum,cocoapowder,andalcoholicdrinks.88Tartaricacidandrelatedsaltsareparticularlyusefulinbaking.Tartaricacidisoneoftheingredients,alongwithbakingsoda(Sodiumbicarbonate),inbakingpowder.Inawetenvironment,asinabatter,TartaricacidreactswithSodiumbicarbonate,producing
87https://www.thechemco.com/chemical/tartaric-acid/882011TR.Tartaricacid,lines58-63.
![Page 57: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
54
Carbondioxideandcausingvariousbakingproductstorisewithouttheuseofyeast.Thisactionaltersthetextureofmanyfoods,andassuchTartaricacidisusedinpancakes,cookies,andcakesmixes.Creamoftartarisusedtomakecakefrostingandcandies.89TherearenosoundalternativestoTartaricacidinmanybakingapplications.90Inthewinemakingprocess,Tartaricacidisusedtoalteracidity.Tartaricacidisanaturalcomponentofgrapes,whicharecommonlyusedintheproductionofwine.However,TartaricacidisusedtocorrectnaturalaciddeficienciesingrapejuiceandwineandtostabilizethewinecolorbyloweringthepH.Inaddition,Tartaricacidisusedtoenhancetheflavorandmouthfeelofthewine.Itisalsousedasapreservative,duetoitsantimicrobialproperties.Furthermore,thereareotherwines,notmadewithgrapes,whichwillneedtheadditionofTartaricacidtoincreasetheacidityofthebeverage.91Tartaricacidisacriticalcomponentinwinemakingandcannot,presently,bereplacedwithanorganicalternative.92HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsNon-syntheticTartaricacidanditssalts(i.e.Potassiumacidtartrate,Sodiumpotassiumtartrateacid)areclassifiedasGenerallyRecognizedasSafe(GRAS)bytheUSFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA).93TherearenoknownhazardstohumanhealthassociatedwiththenormaluseofTartaricacid.Theeffects(someirritation),duetoacuteaccidentaloccupationalexposure,arelistedinMaterialsSafetyDataSheets(MSDS).Ifdisposedproperly,itisunlikelythatTartaricacidwouldcauseenvironmentaldamages.Asanorganicacid,accidentalreleaseoflargeamountsintheenvironmentcouldalterthepHofaquaticandsoilenvironments.However,Tartaricaciddegradesrapidly(95%after3days)andisconsideredreadilybiodegradableanddoesnotbioaccumulate. TechnicalReportsandpastNOSBdeliberationsThe2011technicalreviewforTartaricacidwascompiledbyICFInternationalfortheUSDANationalOrganicProgram(NOP).[theauthor(s)ofthereviewwerenotdisclosed]ForthecurrentSunsetreviewperiod,theNOSBhasrequestedadditionalinformation:
1.TheHandlingSubcommitteerequestspubliccommentontheuseofTartaricacid
892011TR.Tartaricacid,lines69-74.902011TR.Tartaricacid,lines429-431.912011TR.Tartaricacid,lines76-82.922011TR.Tartaricacid,lines437-440.932011TR.Tartaricacid,lines307-310.
![Page 58: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
55
anditsessentialityinorganicprocessing.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofTartaricacidunder§205.605(a)Non-syntheticsallowed.However,becausethislistingmaydiscouragethecommercialdevelopmentanduseofTartaricacidfromorganicgrapewine,TheCornucopiaInstitutestronglyrecommendstheadditionofanannotationspecifyingthatthenonorganicformofTartaricacidcanonlybeusedwhentheproductisnotcommerciallyavailableinorganicform.
![Page 59: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
56
CelluloseSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteisneutralontherelistingofcelluloseunder§205.605(b)(syntheticsallowed)duetothenon-specificityofthecurrentannotation.Thecurrentannotationreads:“Cellulose—foruseinregenerativecasings,asananti-cakingagent(non-chlorinebleached)andfilteringaid.”ThisannotationdoesnotruleouttheuseoftypesofcellulosethathavenotbeenthoroughlyinvestigatedinTechnicalReviews.Cornucopiawouldsupportrelistingiftheannotationwerechangedtolimitthetypesofcelluloseusedinorganichandlingto“amorphouspowderedcelluloseandinediblecellulosecasing.”Itisalsoessentialthatcelluloseisrefinedfromasustainablesourcesuchasseedhullsorthroughrecycling.Rationale:
! Celluloseisthe“woody”partofplantcellsandhasmanyusesinfoodprocessing.Someoftheseusesareessentialforcertainorganicproductssuchasorganicjuice,shreddedcheese,andvegetarianprocessedmeatproducts.
! Thelistingdoesnotdifferentiatebetweenthetypesofcelluloseallowedinorganichandling,leavingtheuseofthehighlyprocessedmicrocrystallinecelluloseavailableforusebyhandlers.
! Thesourcingofwoodpulpforfoodgradecellulosemayincentivizedeforestationandplantingpulptreesinwhatcouldbenativehabitat.
! Agricultural“waste”products(suchascorncobsandseedhulls)provideanothersourceoffood-gradecellulosewhichmaybemoresustainablethanwoodpulpandmaybeavailablefromorganicsources.Obviously,GMOsourcingwouldhavetobeexplicitlyexcluded.
DISCUSSIONCelluloseisthefibrouscasingaroundthecellsofallplants.Food-gradecelluloseistypicallyderivedfromwoodpulpharvestedforthatpurpose,thoughcellulosecancomefromalmostanyplantsource,including“waste”productslikecorncobsandsoybeanhulls.Celluloseisconsideredasyntheticmaterial,becauseitmustberefinedthroughprocessing.Themethodsforrefiningcellulosearevaried,butrequiresomechemicalinputstoseparateandrefinethecellulosefromitssource.Thewoodyproductsaretypicallytreatedwithstrongacidsoralkalisubstancestobreakthebondsbetweenthecelluloseandotherplantconstituentsthatbindthemtogether.94Someformsofcelluloserequiremoreprocessingthanothers.Thecellulosefibersarethenremovedandrefinedforvarioususes.
94CelluloseProducts.UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside.Lastaccessed4/6/2016at:http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/botany/sugcellu.htm
![Page 60: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
57
Thecurrentannotationforcelluloseinorganichandlingunder§205.605(b)specifiesparticularusesallowedinorganichandling.Food-gradecelluloseisusedinorganicfood,mostlytofilterjuices,asananti-cakingingredientinshreddedcheese,andtohelpformpeel-ableprocessedmeatcasings.Itsusesoutsideoforganicfoodareasafiber“filler”tobulkupfoodsinplaceoffatandtoaddfiberformarketingpurposes.Withrespecttoitsusesinorganichandling,therearefew,ifany,alternativestocellulose.Alternativesthatmightexist(suchaspotatostarch),donotprovidethesamequalitiesandmaynotbeasinnocuoustowardhumanandenvironmentalhealth.Combinedwithaidslikediatomaceousearth,celluloseprovidesaneffectiveandbiodegradablefilter.Asforitsuseasananti-cakingagent,itappearstobeessentialforpackagedshreddedcheesesandiscommonlyusedforthatpurpose.95Microcrystallinecelluloseisachemicallymodifiedformofcellulosethathasastructuralchangefromitsnativeformthatdifferentiatesitfromothertypesofcelluloseproducts.96Thisformofcellulosecanbeusedasananti-cakingcomponentandsowouldnotbeprohibitedfromorganichandling. TechnicalReportsandpastNOSBdeliberationsThefirstTechnicalReviewforcellulosewascompletedin2001.ThisreviewwaspreparedbyOMRI(theauthorsofthereviewwereundisclosed).Thereviewersinthe2001reportmadeaspecificrecommendationregardingmicrocrystallinecellulose,acellulosedifferentiatedfromotherformsbyitsprocessing:
Incorporationofanyformofmicrocrystallinecelluloseintoorganicproductsshouldbeprohibited.Itisclearlyachemicallymodifiedformofnaturallyoccurringcellulose.MicrocrystallinecellulosehasundergoneadditionalhydrolysiswithadditionalbreakageofcovalentBeta-1,4bondscausingacompletestructuralandfunctionalchangefromitsnativeform.Therefore,itshouldbeclassifiedasasyntheticprohibitedfoodadditive.
In2001theNOSBvotedtolistcelluloseasasyntheticmaterialapprovedforuseinorganicprocessingwiththeannotationitcurrentlyholds.Nodistinctionwasmadebetweenthesourceofthecelluloseorhowthecellulosewasprocessed,includingmicrocrystallinecellulose.InMay,2012theNOSBrecommendedthattheannotationtocellulosebemodifiedtoread:“Cellulose—foruseinregenerativecasings,powderedcellulose[emphasisadded]asan
95FromMcDonald'sToOrganicValley,You'reProbablyEatingWoodPulp,byAllisonAubrey.NationalPublicRadio,MorningEdition.July10,2014.Availableat:http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/07/10/329767647/from-mcdonalds-to-organic-valley-youre-probably-eating-wood-pulp96Microcrystallinecellulose.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheU.N..Availableat:http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6355e/w6355e0l.htm
![Page 61: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
58
anticakingagent(non-chlorinebleached)andfilteringaid.”97TheUSDArejectedthisproposedannotationchangeforcellulosein2013withoutexplanation.In2012theNOSBalsorecommendedthattheNOP“prohibitthemicrocrystallineformofthissubstancebyspecifyingtheformsthatareallowed.”98However,thisrecommendationwasrejectedbytheUSDA,despiteseveralcommenterssupportingtheNOSB’srecommendation.TheUSDAstatedthattheyneededtoconfirmthatmicrocrystallinecellulosewasnotinuseinorganicprocessedproductsandwouldconsiderarestrictiononitsuseforfuturerulemaking.ThesecondTechnicalReviewwascompletedrecentlyin2016.ThisreviewwasalsopreparedbyOMRI.Theauthorsofthe2016reviewwereundisclosed.The2016TRonlyconsideredtwoformsthatarecurrentlypermittedforuseinorganicprocessingandhandling:amorphouspowderedcelluloseandinediblecellulosecasing.The2016TRreviewersstatedthatmicrocrystallinecellulosewasbeyondthescopeofthereview.However,thereisnoindicationinthelistingthatmicrocrystallinecelluloseisnotallowedinorganichandling.TheHandlingSubcommitteestatedattheSpring2012NOSBmeetingthatcertifiersandhandlersprovidedinformationtoshowthatthemicrocrystallineformwasnotusedinorganichandlingandthat,perconversationswiththeNOP,itwasalsodeterminedthatthisformofcellulosewasnotallowedforuseinorganichandling.Despitetheseassurances,theannotationforcellulosedoesnotputanyrestrictiononthetypeofcelluloseallowedinorganichandling.Toavoidconfusionamongcertifiers,handlers,andthepublic,theNOSBshouldrecommend,onceagain,thattheannotationspecifytheformsofcellulosethatareallowedbeforere-listing.ForthecurrentSunsetreviewperiod,theNOSBrequestedadditionalinformation.Specifically:
1. Havetherebeenanynewsourcesforeitheranon-syntheticoranorganicformofcelluloseidentifiedduringthiscurrentSunsetcycle?IfsopleaseprovidetheNOSBwithinformationonthissource.
2. ArethereanyneworpotentialusesnotcoveredbythecurrentannotationthatshouldbebroughttotheNOSB’sattention?Ifsopleaseexplain.
3. HavetherebeenanypossiblealternativestoanyoftheallowedusesforcelluloseidentifiedduringthiscurrentSunsetcycle,andifsopleaseprovidetheNOSBwiththeirnamesandhowtheycomparetotheuseofcelluloseforthespecificuse.
4. Whatimpactwouldtheinclusionoftheword“powdered”aspartoftheannotationhaveonyourhandlingprocess?ShouldtheNOSBconsiderbringingforthaseparateproposaltomakethischangetothecelluloseannotation?
97Cellulose:Listingat§205.605(a)forSunset2013.NOSBrecommendationMay,2012.Availableat:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cellulose%20Rec.pdf9878FR61154.Sunsetrenewalnoticeeffective11/03/13.Pp.61158.Availableat:https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-24208.pdf
![Page 62: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
59
! Theterm“powdered”wouldnotpreventtheuseofmicrocrystallinecelluloseorotherformsnotinvestigatedinthereviews.
5. Couldyouhelpustoidentifyanyancillarysubstancesthatmightbeusedwithcelluloseinorganichandlingorprocessing?ThenewTechnicalEvaluationReportmentionsseveralpotentialonesforbothpowderedandtheinedibleformusedinregenerativecasings.Areanyofthesecurrentlybeingusedinorganichandlingandprocessing?
HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsWhiletheFDAhasnotlistedcelluloseanditsmanyiterationsasGRAS,itisnotconsideredarisktothepublic.Celluloseisgenerallyregardedasaninertcomponentinfoodthatisindigestiblebyhumans.99Thisqualitymakescellulosefunctionlikeotherfiberinthediet,anditisoftenaddedtofoodsto“bulkup”theproduct.Whilecellulosemaynotbetoxic,itisnotnutritiveeither.Theprimaryenvironmentalconcernfortheuseofcelluloseisitssourcing.Asthe2016TRacknowledgedthereareissueswiththeharvestoftreesforwoodpulp.WhiletheHandlingSubcommitteestatesthatrecyclingandtheuseofalternativecropswillhelptomitigatetheimpact,thereisnoincentivewithintheregulationstorelyonsourcesofcellulosethatdonotrelyonlogging.Amoresustainableapproachwillbetoobtaincellulosefromcottonlinters100orotheragriculturalsources,includingcorncobsandsoybeanandoathulls.Cottonismostlycelluloseandcanbeeasilypurifiedforthispurpose.However,becausecottonissuchahigh-valuecropitisnotusuallyutilizedinfood,butis,instead,usedfortextilepurposes.Otheragriculturalsourcescouldbeconsideredaformofrecycling,asgrainandlegumehullsandcorncobsareoftenconsideredawasteproduct(thoughtheycanbeutilizedasafillerinlivestockfeedorinotheragriculturalapplications).Theuseoftheseagriculturalproductsshouldalwaysbethepreferenceoverwoodpulp–especiallywherethosewasteproductscomefromorganicsources.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteisneutraltowardtherelistingofcelluloseduetothenon-specificityofthecurrentannotationwhichcouldallowfortheuseofmicrocrystallinecellulose.TheNOSB,TechnicalReviewers,andthepublichaverequestedthatmicrocrystallinecellulosenotbeallowedinorganichandlingandCornucopiaagrees.TheCornucopiaInstitutewouldsupportrelistingiftheannotationwerechangedtolimitthetypesofcelluloseusedinorganichandlingto“amorphouspowderedcelluloseand
99SelectCommitteeonGRASSubstances(SCOGS)Opinion:Methylcellulose.FederalDrugAdministration.Availableonline:http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS/ucm260473.htm100SczostakA.“CottonLinters:AnAlternativeCellulosicRawMaterial.”JUN30,2009.DOI:10.1002/masy.200950606.Availableat:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/masy.200950606/abstract
![Page 63: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
60
inediblecellulosecasing”andtoaddapreferencethatcellulosecomefromsustainableagriculturalorrecycledsources.
![Page 64: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
61
PotassiumHydroxideSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofPotassiumhydroxideunder§205.605(b)SyntheticsAllowed.However,TheCornucopiaInstitutesuggeststhattheNOSBincludeanannotationwitha5-yeartermlimitontheuseofPotassiumhydroxidetopeelpeaches.Thissuggestionismadeinconsiderationthatoneoftheoverarchingprinciplesoforganicprocessingisthedevelopmentofnew,environmentallysensitiveandfunctionallyappropriatetechnologiestoreplacetheubiquitoususeofsyntheticfood-gradechemicalsinourfoodsupply.101Itshouldalsobenotedthat,inthepast,prohibitionsonproductsandprocessesweremotivationsfortheorganicindustrytodriveinnovationandinventioninordertoreplacetheenvironmentallyharmfulpracticesoftenfoundonconventionalfarmsandinprocessingfacilities.102Rationale:
! Forcertainapplications,suchaslyepeelingofpeaches,Potassiumhydroxideiscurrentlyessential.
! Thereareseveralalternativeapproachestopeelpeachesthatarebeingdeveloped;onlyoneofthemisnowavailablecommercially.
DISCUSSIONPotassiumhydroxide(KOH)iscurrentlyallowedforuseininorganichandlingandprocessingasasyntheticnon-agricultural(nonorganic)substancelistedunder§205.605(b)foruseasaningredientinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic”or“madewithorganic(specifiedingredientsorfoodgroup(s))”withthefollowingannotation:“prohibitedforuseinlyepeelingoffruitsandvegetablesexceptwhenusedforpeelingpeaches.”Itisusedasadirectfoodadditive,formulationaid(i.e.;soapmaking),pHadjuster,cleaningagent,stabilizer,thickener,andpoultryscaldagent.ThemainfoodprocessingapplicationsofPotassiumhydroxideincludeusesasapHadjuster,cleaningagent,stabilizer,thickener,fruitandvegetablepeelingagent,andpoultryscaldagent.Itisusedindairyproducts,bakedgoods,cocoa,fruits,vegetables,softdrinks,andpoultry.Themainfoodsprocessed
1012001TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines440-443.1022001TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines404-406.
![Page 65: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
62
withPotassiumhydroxidearechicken,cocoa,coloringagents,icecream,andblackolives.Itisalsousedinthemanufacturingofsoap.HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsUsesofPotassiumhydroxidethatareGenerallyRecognizedasSafe(GRAS)bytheUSFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)includeuseasaformulationaid,pHcontrolagent,processingaid,stabilizer,andthickener.103However,assummarizedinthe2001TAPreview,thischemicalisquitehazardoustohumanhealth:104
Thesubstanceishighlycorrosiveandcancausesevereburnsofeyes,skin,andmucousmembranes.Generally,studiesandsurveysregardingthetoxicityofPotassiumhydroxideareincludedwithstudiesofSodiumhydroxide,andtheyarecollectivelyknownas‘caustics‘or‘lye’.Lyepoisoningresultsinnumerousdeathsannually,generallyasaccidentsinvolvingcleaners.Lyesareparticularlypenetratingandcorrosivewithtissue.Thisisduetothesolubilizingreactionswithprotein,saponificationoffats,anddehydrationoftissue.
WhenPotassiumhydroxidewasfirstreviewedforinclusionontheNationalListin1995,theNOSBrecommendedthatitbeprohibitedforuseinlyepeelingoffruitsandvegetables.Atthetime,themainconcernsregardinglyepeelingrelatedtotheenvironmentaleffectsoftheeffluentandotherwasteproducts,aswellasthebeliefthatmechanicalornon-chemicalalternativeswereavailableformostfruitsandvegetables.105Alye-peelingprocessingmethodgenerateslargeamountsofpotentiallytoxicwastetobehandled.Peachprocessingplantsusinglyepeelingaregenerallyrestrictedbystateandlocalwastewatertreatmentrequirements,whichhasresultedinalimitednumberofplantsandsitesbeingoperated.106However,theenvironmentalimpactoftheuseofcausticsinchemicalpeelingcanbemitigatedthroughcarefulwastewatermanagementpractices.Documentationprovidedbythepetitionerandcorroboratedbythelocalwatertreatmentagencyseemtoindicatethatthispetitionerhaddevelopedanenvironmentallybenignprocessthatresultsinapotassium-rich,pH-neutral,treatedeffluentthatisbeingreturnedtocroplandwithnonegativeimpactonthelocalhydrology.107
103https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title21-vol3/xml/CFR-2011-title21-vol3-sec184-1631.xml1042001TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines118-122.1052016TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines129-1371062001TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines165-172.1072001TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines528-530.
![Page 66: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
63
Furthermore,mitigationoftheadverseenvironmentalimpactsoflyepeelingandresearchonalternativeshavebecomeprioritiesforthefoodprocessingindustrybecauseoftheadverseeffectsofcausticsubstancesreleasedintotheenvironment.108EssentialityandAlternatives The original 2001 TAP review indicated clearly that there were no viable alternatives to lye peeling of peaches, the 2016 TR does not add much to the information provided by the TAP review, but states:
“Otherphysicalmethodsthatarebeingexploredincludeinfrared,ohmicheating,andphysicalultrasonics.Whilethesearepromisingalternativesthatmayaddressthevariousproblemscausedbylyepeeling,theyarenotyetconsideredcommerciallyviable.”
Infrareddrypeelingofpeachisnowcommerciallyavailable109,whileenzymaticpeelingofstonefruitsisapromisingapproachcurrentlybeingdeveloped.110Sodiumhydroxide,listedat§205.605(b)withtheannotation:“prohibitedfortheuseinlyepeelingoffruitsandvegetables,isasubstituteformanyusesofPotassiumhydroxide.”AlthoughmoreexpensivethanSodiumhydroxide,Potassiumhydroxideisusedinapplicationswheresodiumlevelsneedtoberestricted,anddoesnotcreatesalinityproblemsassociatedwithexcesssodium.Forspecificapplications,suchasthepeelingofpeaches,themanufacturingofsoaps,asacleaningagent,formulationaid,blackolivecuring,poultryscaldagent,andotherapplicationswheresodiumisundesirable,Potassiumhydroxideiscurrentlystillessential. TechnicalReportsandPastNOSBDeliberationsBoththe2001TechnicalAdvisoryPanel(TAP)reviewandthe2016TRwerecompiledbyOMRI;however.[thespecificauthor(s)werenotidentified]History In1995theNOSBapprovedtheadditionofPotassiumhydroxideto§205.605(b),withanannotationprohibitingitsuseinthelyepeelingoffruitsandvegetables.Thisrestrictionwasbasedonconcernsabouttheenvironmentaleffectsofthewasteproductsofthelyepeelingprocess,andthefactthatmechanicalandnon-chemicalalternativeswereavailableformostfruitsandvegetables.In2001apetitionersoughttoexpandtheuseofPotassiumhydroxidebyamendingtheannotationtoread―“prohibitedforuseinlyepeelingoffruitsandvegetablesexceptwhen
1082016TR.Potassiumhydroxide.Lines360-362109http://www.catalyticdrying.com/application02.html110Enzymaticpeelingofapricots,nectarinesandpeaches.Lebensmittel-Wissenschaftund-Technologie.36(2):215-221.Feb.2003.
![Page 67: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
64
usedforpeelingpeachesduringtheIndividuallyQuickFrozen(IQF)productionprocess.”The2001TAPreviewforthatexpansionnotedthat:“Thestonefruit(peaches,nectarines,andapricots)donotappeartocurrentlyhavealternativemethodsavailableonacommercialscaletoachievepeelingwithouttheuseofcausticsubstances.”The2001TAPreviewalsonotedthattheenvironmentaleffects,whichhadoriginallyresultedintherestrictiveannotation,couldbemitigatedwiththeuseofgoodwastewatermanagementpractices.Peachprocessingplantsaregenerallyrestrictedbystateandlocalwastewatertreatmentrequirements,andthenaturalacidityofthefruitandadditionalpHadjustmentsbufferthealkalinityofthewastewater.Becausenocommerciallyviablealternativesareavailable,andprocessingpracticemitigatesthepotentialenvironmentaleffects,theNOSBapprovedtheexpandedannotation.Anewpetitionfromthesamepetitionerwasfiledin2011,seekingtoexpandtheannotationagaintoallowtheuseofPotassiumhydroxidetopeelfreshpeachesbeforecanning.Thepetitionconfirmsthelackofcommerciallyviablealternativesforthisuse,andthemitigationofpotentialenvironmentalimpact.Theprocessingofpeachesforcanningandfreezingisidenticalupuntilthefreezingorcanningstep.Basedonthepetition,the2001TAPreview,andtherationaleofthe2001NOSB,theHandlingCommitteesupportedtheexpansionofthisannotationtoallowPotassiumhydroxide’suseinthepeelingofbothIQFandcannedpeaches.Accordingly,sincecanningandfreezingaretheprimaryprocessingmethodscommerciallyusedforpeaches,theNOSBfullboardfavoredremovingthelanguageregardingIQFmethodssothattheexceptiontotheprohibitiononlyepeelingappliestoallpeachpeeling.111ForthecurrentSunsetreviewperiod,theNOSBhasrequestedadditionalinformation:
1. TheHandlingSubcommitteerequestspubliccommentontheuseofPotassium
hydroxideanditsessentialityinorganicprocessing.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofPotassiumhydroxideunder§205.605(b)SyntheticsAllowed.However,TheCornucopiaInstitutesuggeststhattheNOSBputa5-yeartermlimitontheuseofPotassiumhydroxidetopeelpeaches,inordertomotivateinnovationbytheorganicfruitindustrytofindaviablealternativetolyepeeling.
111Allproposals.NOSBApril2016.https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ALL%20Proposals%20NOSB%20April%202016_0.pdf
![Page 68: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
65
SiliconDioxideSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofSilicondioxide–Permittedasadefoamer.Allowedforotheruseswhenorganicricehullsarenotcommerciallyavailableunder§205.605(b)Syntheticallowed.Silicondioxideisprimarilyusedasadefoamerandwhenorganicricehullsarenotavailable,asananti-cakingagent,afilteringandtabletingaid,aswellasaprocessingaidforwineandbeer,fruitandvegetableprocessing,andgelatinproduction.112However,TheCornucopiaInstitutestronglyrecommendsthattheannotationbechangedtothelanguageoriginallypassedbytheNationalOrganicStandardBoard(NOSB):“Permittedasadefoamer.Allowedforotheruseswhenanorganicsubstituteisnotcommerciallyavailable.”Rationale:
! Theproductionoforganicbiogenicsilicaproductsfromalternativesourceshasnotbeen
thoroughlyinvestigated.! Thecommercialavailabilityofalternativeorganicbiogenicsilicaproductshasnotbeen
thoroughlyinvestigatedandshouldbeencouraged.DISCUSSIONSilicondioxidewasoriginallylistedowingtoitsuniqueproperties,itsoverallsafetyprofile,limitedenvironmentalconcerns,andthelackofbiogenicalternatives,whetherorganicornot.In2010apetitionwassubmittedtotheNationalOrganicProgram(NOP)toremovethelistingon§205.605(b),statingthataviable,non-synthetic,certifiedorganicsubstitutetoSilicondioxide,derivedfromrice-hullmaterial,wasnowcommerciallyavailable.ThisalternativeproductpossessessimilarfunctionalpropertiestoSilicondioxideasitisproducedfromricehullswhichnaturallycontainahighconcentrationofsilica.113ThispetitionaddressedconcernsnotedbytheHandlingSubcommittee(HS)duringthe2010Sunsetreviewprocessastowhetherornot“applicablealternativesexistforsufficientusesandapplicationsofSilicondioxideinorganichandling.”114Nevertheless,theHSfeltthattheinformationprovidedbythepetitionwas“stilllimited,notpublishedfromathirdpartysource,anddoesnotconclusivelydemonstrateits
1122010TR–Silicondioxide.Lines124-158113https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Silicon%20dioxide.pdf114https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Silicon%20D%20proposal.pdf
![Page 69: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
66
applicabilityinallproductsandprocesses.”115EventhoughthepetitionwasdeemedinsufficienttojustifytheremovalofSilicondioxidefrom205.605(b),theHSwantedtoacknowledgetheavailabilityofanaturalalternative.In2011,theNOSBvotedtoannotatethelistingofSilicondioxideinordertorecognizeandencouragetheuseoforganicricehulls(andothernon-syntheticsubstances)asanalternativeformostusesofSilicondioxide.TheNOSBrecommendedthefollowingannotation:“Allowedforuseasadefoamer.Maybeusedinotherapplicationswhennon-syntheticalternativesarenotcommerciallyavailable.’’Instead,theNOPproposedandputintoregulationthefollowingannotation:“Permittedasadefoamer.Allowedforotheruseswhenorganicricehullsarenotcommerciallyavailable.”TheNOPjustifiedthischangeasfollows:
AMSunderstandsthattheintentoftheNOSB’srecommendationistoallowthecontinueduseofSilicondioxideasadefoamerandtorequiretheuseofanon-syntheticsubstanceinsteadofSilicondioxidewhenpossible.ToensureclarityandconsistencywithintheUSDAorganicregulations,AMSisproposingamodificationtotheNOSB’srecommendation.
TheannotationinthefinalruleislessrestrictivethantheNOSBrecommendation,andthereforeallowstheuseofthesyntheticSilicondioxideincaseswherethereisanon-syntheticalternativeotherthanorganicricehulls.ThisiscontrarytoOFPA§6517(d)(2).116Accordingtothe2010TechnicalReview(TR),whichwascompiledbytheTechnicalServicesBranchfortheNOP[noauthor(s)listed],otherplantmaterialscouldbeutilizedintheproductionofbiogenicsilicaproducts.117Handling Subcommittee Deliberations The2010TRdidnotfindthemanufactureoruseofSilicondioxidetobeharmfultopeopleortheenvironment.Thesubcommitteequestionswhethersiliconedioxideshouldremainonthelistdueto§205.600:InadditiontothecriteriasetforthintheAct,anysyntheticsubstanceusedasaprocessingaidoradjuvantwillbeevaluatedagainstthefollowingcriteria:
• Thesubstancecannotbeproducedfromanaturalsourceandtherearenoorganicsubstitutes.
115https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Silicon%20D%20recommendation.pdf116“TheSecretarymaynotincludeexemptionsfortheuseofspecificsyntheticsubstancesintheNationalListotherthanthoseexemptionscontainedintheProposedNationalListorProposedAmendmentstotheNationalList.”1172010TR–Silicondioxide.Lines438-448.
![Page 70: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
67
AdditionalinformationrequestedbyNOSB:1. Arethereinstanceswhereduetolackofavailabilityoforganicalternatives,you
mustuseSilicondioxide?2. Arethereinstanceswheretheorganicalternativedoesnotperformtheneeded
functionand,therefore,youmustuseSilicondioxide?Ifso,whatarethosefunctions?And,whathasbeentheundesiredresultwhenSilicondioxidewastried?
CONCLUSION The Cornucopia Institute supports the relisting of Silicon dioxide in §205.605(b), with the recommendation that the availability of organic biogenic sources of silica products be further investigated. In addition, the Cornucopia Institute strongly recommends that the annotation be changed in order to encourage the development and commercialization of alternative organic biogenic silica products: Silicondioxide–Permittedasadefoamer.Allowedforotheruseswhenanorganicsubstituteisnotcommerciallyavailable.
![Page 71: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
68
Colors:β-CaroteneExtractColorSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposestherelistingofβ-caroteneextractcolorunder§205.606(d)(2)derivedfromcarrotsoralgae(pigmentCAS#7235-40-7).Rationale:
! TheHandlingSubcommittee,basedonthepubliccommentsmadeduringtheSpring2015NOSBmeeting,recommendedfortheFall2015NOSBmeetingthatCarrotJuicecolorberemovedfromtheNationalListbecauseasufficientcommercialsupplyoforganiccarrotwasbelievedtobeavailable.
! Organicalternativesexist:theyellowtoredcarotenoidpigmentsfromorganicannattocouldbeusedtoreplacebeta-caroteneextractcolor.Sufficientsuppliesoforganicannattoarecommerciallyavailable.
! Thesolvents,vegetableoil,orethanol,usedtoextractbeta-carotenefromcarrotsoralgaeareobtainedfromcropsproducedfromchemicallyintensiveagricultureandarelikelyGMO,bothexcludedmethodsinorganicproduction.
! Aformofnonorganicbeta-caroteneisderivedfromcarrotsgrownusingchemicallyintensiveconventionalagriculture.
! PastNOSBrecommendationshavenottakenintoaccounttheimpactsofchemicallyintensiveagriculture.
! Thebeta-carotenepigmentisahighlyconcentratedextract,fromtheroot,whichislikelytocontainhighlevelsofpesticidesresidues—Currentresearchislackingtodeterminepossibleimpactonhumanhealth.
! Consumersexpectorganicfoodtobeunadulterated–thatis,withouthavingitsessentialcharacteristicsmanipulatedwiththeadditionofnonorganicingredients,whethertoenhanceflavorsorcolors.
! Thesematerialsareprohibitedbytheorganicrulesunder§205.600(b)(4)–preservative,flavorandcolorenhancement,andcreationoftexture—therefore,theyshouldbeallowedtoSunset.
DISCUSSIONColorsinfoodproductsservevariouspurposes:toenhanceappearanceandattractivenessofthefood,toensureuniformityofcolor,toreplacecolorthatwaslostduringprocessing,toaccentuateexistingcolors,topreserveflavorandprotectlight-sensitivevitamins.Thepeoplewhochoosetoeatorganicfooddosobecauseorganicproductionissupposedtoguaranteethat,inadditiontoproducingmorehealthyfoodproducts,itminimizesimpactsonfarmworkersandtheenvironment,includingsoilandwaterresources,wildlife,andbeneficialinsects.
![Page 72: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
69
Beta-carotenefromcarrotsInitsAugust2010recommendationfor§205.606SunsetreviewofColorsDerivedfromAgriculturalProducts,theNOSBstated:
“Areviewoftheoriginalpetitionsandrecommendations,historicaldocuments,andpubliccommentsdoesnotrevealunacceptableriskstotheenvironment,humanoranimalhealthasaresultoftheuseormanufactureofthesecolors.ThereisnonewinformationcontradictingtheoriginalrecommendationwhichwerethebasisforthepreviousNOSBdecisionstolistthesecolors.As§205.606listedmaterials,allaresubjecttocommercialavailabilityscrutinyforuseinorganicproducts.”
DespitetheNOSB’sfindingswithrespecttothesecolors,theBeta-caroteneextractcolorisderivedfromcarrotsgrownwithconventionalagriculture,achemicallyintensiveapproach.Conventionalagricultureusesmanypesticides118andherbicides,toxicchemicalcompoundsthatnegativelyimpactthegreaterenvironment,thefarmworkers,thecustomers,duetoresidues,aswellaspoisonanddepletethesoil,affectingitsabilitytoproducefoodoverthelong-termandthreateningthesurvivalofthehumanspecies.Inspiteofthefactthattheuseofsuchsubstancesisnotcompatiblewithasystemofsustainableagriculture[§6518m.7],pastrecommendationshavenottakenintoaccounttheimpactsofchemicallyintensiveagriculturefromwhichthesematerialsarederived.Beta-caroteneextractcolorfromalgaeBeta-caroteneisextractedfromalgaewithhotvegetableoilorethanol.Itcanalsobeextractedusingcarbondioxidebysupercriticalfluidextraction(SFE),togetherwithethanol.119Bothethanolandvegetableoilarederivedfromcrops(corn:sugarbeetorsoybean,canola:cotton)grownusingchemicallyintensiveagriculture,andwhicharelikelytobeGMO.Extractionwithvolatilesolvents(suchasethanol)isaprohibitedmethodintheorganicregulations.HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsFruitsandvegetablesconventionallygrownmaycontainpesticides,whicharelimitedbypesticidetolerancesforfoodproducts,asregulatedbytheEPA.120TheFDAroutinelymonitorsforpesticidesresiduesonfruitsandvegetablestoensurethatfoodproducts(domesticorimported)complywithpesticidetolerance.121Whetherornotthecurrentlyestablishedpesticidetolerancesreflecttherecentadvancesinresidueanalysis
118http://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/conscience/navigation.php.119Colors–2015TR,pp480-492120Colors–2015TR,pp689-690121U.S.EPA.2014.PesticideTolerances.OfficeofPesticidePrograms,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Available:http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm
![Page 73: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
70
instrumentation,orprovideanadequateprotectiontothepublic,isleftforanotherdiscussion.BeyondPesticides’databaseshowsthat,whilecarrotsgrownwithtoxicchemicalsshowlowpesticideresiduesonthefinishedcommodity,thereare42pesticideswithestablishedtolerancesforcarrots,17areacutelytoxiccreatingahazardousenvironmentforfarmworkers(35Californiafarmworkerpoisoningsoveran18-yearperiod),38arelinkedtochronichealthproblems(suchascancer),13contaminatestreamsorgroundwater,and42arepoisonoustowildlife.122The2007Petitionbythemanufacturersoftheconventionallygrowncolorantsstatesthat“Becausenaturalcolorantsareconcentratedandverystrong,theyareusedinorganicfoodandbeverageproductsatverylowlevels…”123Thiswouldimply,forexample,thatinordertoextractcolorfromcarrotpulp,itwouldtakealargeamountofcarrotstoproduceasmallamountofcolorant,thusthepesticideresidueswouldbecomeveryconcentrated.The2011TR,compiledbytheUSDATechnicalServicesBranch[noauthor(s)specified]fortheNOP,mentionsthe1993WHOtoxicologicalmonograph,inwhichthecommitteestatesthatnotoxicologicaldataonvegetableextractswereavailableandconcludedthattherewasnoobjectiontotheuseofvegetableextractsascoloringagents,providedthatthelevelofusedidnotexceedthelevelnormallypresentinvegetables.Thereportfurtherstatedthat“implicitinthisconclusionisthattheextractsshouldnotbemadetoxicbyvirtueoftheconcentrationoftoxiccompounds(includingtoxicantsnaturallyoccurringinthevegetables)norbythegenerationofreactionproductsorresiduesofanatureorinsuchamountsastobetoxicologicallysignificant.”Thisisquiteaninterestingstatement,yettheTRnotonlydoesnotfurtherexpandonthepossibilityoftoxicamountsofpesticidesresiduesinvegetableextracts,nordoesitdiscussthepossibilityofthepresenceofpesticidesresiduesinextractsfromcarrotsgrownbypesticideintensiveagriculture.ItappearstheNOSBhasneverconsideredtheimplicationofconcentratingextractsobtainedfromplantsgrownusingachemicallyintensiveapproach.The2015TR,compiledbyICFInternational[noauthor(s)specified]fortheNOP,mentionsthepossibilityoffindingpesticidesresiduesonthefruitsandvegetablesusedassourcesofcolors,butdoesnotaddressthepossibilityofhighpesticideresiduelevelsinconcentratedfruitorvegetableextracts.Thisisalogicalandfairlystraightforward
122http://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/eating-with-a-conscience/choose-a-crop?foodid=10123PetitionfortheAdditionofNonOrganicAgriculturalSubstancetotheNationalListPursuanttoSection205.606.Page3–January15,2007.http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5057458
![Page 74: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
71
consideration,fullysupportedbytheindustry’sownadmissionastotheconcentrationofnaturalcolorants.Thetechnicalchallengeposedbythepresenceofconcentratedpigmentshaslimitedextensivetesting.Asearchofthescientificliteraturesuggestedthatnaturalpigmentsinterferewithpesticideresidueanalysisandneedtobeseparated/removedduringtheanalysisprocess.124Therefore,thehighlevelsofpigmentsinconcentratedjuiceorvegetableextractswouldlikelycreateasignificantinterferenceandchallengetotheanalysisofpesticidesresidues.Perhapsthisiswhyno-oneseemstohaveundertakensuchaproject,inadditiontothefactthattheuseof“natural”colorsisstillverylimited,butactivelygrowing.125Themainpointisthatnooneseemstohavelookedatthepotentialaccumulationandresultinghighlevelsofpesticideresiduesinconcentratedfruitandvegetableextractsand,thus,itwouldmakesensetoerronthesideofcautionuntilthispossibilityisfurtherinvestigatedandallowbeta-carotenein§205.606toSunset.Essentialityandalternatives
1. Is-thereaneedfor“organicenhancedfood”–thatisfoodwithaddedcolorsorflavors,whicharemanufactured“natural”derivativesofnonorganiccrops?
§205.600(b)(4)states:“Thesubstance'sprimaryuseisnotasapreservativeortorecreateorimproveflavors,colors,textures,ornutritivevaluelostduringprocessing,exceptwherethereplacementofnutrientsisrequiredbylaw.”Naturalcolorsareoftendestroyedormutedduringprocessingoffood,socolors,suchasbeta-carotene,areaddedtoreplaceandimprovethelostcolors.TheTRstatesthat“colorantsareaddedtoconsumableproductsforthesolepurposeofenhancingthevisualappeal.”126Thispurposeisclearlynotallowedundertheorganicregulations.Consumersexpectthatorganicfoodoritsessentialcharacteristicswillnotbemodifiedwithnonorganicingredients(otherwiseprohibited)addedfornon-essentialpurposes,suchasenhancingappearance(color)orintensifyingflavors.Ifconsumersdemandcolorsaddedtotheirorganicfood,thesecolorsshouldbederivedfromorganicfruitsorvegetables.
2. Isthecurrentsupplyoforganicfruitsandvegetablessufficienttoprovidetheamountsofcolorantsneededbytheindustry?
124http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967303005399125http://naturesflavors.com/baking/organic-baking/organic-food-colors126β-Carotene–2011TR,pp438-445
![Page 75: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
72
Beta-carotenewaspetitionedbycolormanufacturersin2007.NoTAPwasrequested.TheNOSBHandlingSubcommitteerejectedthepetitiontoaddthismaterialto§205.606stating:“thepetitionerdidnotprovidecredibleinformationregardingthelackofsupplyoforganicrawmaterial,andtheabilitytoprocessthemasorganic.”127However,attheMarch2007NOSBmeeting,thematerialwasapproved.Therewerealreadyquestionsastothelackofsupplyoforganicrawmaterialin2007and,sincethen,theorganicindustryhasgrownsteadilyeveryyearoverthelast7yearswhichhaslikelyincreasedthesupplyoforganiccarrots.128,129Aquickwebsearchfoundthatseveralsourcesoforganiccarrotextracts–usedtoobtainbeta-caroteneextractcolor–arereadilyavailableasorganicvegetablejuiceconcentrates.130,131Thisdemonstratesthatorganicagriculturecannowfulfillsome,ifnotall,thedemandforbeta-carotene.Othersourcesoforganicbeta-caroteneexist;the2011TRlistsseveralvegetableresourcesrichinbeta-carotene,suchasthefruitoftheoilpalm.132Thecarotenesareextractedfromtheoilwhichcontainsbeta-carotene,alongwithseveralothercarotenes.Organicpalmoiliscommerciallyavailable.133Amongtheotherpotentialsourcesofbeta-caroteneissweetpotato,commerciallyavailableinorganicform.134Alternatively,theyellowtoredcarotenoidpigmentsfromorganicannattocouldbeusedtoreplaceβ-caroteneextractcolor.135Sufficientsuppliesoforganicannattoarecommerciallyavailableand,assuch,nonorganicannattowasremovedfromtheNationalListin2013.136Materialsshouldberemovedfrom§205.606iftheycanbesuppliedorganically.And,ofcourse,ifthesematerialsareallowedtoSunset,whethertheorganicproductionmayormaynotbesufficient,thedemandwillcreateasupply,aprocessstimulatinggrowthandbenefitingtheorganicindustryandtheeconomy.
127https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Color%20Beta%20Carotene%202007%20Committee%20Rec.pdf128http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=35003129https://www.ota.com/what-ota-does/market-analysis130http://www.fruitjuiceconcentrate.org/organic-carrot-juice-concentrate131http://www.ariza.nl/products/concentrated-juices/organic-carrot-concentrate/132β-Carotene–2011TR,pp362-367133Colors–2015TR,pp786-791134http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/special-sections/Organics-try-to-carve-niche-in-NC-sweet-potato-business-282285571.html135Colors–2015TR,pp793-796136USDA.2011.FormalRecommendationbytheNationalOrganicStandardsBoard(NOSB)totheNationalOrganicProgram(NOP).PetitiontoRemoveAnnattoextractcolor.NationalOrganicProgram,AgriculturalMarketingService,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.Availableat:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Color%20Annatto%20Extract%20Formal%20Rec.pdf
![Page 76: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
73
HandlingsubcommitteedeliberationandvoteAfterdiscussingthehistoryofbeta-carotene,whichwasapprovedattheMarch,2007NOSBmeeting,itwasnotedthattheNOSBisintheprocessofreviewingtheuseofallmarineplantscurrentlyontheNationalList,andwillberequestingalimitedTechnicalReport.MarineplantswillbediscussedasaseparateitemattheFall2016meeting.TheNOSBisrequestingadditionalinformationaboutbeta-carotene:
1. Hastherebeenanychangeintheabilityofmanufacturerstoproducebeta-carotenecolorfromcarrotsusingNOPcompliantextractionmethods?
2. Isthiscolornecessaryfororganicprocessors?3. Whichspeciesofalgaeareusedandfromwherearetheyharvested?4. IfthetypicalspeciesusedarefromthegenusDunaliella(ascitedintheTR)is
harvestingofthesespeciesofmicroalgaefromthewild,certifiedwildcrafted,orcultivated?
5. Whenusedasacolor,isthismaterialalsoasourceofVitaminA?TheHandlingSubcommittee,basedonthepubliccommentsmadeduringtheSpring2015NOSBmeeting,recommendedfortheFall2015NOSBmeetingthatcarrotjuicecolorberemovedfromtheNationalList,becauseasufficientcommercialsupplyoforganiccarrotswasbelievedtobeavailable.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituterejectstherelistingofβ-caroteneextractcolorunder§205.606(d)(2)derivedfromcarrotsoralgaeontheNationalListunder§205.606Nonorganicallyproducedagriculturalproductsallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic.”TheCornucopiaInstitutequestionstheessentialityofusingacolorfromanonorganicagriculturalsource,consideringthatcolorsfromnonorganicfruitorvegetablesourcesmaycontainsignificantamountofpesticideresidues,ahumanhealththreat.Inaddition,thereappearstobeasufficientcommercialsupplyoforganicsourcesofbeta-carotenecolorandofanorganicalternativetobeta-carotenecolortojustifytheremovalofbeta-carotenefrom§205.606(d)(2).
![Page 77: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
74
PETITIONEDMATERIALSLactates,SodiumandPotassium
SUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofsodiumandpotassiumlactatesontheNationalListunder§205.605(b)Syntheticsallowed,becausetheyarenotessentialandmoreappropriatealternativesexist.Inaddition,theirpetitioneduseisassyntheticpreservativesandforcolorandflavorenhancement,apurposeprohibitedbyorganicregulationsunder§205.600(b)(4):Thesubstanceprimaryuseisnotasapreservative,colorandflavorenhancement,andcreationoftexture.Rationale:
! Thepetitionedusesforthesematerialsareprohibitedby§205.600(b)(4)–preservative,flavorandcolorenhancement,andcreationoftexture—thereforetheyshouldnotbeaddedtotheNationalList.
! Alargepercentageoftheagriculturalfeedstock(cornorbeetsugar)thatisfermentedtoproducelacticacidmaybefromconventional,GMOsources,andthefermentingmicroorganismsmaybegeneticallymodified.
DISCUSSIONSodium lactate and potassium lactate were petitioned for inclusion on the National List under §205.605 on January 5, 2004. On January 22, 2004 the NOP notified the petitioner (Applegate Farms) that the petitions were not necessary since the materials were combinations of materials already on the National List (i.e., lactic acid combined with Sodium hydroxide and lactic acid combined with Potassium hydroxide). Since the NOP’s letter to the petitioner was released, both sodium lactate and potassium lactate have been allowed for use in organic processing. It is not clear whether certifiers have allowed it just for meat production or for other applications as well. On June 25, 2014 the NOP issued a memorandum to the NOSB regarding the regulatory statuses of sodium lactate and potassium lactate. In that memorandum, the NOP acknowledged that the interpretation published on January 22, 2004, was not consistent with previous NOSB recommendations on classification of materials, and they requested that the NOSB take up the petitions for these two substances for consideration for inclusion on the National List (McEvoy 2014)137. Sodiumlactateandpotassiumlactateareproducedbyreactingnatural(fermented)lacticacidwithSodiumhydroxide,SodiumcarbonateorPotassiumhydroxide,137McEvoy,M."USDAAgriculturalMarketingService."NationalOrganicProgram.January25,2014.http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5108095
![Page 78: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
75
respectively.Areactionbetweenanacidandahydroxideisasyntheticreactionandtheresultingcompoundsaresynthetics.Theliteraturedoesnotsuggesttheexistenceofanynon-syntheticformsofsodiumlactateorpotassiumlactate.138Sodiumlactateandpotassiumlactateareoftenusedtoimproveorenhanceflavorsandtexturesoffoodproducts.However,theyareprimarilyusedinmeatproducts(includingcuredmeats)duetotheirantimicrobialactivity.139Theywerepetitionedforuseasapathogeninhibitorinprocessedmeat.SodiumandpotassiumlactatesaresomeofthefewantimicrobialcompoundsacceptedbytheFDAthatcanreplacenitrates/nitritesinmeatproductsandareGRAS.140§205.600(b)(4)states:“Thesubstance'sprimaryuseisnotasapreservativeortorecreateorimproveflavors,colors,textures,ornutritivevaluelostduringprocessing,exceptwherethereplacementofnutrientsisrequiredbylaw.”Theinhibitionofpathogensisapropertydisplayedbypreservatives.Thisindicatesveryclearlythatthepetitionedpurposeforsodiumandpotassiumlactateshouldnotbeallowedundertheorganicregulations.Humanandenvironmentalhealthconcerns LactatesaltsareGRAS,andposelowpotentialrisktohumanhealth.Theiruseinsomeapplicationscanactuallybebeneficialtohumanhealthbyreducingtheriskoffoodbornepathogens.141Environmentalhazardsduetothemanufactureoruseoflacticacidoritssaltsareconsideredlow.However,theconventionalfermentation-basedprocesscreatesasurplusofCalciumsulfate(gypsum)waste,thedisposalofwhichcanbeproblematic.Someofthecurrentcommercialusesforgypsumareinthemanufactureofplasterboardsandasasoilamendment,forwhichitismarketedbysomeofthemanufacturersoflacticacid.Otherlacticacidproductionprocessesarecurrentlybeinginvestigatedtoenhanceefficiencyandproductivitywhilediminishingwasteproduction.142EssentialityandalternativesSodiumlactateandpotassiumlactatearemainlyusedaspreservativesinmeatproducts(primarilycuredmeats)forfoodsafetyreasonsastheyareimportantfactorsinthecontrolofListeriamonocytogenes,Clostridiumbotulinum,Salmonella,E.coliO157:H7andothermicroorganisms143responsibleforfood-borneillness.Nitratesandnitritesareotherpreservativescommonlyusedinnonorganiccuredmeats,mainlyforthecontrolofClostridiumbotulinumandtoassistinthecontrolofListeriamonocytogenesbutarenot1382015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page13,lines611-6151392015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page14,lines670-6711402015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page5,lines171-1791412015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page17,lines848-8501422015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page16-17,lines770-8051432015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page17,lines848-850
![Page 79: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
76
allowedinorganicproducts(otherthanhighnitrate-celeryjuicepowder,obtainedfromspecialized,conventionallygrownvarietiesofceleryplantsspecificallybredtohandlehighapplicationsofsyntheticnitrogenduringtheirproduction).However,thereareavarietyofallowednaturalproductsandorganicproductsthatcouldbeusedinsteadoflactates.Theseincludevariousorganicacids,listedunder205.605(a),bacteriophages(listedundermicroorganisms)whichareutilizedasanantimicrobialtocontrolbacteriaduringfoodprocessing.And,therearealsosomelacticacidculturesthathavetheabilitytoreducenaturallyoccurringnitratestonitritesandhavebeenusedforover100yearstocuremeat,especiallydrysausage.Theseculturesareusedtogetherwiththeaforementionedceleryjuicepowder,apseudo“natural”sourceofnitrates,toeffectivelycontrolClostridiumbotulinumandListeriamonocytogenes.Celerypowderisavailableinorganicform,althoughnitratelevelsaretypicallylowerinorganiccelerypowder.144Vinegarpowderaswellasotherfruitspowders(lime,lemon,cranberry,andcherry)andessentialoilsareallagriculturalproductsavailableinorganicformsthatcanbeeffectiveantimicrobialsorcanmodifypHandarebeingactivelyinvestigated.145HandlingSubcommitteediscussionandvoteATechnicalReport(TR)forlacticacidanditssaltwasrequestedbythesubcommitteeinAugust,2014andwasreceivedinFebruary,2015.TheTRwascontractedtoOMRI.Theidentityoftheauthor(s)isnotspecifiedintheTRandisunknown.Thehistoryandtheuseofsodiumandpotassiumlactatewasreviewed,anditwasnotedthattheoriginalpetitioneduseforthesematerialswasinready-to-eatmeatandpoultryproductsasapathogeninhibitor,especiallyforuseincontrollingListeriamonocytogenes.ThesubcommitteenotedthatTheUSDAFoodStandardsandLabelingPolicyBookstates:
Itshouldbenotedthatmeatproductsthatcontainsodiumandpotassiumlactatescannolongerbelabeledas“natural”withoutacase-by-caseassessmentofwhatfunctionthesematerialsareservingintheproduct,andatwhatlevels(USDAFSIS2005).
Thisisbecausethelactatesarelikelytobeusedas“chemicalpreservatives,”ratherthanasflavors.Andfinally,theHandlingSubcommitteewouldliketoknowfromorganichandlerscurrentlyusingthesematerialswhethertheproposedannotationwouldcapturecurrentusepattern,assumingthatthesetwomaterialswereaddedtotheNationalList.TheHandlingSubcommitteeisrequestinganexplanationastowhythesesubstanceswouldbepreferredovercurrentlyusedalternativematerialsorpractices.1442015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page18-21,lines901-10321452015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page21-24,lines1041-1197
![Page 80: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
77
SubcommitteeactionandvoteSubcommitteevotesMotion#1.ToclassifybothSodiumLactateandPotassiumLactateassynthetic.Motionby:HaroldAustinSecondedby:AshleySwaffarYes:7,No:0,Absent:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0ListingMotion:Motion#2.TolistSodiumLactateandPotassiumLactateonsection205.605(b)withthefollowingannotation:foruseasanantimicrobialagentandpHregulatoronly.Motionby:HaroldAustinSecondedby:AshleySwaffarYes:4,No:1,Abstain:2,Absent:0,Recuse:0CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofsodiumandpotassiumlactatesontheNationalListunder§205.605(b)Syntheticsallowedforthepetitionedpurpose.Therearemanyalternativestothesesubstances,somenaturalandsomeorganicagriculturalaslistedintheTR146;thereforethesealternativesshouldbecarefullyconsideredbytheNOSBwhenevaluatingthelistingofsodiumandpotassiumlactatesontheNationalListunder§205.605(b)Syntheticsallowed.Inaddition,thesecompoundsareusedspecificallyforflavorenhancementandthepreservationofmeat,whichisprohibitedunder§205.600(b)(4). 147
1462015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page21-24,lines1041-11971472015TR–Lacticacidandlactates.Page15,lines720-732
![Page 81: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
78
OatBeta-GlucanSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofOatbetaglucantotheNationalListforhandlingunder§205.606Nonorganicallyproducedagriculturalproductsallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic.”Rationale:
! Essentialityhasnotbeendemonstratedbythepetitioner.! Itsproductionisnotcompatiblewithorganicproductionandhandling.! Oats,fromwhichthissubstanceisderived,areavailableinorganicforminsufficient
supply.! Conventional oats are grown using chemically intensive agriculture. Itisimportantfor
theNOSBtotakeintoaccounttheenvironmentalandhumanhealthimpactsofchemicallyintensiveagriculture.
DISCUSSIONOatbetaglucanisbeingpetitionedbymanufacturerTate&LyleforadditionontheNationalListat§205.606.Itwillbeusedtosupplementfibercontentinprocessedfoodssuchasbiscuits,cakes,breads,cereals,bars,soups,andsmoothies.HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsConventionaloatsaregrownbyachemicallyintensiveagriculture,whichwasnotedbytheHandlingSubcommitteeinitsdiscussion148:
Thepetitionpointsoutthatoatbetaglucanisusedinhandling,notcropproductionandtherebyconcludesthatithasnoeffectonsoil,crops,orlivestock.ThesubcommitteehoweverwouldliketopointoutthataccordingtotheUSDApesticidedataprogramthereare7pesticideresiduesfoundonconventionallygrownoats.
BeyondPesticides’“EatingwithaConscience”databaseshowsthatoatsgrownwithtoxicchemicalsshowlowpesticideresiduesonthefinishedcommodity.Thereare56pesticideswithestablishedtolerancesforoats,20areacutelytoxiccreatingahazardousenvironmentforfarmworkers,52arelinkedtochronichealthproblems(suchascancer),14contaminatestreamsorgroundwater,and48arepoisonoustowildlife.
148NOSB.April2016.Proposals&DiscussionDocuments.https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ALL%20Proposals%20NOSB%20April%202016_0.pdf
![Page 82: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
79
PollinatorImpacts:Inadditiontohabitatlossduetotheexpansionofagriculturalandurbanareas,thedatabaseshowsthatthereare19pesticidesusedonoatsthatareconsideredtoxictohoneybeesandotherinsectpollinators.Althoughoatsarenotdependentonpollinatorsorforagedbypollinators,pesticidesappliedtothecropaffectpollinatorsforagingonweedsinthefieldandplantssurroundingthefield.149EssentialityandalternativesTheCornucopiaInstitutebelievesthatthepetitionfailsinitsdiscussionofoatbetaglucaninregardtoitsessentialitytoorganicproductionandhandlingandbecauseitcouldbemanufacturedfromorganicoats.Thereisnodemandforoatbetaglucan,particularlygrownusingchemicallyintensiveagriculture.Infact,oatbetaglucancouldbemanufacturedjustaseasilywithorganicoats,forwhichaninternationalsupplyexists.TheHSstates150:
…themanufacturerGarudaInternationalusedtoproduceorganicoatbetaglucanbutstoppeddoingsoduetolowdemand.
OatbetaglucanisincompatiblewithorganicproductionandhandlingItisunnecessarytoadddietaryfibertoaprocessedfoodifnaturalfiberisnotremoved.Itfollowsthattheuseofoatbetaglucaniscontraryto§205.600(b)(4),“Thesubstance'sprimaryuseisnotasapreservativeortorecreateorimproveflavors,colors,textures,ornutritivevaluelostduringprocessing,exceptwherethereplacementofnutrientsisrequiredbylaw.”Thisregulationcodifiestheexpectationsoforganicconsumers:thefoodtheyarebuyingishealthfulbecauseitiswholefoodgrowninaccordancewithorganicprinciples. HandlingSubcommitteedeliberationsandvoteThesubcommitteeseesnoreasonwhyoatbetaglucancouldnotbemanufacturedorganically.SubstanceFailsCriteriaCategory:2-EssentialityandAvailability.Comments:TheSubcommitteefeltthattherewerealternativescurrentlyavailableandalternativesourcesforwhichthesepetitionedneedscouldbemet.SubcommitteeAction&Vote,includingclassificationproposal(stateactualmotion):SubcommitteevotesMotion#1.ToclassifyOatBetaGlucanasagriculturalMotionby:LisadeLima
149http://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/eating-with-a-conscience/choose-a-crop?foodid=85150NOSB.April2016.Proposals&DiscussionDocuments.https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ALL%20Proposals%20NOSB%20April%202016_0.pdf
![Page 83: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
80
Secondedby:AshleySwaffarYes:4,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:2,Recuse:0Motion#2.TolistOatBetaGlucanat§205.606oftheNationalListMotionby:LisadeLimaSecondedby:JeanRichardsonYes:0,No:4,Abstain:0,Absent:2,Recuse:0CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofOatbetaglucanon§205.606becauseitappearsnon-essential,itsuseisnotcompatiblewithorganicpractices,anditsproductiondoesnotmeetthecriteriaunderOFPAofbeingfreefromhealthandenvironmentalharm.
![Page 84: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
81
HypochlorousAcidCommentslistedonpages114-120SodiumDodecylbenzeneSulfonateSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofSodiumdodecylbenzenesulfonate(SDBS)at§205.605(b)asanallowedsynthetic.Thissubstanceisnotnecessaryfororganicproductionandthereareunansweredquestionsaboutitssafetyforhumansandtheenvironment.Rationale:
! Essentialityhasnotbeendemonstratedbythepetitionerandtherearealternatives
alreadypermittedinorganichandling.! ThereneedstobemoreresearchastoSDBS’spotentialharmtohumanhealthand
theenvironmentbeforethismaterialisaddedtotheNationalList.DISCUSSION
ThepetitionwassubmittedbyEcolab,Inc.SDBSisbeingpetitionedforuseasanactiveingredient(oneoftheactiveingredients,theotherislacticacid)inanantimicrobialformulation.Thespecificapplicationenvisionedbythepetitionerwouldbefor“treatingfruitsandvegetablesinthepremisesoforganicfoodretailestablishments.”ThisusewouldessentiallyputSDBSinthewashwaterforproduce.Thepetitionerassertsthatantimicrobialsubstancesalreadyallowedinorganichandling,normallyusedforprocessing,donotfilltheneedsatthefoodretaillevelforrawandreadytoeatfruitsandvegetables.HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsSDBSisnotgenerallyrecognizedassafeandmoredataisneededastoitspotentialimpactonhumanhealth.151Thereisverylittledataavailableforeitherhumanhealthendpointsorexposure.AstheHandlingSubcommitteestated,itisknownasapotentialskinirritant,exposuremayresultineyedamagesandinhalationexposurecanresultinirritationofthenose,throat,andlungs.SBDScanalsocontaincontaminants.
151http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=GRASNotices
![Page 85: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
82
WhilethepredicteduseofSDBSisnotexpectedtocauseseriousharmtotheenvironment,someinformationexistsregardingitspotentialtoxicitytoaquaticorganisms.152EvenifSDBSdegradesquicklyintheenvironment,aquaticorganismsareparticularlysensitive,andonlyafewhoursofexposurecanharmdelicateaquaticspecies.Inaddition,SDBSisanantimicrobialagentandassuchwillalwayshaveanimpactonthesurroundingenvironmentbecauseitisintendedtokillmicrobes.CornucopiaagreeswithBeyondPesticides’sentimentthat“[t]otheextentthatorganicproducersmustuseantimicrobials,thechoicemustbemadeinfavorofthosethathavefewernegativehealthimpactsonworkersandconsumers,degradequicklytonon-toxicproducts,anddonotposeenvironmentalhazardsthroughouttheirlifecycle.”EssentialityandalternativesTherearemanyavailablesanitizinganddisinfectingagentsavailableforuseinorganicproduction,someofwhicharenon-synthetic(includingethanol,l-lacticacid,Citricacid,andessentialoils).Thesesubstancesareconsideredamongthe“leasthazardous”antimicrobialagentsbytheEPAandhavebeenmorethoroughlystudiedthanSDBS.153HandlingSubcommitteedeliberationsandvoteTheHandlingSubcommitteedeterminedthatthesubstancefailsthe“EssentialityandAvailability”criteria,oneofthestandardsthatamaterialmustmeetinordertobeconsideredforadditiontotheNationalList.Subcommitteevotes:Motion#1.ToclassifySodiumdodecylbenzenesulfonateassynthetic.Motionby:HaroldV.AustinIV,Secondedby:AshleySwaffarYes:7,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:1,Recuse:0Motion#2.TolistSodiumdodecylbenzenesulfonateat§205.605–Non-agricultural(nonorganic)substancesallowedasingredientsinoronprocessedproductslabeledas“organic”or“madewithorganic(specifiedingredientsorfoodgroup(s))”oftheNationalList.Motionby:HaroldV.AustinIV,Secondedby:TomChapmanYes:1,No:5,Abstain:1,Absent:1,Recuse:0
152PesticideActionNetworkdatabaseSodiumdodecylbenzenesulfonate.Availableonlineat:http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33286153DesignfortheEnvironmentAntimicrobialPesticidePilotProject:MovingTowardtheGreenEndofthePesticideSpectrum.EPA.Availableonlineat:http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/design-dfe-pilot.html
![Page 86: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
83
CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofSodiumdodecylbenzenesulfonateat§205.605(b)asanallowedsyntheticbecauseitappearsnon-essential,astherearealternativesalreadyontheNationalList,ispotentiallyharmfultohumanandenvironmentalhealth,andthereisnotenoughdatatodetermineifitsuseiscompatiblewithorganicpractices.
![Page 87: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
84
AncillarySubstancesProcedureSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposestheAncillarySubstanceProcedureproposalandmaintainsthatancillarysubstancesmustbereviewedandapprovedforeachparticularuse.AncillarysubstancesshouldonlybeallowediftheymeetOFPAcriteria.Inaddition,Cornucopiaagreesthatdefiningtermsforanypolicydocumentisneeded.CornucopiawholeheartedlysupportsBeyondPesticide’scommentsandrationaleonthisissue.Rationale:
! Adefinitionsectionisneededtoproperlycommunicateanypolicydocument.! OFPAappearstodemandthatancillarysubstancesmustgainapprovalfortheiruse
inorganicproductsbyrequiringtheirlistingontheNationalListofAllowedandProhibitedSubstances(NationalList).
BackgroundAncillarysubstancesarethose“otheringredients”addedtomaterialsfoundinorganicfoodstoachievesomeeffectinthoseingredients.Theyareaddedaspreservatives,moistureadjusters,andeventocontrolpests.In2013theNOSBadoptedapolicyrecommendingthatallancillarysubstancesshouldbereviewedaccordingtoOFPAcriteria.154TheNOPsupportedtheserecommendationsingeneral,agreeingthattheindividualancillarysubstancesdidnothavetobeseparatelylistedontheNationalList.155Despitethisdecision,theHandlingSubcommittee(HS)hassimplybeenlistingthoseancillarysubstancesknowntobeinusewhentheyreleasematerialreviews.NowtheHSisproposingtomodifythepolicy,framingitasanadditionalsetofcriteriaandproceduresforAccreditedCertifyingAgents(ACAs)andsuppliersofingredients.TheHSstatesthat“[i]ftheseareadoptedandfollowed,therewillnotbeaneedforaseparateancillarysubstanceproposalforeachlistingontheNationalList.”Theproposalincludes:
1.AdefinitionofAncillarySubstance.2.CriteriausedtoreviewancillarysubstancesthatcanbeusedbyboththeNOSBin
initialreviewandACAsinsubsequentverifications.3.ProceduresfortheNOSBtofollowforthosematerialsthatmayhaveancillary
substancestobereviewed.4.(optional)ExampleofastandardizedtemplateforACAstodeterminecompliance.
154https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Handling%20Final%20Rec%20Ancillary%20Substances.pdf155https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOSB%20Memo%20Trial%20Process%20for%20Ancillary%20Substance%20Review.pdf
![Page 88: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
85
HandlingSubcommitteevoteMotion#1.Toadopttheproposalasstatedaboveforthedefinition,criteriaforcompliance,andprocedureforthereviewofancillarysubstanceswasasfollows:Motionby:ZeaSonnabend,Secondedby:JeanRichardsonYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:2,Recuse:0DISCUSSIONTheCornucopiaInstitute’spositionontheHS’sproposalisasfollows:DefinitionsCornucopiaagreesthatdefinitionsareneeded.Inorderforanynewpolicytobeusefultothoseitaffects,itmustdefinethetermsituses.CornucopiasupportsBeyondPesticides’suggestionsfordefinitions. AncillarysubstancereviewWithrespecttothecriteriausedtoreviewancillarysubstances,eachancillarysubstancemustbeapprovedforeachparticularuse.WhentheNOSBmadeitsinitialrecommendationin2013itseemedtohavegoodintentions.ThoughtheNOSBdidnottakethepreferredapproachoflistingancillarysubstancesontheNationalList,itsrecommendation,whichrequiredallancillarysubstancestobereviewedaccordingtoOFPAcriteria,wasthenextbestthing.TheHSproposaldoesnotbasetheapprovalofancillarysubstancesaccordingtotheOFPAcriteriaandforthatreason,themajorityofthisproposalshouldberejected.ParticularproblemswiththeHSproposalinclude:
! Theproposalwouldallownewchemicalswithoutreviewiftheyfallwithinparticular“functionalclasses.”Thisiscontrarytothelegalrequirements,andindirectcontradictiontothepreviousrecommendationbytheNOSB.Furthermore,itsimplementationwouldlikelyharmtheintegrityoftheorganiclabel.TheNOSBmustnotallowsubstancesthathavenotbeenreviewed,eveniftheybelongtoaparticularfunctionalclass.
! Theproposalwouldessentiallygrandfatherallknownexistingancillarysubstancesintothesame“functionalcategories”asunknownmaterials.Groupingmaterialsinthesamefunctionalcategorieswithoutcompletereviewswoulddisincentivizetheproductionofingredientscompatiblewiththeorganiclabel.
! Theproposalwouldpromotethepracticeof“rubberstamping”ancillarysubstancesthatarecurrentlyinuse.
![Page 89: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
86
CONCLUSIONCornucopiaopposesthewholesaleadoptionoftheAncillarySubstancesProcedure.TheHSshouldreconsiderthe2013NOSBancillarysubstancespolicyrecommendationbeforeadoptinganewpolicy.AllancillarysubstancesshouldgothroughreviewinordertodeterminewhetherornottheymeettheOFPAcriteriabeforetheyareapproved.
![Page 90: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
87
ANNOTATIONCHANGE–DISCUSSIONDOCUMENT
NutrientVitaminsandMinerals,inaccordancewith21CFR104.20,NutritionalQualityGuidelinesForFoods. SUMMARY TheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstheannotationchangeforNutrientVitaminsandMineralsunder§205.605(b),assuggestedbytheHandlingSubcommittee(HS)discussiondocumentunderoption#1withrespecttosyntheticvitaminsandminerals.However,TheCornucopiaInstitutebelievesthatnon-syntheticvitaminsandmineralsshouldbesubjecttothesamerestrictionsassyntheticones.Consequently,theCornucopiaInstituteopposesoption#2,thealternateannotationchangealsoproposedintheHSdiscussiondocumentthatwouldallownon-syntheticandsyntheticvitaminsandmineralsinproductslabeled“madewithorganic”or“organic”.Rationale:
! Oneofthereasonsconsumerschooseorganicproductsisthattheyexpecttheirfoodtocontainafullcomplementofvitaminsandmineralsandotherisolatednutrients,asaresultoforganicagriculturalproductionpractices,notthroughsupplementation.
! Non-syntheticvitaminsandmineralsmaybeextracted,fromconventionalfeedstock,withsyntheticsolventsandmayincludesyntheticancillarysubstances.
! Anysupplement,whetheritisfromnon-syntheticorsyntheticsourcesmayconsistofsubstancesnotnaturallyoccurringinanyfood.
! Anysupplement,whetheritisfromnon-syntheticorsyntheticsourcesmayconsistofsubstancesnotnaturallyoccurringinaparticularfood.
! Supplementationwithsubstancesnaturallyoccurringinspecificfoodmightbeaddedatartificiallyhighlevels.
! Applyingthesamerestrictionstonon-syntheticandsyntheticvitaminsandmineralswilleaseACAsregulatoryburdenindeterminingwhatlabelisappropriateforagivenformulation.
DISCUSSIONOption1isacomplexoption.Inordertoclarifytheirmeanings,annotations1,2,and3aresummarizedbelow.Option1wouldallowthefollowing:
• Infoodlabeled"organic":Syntheticvitamins,minerals,andotherisolatednutrientsonlywhentheiruseisrequiredbylawortomeetanFDAstandardof
![Page 91: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
88
identityinwhichtheyareincorporated.Non-syntheticminerals(includingtraceelements)andvitaminsidentifiedasessentialin21CFR101.9.
• Infoodlabeled"madewithorganic":Syntheticvitamins,minerals,andotherisolatednutrientswhentheiruseisrequiredbylawortomeetanFDAstandardofidentityinwhichtheyareincorporated,oridentifiedasessentialin§101.9.Non-syntheticminerals(includingtraceelements)andvitaminsidentifiedasessentialin§101.9.
• Ininfantformulalabeled"organic":Syntheticvitamins,minerals,orother
isolatednutrientsarenotallowed.Non-syntheticvitaminsandmineralsasrequiredbylawasper21CFR107.100or§107.10.
• Ininfantformulalabeled"madewithorganic":Syntheticornon-synthetic
vitaminsandmineralsasrequiredby§107.100or§107.10.
Option2wouldallowsyntheticvitaminsandminerals,whethertheyareclassifiedasessentialin21CFR§101.9orrequiredasper§107.100or§107.10,inboth“madewithorganic”and“organic”food.Syntheticvitaminsandmineralsrequiredasper§107.100or§107.10wouldbeallowedinboth“madewithorganic”and“organic”infantformula. It is important to note that nutrients identified as “essential” in 21 CFR 101.9 are not required by law to be added to processed food. As stated, they have been identified as essential components of a healthy and complete diet, and should normally be provided by nutritious food, such as food produced by organic agricultural production practices. In many instances, these materials are being added to processed food as a marketing strategy to enhance the perceived desirability of the so fortified product. The current listing and annotation for “Nutrient Vitamins and Minerals” on the National List has resulted in the indiscriminate addition of synthetic nutrients to organic foods. For years manufacturers of processed conventional and organic food have actively promoted, with various health claims, supplementation with both synthetic and non-synthetic nutrients vitamins and minerals. In organic offerings the supplementation has been claimed to be legal because of their classification as “essential” as per §101.9. However, only synthetic and non-synthetic nutrient additives that are required by the FDA to be added to a specific food should be considered necessary in the production of an organic version of that food. Nutrientvitaminsandmineralsinfood TheHS’proposedAnnotation#1[§205.605(b)VitaminsandMinerals,Synthetic.ForFood–Mineral(includingtraceelements),vitaminsandsimilarisolatedingredientsareallowedonlywhentheiruseisrequiredbylawortomeetanFDAstandardofidentityinwhichtheyareincorporated[emphasisadded]correspondstotheoriginalNOSBintent
![Page 92: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
89
andtoorganicconsumersexpectationsandperceptionthatfoodslabeledas“organic”aremorenutritiousandcontainfewersyntheticchemicals,suchassyntheticvitaminsandminerals.156AsstatedbysomemembersoftheHS,allowingotherusesof“essential”syntheticvitaminsandmineralsisasuitableuseofthe“madewithorganic”label.However,thisreasoningshouldalsobeappliedtonon-syntheticvitaminsandminerals.Organicconsumersexpecttheirfoodtobenutritionallycomplete,containingthenecessaryvitaminsandmineralsasaresultoforganicagriculturalproductionpractices(ratherthansupplementation).Applyingthesameruletotheadditionofsyntheticandnon-syntheticvitaminsandmineralswouldensurethattheonlysupplementationallowedinprocessedfoodlabeled“organic”isrequiredbylaw.Inaddition,thiswouldsimplifydeterminationbytheACAastowhetherthelabelisappropriateforagivenformulation.NutrientvitaminsandmineralsininfantformulaOption1isunlikelytoallowanyinfantformulatobelabeled“organic,”consideringtherequirementsof§107.100andgiventhedifficultyofsourcingnon-syntheticformsofsomevitaminsandminerals.157Therefore,thespecificationthatnon-syntheticformsofthesesubstancescanonlybeallowedinfoodsandformulaslabeled“madewithorganic”seemsappropriate.Incontrastwithotherfoods,infantformulaisanimitationproduct.Makingformulainvolvesattemptstorendercow’smilkormilksubstitutessimilartobreastmilk.Thisrequiresaddingnutrientsthatarepotentiallynotoptimal,adequate,orsufficientcomparedtohumanbreastmilk.Thisisacomplexissue,asthemakingofsuchproductsisfundamentallynotalignedwith“organic”principles.Formulamanufacturershavepromoted,oftenirresponsibly(e.g.;Nestlé,resultinginaboycott),formulafeedingoverbreastfeeding,whichhasledtoconflictswiththepediatriccommunityandotheradvocatesofbreastfeeding.158Acceptingasatenetthatinfantformulaisanartificialproduct,theprinciplethatorganicfoodderivesitsnutrientsfromorganicproductionmethodsandprocessesdoesnotnecessarilyapply.Itmaybearguedthatsupplementationbyvitaminsandmineralsasrequiredby§107.100isacceptable,sinceinfantformulaisintrinsicallyartificial.However,itcertainlywouldnotbeappropriatetoallowsubstancesthatareprohibitedinotherorganicfoodsinorganicinfantformula.Consequently,theadoptionofoption1,oroption1combinedwiththerestrictionthatnon-syntheticvitaminsandmineralsrequiredby§107.100or§107.10beprohibitedin“organic”food,wouldresultinpremiuminfantformulasbeinglabeledas“madewithorganic”.Thisdoesnotpreventinfantformulasfromcontainingorganicingredients,itjust
1562015TR,lines814-816.1572015TR,lines442-459.158https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott
![Page 93: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
90
preventsinfantformulascontaininganysyntheticingredientsfrombeinglabeled“organic”.Thisisimportanttonotesince,althoughrecognizingitssuperiority,somewomenarenotphysicallyabletobreastfeedandneedthebestpossiblealternativeoptions,whileotherssometimesdonothavethesocialsupportsystemneededtomakebreastfeedingfeasible.Thecontinuedavailabilityofinfantformulaproducedwithorganicingredientsisimperative.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstheannotationchangeforNutrientVitaminsandMineralsunder§205.605(b),assuggestedbytheHSdiscussiondocumentunderoption#1withrespecttosyntheticvitaminsandminerals,exceptingthatnon-syntheticvitaminsandmineralsshouldbesubject,insofarasitisrequiredbylaw,tothesamerestrictionsassyntheticones,because,whennotrequiredbylaw,supplementationoforganicfood,whetherwithsyntheticornon-syntheticnutrients,shouldnotbenecessary,neededor“essential.”Furthermore,theCornucopiaInstituteopposesoption#2,thealternateannotationchangealsoproposedintheHSdiscussiondocument,whichwouldalloweverythinginoption#1thatisspecifictofoodlabeled“madewithorganic”inbothfoodlabeled“madewithorganic”andfoodlabeled“organic.”
![Page 94: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
91
CROPSSUBCOMMITTEE
2018SUNSETMATERIALSCopperSulfateSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposestherelistingofCoppersulfateto§205.601underthefollowinglistings:§205.601(a)(3)Coppersulfate—foruseasanalgaecideinaquaticricesystems,islimitedtooneapplicationperfieldduringany24-monthperiod.Applicationratesarelimitedtothosewhichdonotincreasebaselinesoiltestvaluesforcopperoveratimeframeagreeduponbytheproducerandaccreditedcertifyingagent.§205.601(e)(4)Coppersulfate—foruseastadpoleshrimpcontrolinaquaticriceproduction,islimitedtooneapplicationperfieldduringany24-monthperiod.Applicationratesarelimitedtolevelswhichdonotincreasebaselinesoiltestvaluesforcopperoveratimeframeagreeduponbytheproducerandaccreditedcertifyingagent.Rationale:
! Coppersulfatecontainsarsenic,whichriceaccumulates.159! Coppersulfateistoxictoaquaticanimals,manyofwhichprovidebiologicalcontrol
foralgae,includingPacifictreefrogtadpolesandbullfrogtadpoles.160! CurrentCoppersulfateapplicationratesonricepaddiesharmotherbeneficial
organisms,suchasfishthateatmosquitos,pondsnails,andWesterntoadtadpoles.! Wetlandswildlifefoundinricepaddiesaresensitivetocopper.Fromthe“Principles
ofOrganicProductionandHandling,”adoptedbytheNOSBin2001:“Organicagricultureisanecologicalproductionmanagementsystemthatpromotesandenhancesbiodiversity,biologicalcycles,andsoilbiologicalactivity.”Coppersulfateisabroad-spectrumherbicideandpesticidethatisnottargetspecific.ItsuseforthesepurposesisnotinlinewithOFPA.
! Alternativericeproductionsystemsincludedrylanddrillingseedandtransplantingseedlings.BoththesemethodsarepromotedbytheNationalAcademyofSciences,ATTRA,andtheInternationalRiceResearchInstitute(IRRI)andwouldmakealgaeandshrimpcontrolunnecessary.
159http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/fertilizers/FertDB/Product1.aspx160EPA,2007.AquaticLifeAmbientFreshwaterCriteria—Copper,OfficeofWater.EPA-822-R-07-001
![Page 95: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
92
! Growersmaybeusingthetwo24-monthannotationstoapplyCoppersulfateeveryyearbyalternatingitsuseasanalgaecidewithitsuseasapesticide.
DISCUSSIONIn2001apetitionwassubmittedtotheNOPtoexpandtheuseofCoppersulfateinriceproductionasanherbicidetocontrolalgaeandpesticidefortadpoleshrimpcontrol.161Coppersulfateandfixedcoppersusedforplantdiseasecontrol(§205.601(i)(2)and§205.601(i)(3))wererecentlyreviewedandrelistedforSunset2017.Thelistingsunderreviewnowareforcopperusedinaquaticriceproductiontocontrolalgaeortadpoleshrimp(§205.601(a)(3)and§205.601(e)(4),respectively).BecauseCoppersulfateisusedinaquaticsystems,thecurrentannotationsincludespecificrequirementsforapplicationrates.Applicationasapesticidecanbetimedwiththelifecycleofthepest:tadpoleshrimp.Tadpoleshrimparecrustaceans,buttheyaresimilartotadpolesinsize,shape,color,andmobility.Adultshrimpdepositeggsindividuallyonsoiloratthebaseofplants.Eggsresistdryingandremainviableforseveralyearsinunfloodedsoil,butrequirefloodingtohatch.Mostoftheeggshatch1to3daysafterspringfloodingofthericefields,buthatchingmaycontinuefor1to2weeks.Theyoungresembletheadultsinlessthan24hoursanddeveloprapidlythroughseriesofmolts.Tadpoleshrimpfeedonavarietyofsmallanimalsandplantsastheygrowandmolt.Theycauselossesinseedlingricestandsbychewingoffthecoleoptiles,roots,andleavesoftheseedling,anduprootseedlingswiththeirdiggingandfeedingactivity.Tadpoleshrimpalsomuddythewaterwhentheydigtolayeggs,reducinglightpenetrationandslowingthegrowthofsubmergedriceseedlings.Tadpoleshrimpcausenoinjuryoncethericeleaveshavereachedthewatersurfaceandtherootsarewellestablishedinthesoil.Coppersulfateaffectsthefunctioningofthesurface-layer(epithelia)ontadpoleshrimpand,asanalgaecide,itdisruptsperoxidaseenzymesinplants.Manycoppercompoundsmaybeusedwithoutadditionalsyntheticinertingredients.However,someformulatedpesticideproductsmaycontaininertingredients,inadditiontocopperastheactiveingredient.162Ninetoelevenmillionpoundsofelementalcopper,intheformofCoppersulfatepentahydrate,areappliedeachyearsolelyforalgaeandweedcontrol.163AppliedBiochemistsCompanyestimatesthat300,000poundsofelementalcopperinvariousforms161McElroyB.2001.Petitionforcoppersulfateincropproduction–Toaddanotherannotation.CaliforniaCertifiedOrganicFarmers.http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5067032&acct=nopgeninfo162RED-Cu.2009.Reregistrationeligibilitydecision(RED)forcoppers.U.S.EPA,May2009.http://nepis.epa.gov-entersearchterms:REDCopper2009163CSTF:Insupportoftheagriculturalusesofcopper,the17-memberCopperSulfateTaskForce(CSTF)wasformedin1986torepresenttheinterestofseveralregistrants.
![Page 96: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
93
ofcomplexedcoppercompoundsareappliedannuallyforalgaeandweedcontrol.164Thelargestapplicationsarefororanges,walnuts,grapefruit,almonds,tomatoes,andgrapes.Non-agriculturalusesofcoppersulfatearemanyandincludeusesintheleatherindustry,petroleumindustry,steelmanufacturing,asagermicide,textilemordant,pigmentproduction,electricbatteries,electroplatingcoatings,coppersalts,reagentinanalyticalchemistry,medicine,woodpreservative,processengravingandlithography,oreflotation,syntheticrubber,andtreatmentofnaturalasphalts.TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofAgriculturefertilizerdatabasereportsthatarsenicisfoundinmanyCoppersulfateproducts:165CopperSulfateListing CopperContent(%) ArsenicContent(ppm)
CoppersulfatecrystalsProduct#:0871-0001
25.0 3
CoppersulfatepentahydrateProduct#:1815-0003
24.3 7.2
CoppersulfatepentahydrateProduct#:1755-0006
25.0 100.0
Coppersulfatepentahydrategranular(organic)Product#:1665-0018
25.0 10.0
NOSBactionsanddeliberationsThemostrecentTRwascompletedin2011bytheTechnicalServicesBranchfortheUSDANationalOrganicProgram.AuthorsofthisTRwerenotdisclosed.TheTRdidnotdiscussthepotentialforCoppersulfatetocontainarsenic,orthevolumesofresearchonuplandriceproductionthatdoesnotrequirerice-fieldflooding.AdditionalinformationrequestedbyNOSBforthe2018Sunsetinclude:
1.Hastherebeenanynewinformationregardingtheviabilityofalternativestotheseusesofcopper?! Thereisnewinformationavailable.TheNOSBshouldreviewthescientific
studiesdoneonthesustainabilityofuplandriceproduction.166,167,168,169,170
164RED-Cu.2009.Reregistrationeligibilitydecision(RED)forcoppers.U.S.EPA,May2009.http://nepis.epa.gov-entersearchterms:REDCopper2009165http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/fertilizers/FertDB/Product1.aspx166http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ivc/docs/uplandrice.pdf167https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/rice-grown-in-maryland-farmer-sees-a-future-that-doesnt-involve-flooding/2013/12/16/e4b6ccee-523a-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html168http://diaryofatomato.com/2014/04/08/4-7-14-growing-duborskian-upland-rice-in-maine/169http://www.sherckseeds.com/pages/2013/good-yields-for-rice-here-in-northern-indiana/
![Page 97: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
94
2.HaveACAsnoticedanyincreaseinbaselinesoiltestvaluesforcopperanddoneanythingaboutit?
CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposestherelistingofCoppersulfateto§205.601foruseasanalgaecideandfortadpoleshrimpcontrol,becauseapplicationharmsnaturalbiologicalcontrolandwildlife.Coppersulfateformulationsarecontaminatedwitharsenicwhichaccumulatesinrice,andalternativeproductionpracticespreventtheneed.
170http://irri.org/resources/publications/books/item/upland-rice-household-food-security-and-commercialization-of-upland-agriculture-in-vietnam
![Page 98: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
95
OzoneGasSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthelistingofozoneto§205.601(a)(5)asasyntheticsubstanceallowedforuseinorganiccropproduction.CornucopiawouldsupportrelistingifanewTechnicalReportwerepreparedthatwouldconvincinglyestablishthattheuseofozonegasinirrigationsystemsissafeforenvironmentalandhumanhealth,andthatexistingalternativesarelesscompatiblewiththetenetsoforganicproduction.Rationale:
! Ozoneistoxictohumanseveninsmallconcentrations.! Ground-levelozoneisconsideredadangerouspollutantbytheEnvironmental
ProtectionAgency(EPA).! Therearealternativesavailable,thoughmoreresearchwouldneedtobedoneto
determinewhatmaterialsaremostcompatiblewithorganicagriculture.DISCUSSIONOzoneisagascomposedofthreeatomsofoxygen.OzoneoccursbothintheEarth'supperatmosphereandatgroundlevel.GroundlevelozoneisconsideredbytheEPAtobeapollutantandhealthhazard,andisusuallycreatedthroughchemicalreactions.TheEPAupdatedtheozonestandardsin2015,butthe2008standardsarestillineffect.171Thesestandardssetthemaximumallowedconcentrationlimitsforozoneinoutdoorair.TheCornucopiaInstituterecommendsthepreparationofanewTechnicalReporttocomparefarmers’currentmethodsofsanitizingdriplineswithallowedsyntheticmaterialsfortheiroverallcompatibilitywithorganicguidelines.172Thisnewtechnicalreportshouldcomprehensivelycoveralldisinfectants/sanitizersby1)determiningwhichusesarerequiredbylawincludingthoseontheNationalListasrestricted-usematerialslimitedtothoseparticularapplications,and(2)reviewingmoreorganicallycompatiblemethodsforallotheruses.TheTechnicalAdvisoryPanelreviewandNOSBactionThesoleTechnicalAdvisoryPanel(TAP)forozonegasforthisusewaspreparedin2002byOMRI[thenamesofthespecificauthor(s)werewithheld].Ingeneral,theTAPdiscusseshowozoneisapowerfuloxidizingagentandthatozonehasthepotentialtoreactwithmanydifferentsubstances.Ozoneoxidizespesticides,organicmatter,andreactswithironandmostothermaterials.171EnvironmentalProtectionAgency:SettingandReviewingStandardstoControlOzonePollution.Availableonlineat:https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/setting-and-reviewing-standards-control-ozone-pollution#technical1727U.S.C.6517(c)(1)NationalList–Guidelinesforprohibitionsorexemptions.
![Page 99: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
96
Theoriginalpetitionwasfortheuseofozoneasaweedcontrolagent,butthatusewasrejectedbecauseitwasdeterminedthatozonewouldlikelybereleasedintotheatmosphere.TheNOSBrecommendedtolistozonegaswiththeannotation:“foruseasanirrigationsystemcleaneronly.”173Itwashopedthatthisannotationwouldaddressreviewers’concernsabouttheunknowneffectsozonegascouldhaveonfarmworkersandecologiesdownwindofozoneapplication,andtheunknowneffectozonemighthaveonbeneficialmicroorganisms.However,anewTechnicalReportwouldinvestigate,amongotherthings,howmuchozoneisreleasedfromtypicalirrigationtreatmentsystems.Whatthe2002TAPfailstodiscussiswhetheralternativesyntheticsubstancesaresuperiortoozonegaswithrespecttotheirappropriatenessinorganicfarming.TheCropsSubcommitteerequestssomeadditionalinformationfromthepublic.TheCropsSubcommitteewouldliketoknowifozoneiscurrentlyinuseforirrigationsystemcleaning.Thesubcommitteealsoaskscertifiers,inspectors,andproducerstoprovidefeedbackonwhetherornotozoneislistedonorganicsystemplansandusedinorganiccropproduction,tohelpevaluateifitisstillnecessaryforozonetoremainontheNationalList.EssentialityandalternativesThelistofothersanitizersthatcouldserveasalternativestoozonegasincludes:alcohols,chlorinematerials,Coppersulfate,Hydrogenperoxide,Peraceticacid,soap-basedalgaecides/demossers,andSodiumcarbonateperoxyhydrate(useprohibitedinfoodcrops).174TheBoardshouldconsiderthecomparativeeffectsofthesematerialsonhumanandenvironmentalhealth,theiressentialityinorganicfarming,theunavailabilityofwhollynaturalsubstitutes,andwhethertheiruseisconsistentwithorganicfarmingideals.175HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsTheEPAhasdeterminedthatbreathingozonecantriggeravarietyofhealthproblems,particularlyforsensitivepopulationslikechildren,theelderly,andpeopleofallageswhohavelungdiseasesincludingasthma.176Concentrationsabove0.1mg/Laveragedoveran8hourperiodmaycausenausea,chestpain,reducedvisualacuity,andpulmonaryedema.Anexposuretoaconcentrationofgreaterthan20mg/Lofozoneforatleastanhourmaybefatal.Intermsofchroniceffects,ozoneexposuremayhavedeleteriousimpactsonthelungsandresultinrespiratorydiseases.TheseeffectsareseriousandtheCropsSubcommitteeshouldconsiderwhethertheuseofozoneintheprescribedmannerposesanacceptablehazardtofarmworkers.
1737CFR§205.601(a)(5)1747CFR§205.601(a)1757U.S.C.6517(c)(1)NationalList–Guidelinesforprohibitionsorexemptions176EnvironmentalProtectionAgency:OzonePollution.Availableonlineat:https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution
![Page 100: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
97
Withrespecttotheenvironmentalissues,groundlevelozonecanbeharmfultosensitivevegetationandecosystems.177Eventhoughitdisappearsquicklyinthesurroundingenvironment,itsoxidizingpropertieswillchangethechemicalcompositionofmostthingsittouches.CONCLUSIONCornucopiaopposestherelistingofozonetotheNationalListat§205.601(a)(5).BeforeozonegasisrelistedanewTechnicalReviewshouldbepreparedtoanswerconcernsregardingthepotentialimpactofozoneonhumanandenvironmentalhealth,toensureitsuseiscompatiblewiththetenetsoforganicproductionandtoevaluatethepossibilityofsaferalternatives.
177EnvironmentalProtectionAgency:OzonePollution.Availableonlineat:https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution
![Page 101: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
98
PeraceticAcidSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofPeraceticacidunder§205.601(a)(6)—foruseindisinfectingequipment,seed,andasexuallypropagatedplantingmaterial.Alsopermittedinhydrogenperoxideformulationsasallowedin§205.601(a)atconcentrationofnomorethan6%asindicatedonthepesticideproductlabel.205.601(i)(8)Peraceticacid—forusetocontrolfireblightbacteria.AlsopermittedinHydrogenperoxideformulationsasallowedin§205.601(i)atconcentrationofnomorethan6%asindicatedonthepesticideproductlabel.However,TheCornucopiaInstituterecommendsthattheNOSBsubcommitteescommissionaTRthat(1)determineswhatdisinfectant/sanitizerusesarerequiredbylaw,and(2)comprehensivelyreviewsthemostorganicallycompatiblemethodsandmaterialstodeterminewhichdisinfectants/sanitizersarebestforspecificpurposes.Ifthereareusesforwhichspecificdisinfectant/sanitizermaterialsarenecessary,thentheNOSBshouldincludethemontheNationalList,asrestricted-usematerials,andlimitthemtothoseparticularapplications.Rationale:
! PeraceticacidiscurrentlyallowedunderNOPregulationsforuseincropproduction,livestockproduction,andorganichandling.Recently,Peraceticacidwasvotedtoberelistedforboththe2017SunsetReviewforthelivestocklisting,andthe2016SunsetReviewforthehandlinglisting.
! Disinfectionofequipment,seed,andasexuallypropagatedplantingmaterialisacriticalstepinpreventingcross-contaminationofcropswithbacterialandotherpathogens.Peraceticacidisasaferalternativeforthisusethanchlorinematerials.
! ThecurrentannotationseemstoindicatethatPeraceticacidisan“inert”ingredient,butitisnotlistedinEPA’sInertFinderdatabase.178
! TheMarch,2016TechnicalReportbyOMRI[individualauthorsnotdisclosed]didnotincorporateinformationfromrecentEPAreviews.179,180
! EPAhasefficacydataforPeraceticacidproductsthatindicatestrongeffectivenessonhardsurfacesquestioningtheneedforchlorinecompounds.181
! Initssummaryofhumanhealtheffects,datafortheperoxycompoundsEPAfinds:
178http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH:7:::NO:1,3,31,7,12,25:P3_XCHEMICAL_ID:2278179http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH:7:::NO:1,3,31,7,12,25:P3_XCHEMICAL_ID:2278180SummaryofHumanHealthEffectsDataforthePeroxyCompoundsRegistrationReviewDecisionDocument.http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0546-0003181http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH:7:::NO:1,3,31,7,12,25:P3_XCHEMICAL_ID:2278
![Page 102: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
99
“Highconcentrationsofperoxycompounds[includingperaceticacidandhydrogenperoxide]are…corrosiveandcanbeacutelytoxicand/orextremelyirritatingtothelungsandskin,”thereforespecificusesanduseratesshouldalwaysbeannotated.182
! AnewTechnicalReviewwaspublishedaftertheCropsSubcommitteecompleteditspreliminaryreview.Itrevealsthatthereareseveraldistinctsubstancescalled“Peraceticacid,”andthatnotallarepermittedunderNOPregulations.183
! TheNOSBneedstotakeacomprehensivelookatallsanitizers,theirneeds,andevaluatewhetherallneedscanbemetwithmaterialsthathavelowimpactsonhumanhealthandtheenvironment.
! IsPeraceticacideffectiveforallusesofchlorine?IfPeraceticacidremainsontheNationalList,canchlorinebeeliminatedfromuseinorganicproduction?
DISCUSSIONPeraceticacidinorganiccropproductionisusedtodisinfectequipment,seeds,asexuallypropagatedplantmaterials,pottingsoil,andirrigationandpruningequipment.ItisalsousedinHydrogenperoxideformulationsforfireblightcontrolonthetreecanopy.Itisusedinwashingwaterasabactericideandfungicide,specificallytohelpdecreaseE.coliO157:H7andtotreatharvestedfruitsandvegetablestoreducespoilage.InterestintheuseofPeraceticacidforcontroloffireblighthasincreasedwiththerecentremovaloftwoantibioticspreviouslyallowedtocontrolthediseasesontreefruit.Chemically,theterm“peraceticacid”describestwosubstances.“Pure”Peraceticacid,describedintheMerckIndex,hasthechemicalformulaC2H4O3(alternativelywrittenCH3CO3H).Incontrast,solutionsofperaceticacidusedassanitizersarecreatedbycombiningaqueousmixturesofAceticacid(theacidinvinegar)andHydrogenperoxidetoformanequilibriumsolutioncontainingPeraceticacid,AceticacidandHydrogenperoxide.Thisequilibriumsolutionisthesubstancesoldcommerciallyasthesanitizer“peraceticacid.”Addingamineralacidcatalystacceleratesthereaction.Peraceticacidisanunstableoxidizingagent,whichiswhyitissuchaneffectivesanitizer.MostcommercialperaceticacidsolutionscontainasyntheticstabilizerandchelatingagentsuchasHEDP(1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonicacid)ordipicolinicacid(2,6-dicarboxypyridine)toslowtherateofoxidationordecomposition.TechnicalReportsandpastNOSBdeliberationsTheCropsSubcommitteerequestedanewTechnicalReportforPeraceticacid,butitdidnotarrivebeforetheysubmittedtheircommentsfortheSpring2016meeting.However,thenewTRhasbeenreleased,datedMarch3,2016.Boththe2000TechnicalAdvisoryPanel(TAP)reviewandthe2016TRwerecompiledbyOMRI;however.[thespecificauthor(s)werenotidentified].
182SummaryofHumanHealthEffectsDataforthePeroxyCompoundsRegistrationReviewDecisionDocument.http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0546-00031832016PeraceticAcidTRCrops.Lines236-260andTable5.
![Page 103: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
100
Recently,Peraceticacidwasvotedtoberelistedforboththe2017Sunsetreviewforthelivestocklisting,andthe2016Sunsetreviewforthehandlinglisting.IntheDecember2,2011NOSBrecommendationforthe2013SunsetreviewofPeraceticacidforthe2Cropslistingsat§205.601(a)(6)and§205.601(i)(8),theBoardclarifiedtheannotationchangefromthe2009recommendationandsupportedit.Theoriginalrecommendedannotationchangewas:§205.601(a)(6)Peraceticacid—foruseindisinfectingequipment,seed,andasexuallypropagatedplantingmaterial.PermittedinHydrogenperoxideformulationsatconcentrationofnomorethan5%.§205.601(i)(8)Peraceticacid—forusetocontrolfireblightbacteria.PermittedinHydrogenperoxideformulationsatconcentrationsofnomorethan5%.ThisannotationwaslaterimplementedbytheNOP,butchangedtoa6%limit,basedoninformationprovidedduringpubliccommentstatingtherecommended5%limitwastoolowcomparedtopercentagesinuseatthetime.AdditionalinformationrequestedbyNOSB:
1. Canorganiccropproducersorcertifiersprovidethefullcommitteewithanyinformationthatcanexplainwhythismaterial(oroneofthealternativematerials)isabetteroptionforuse,inorganiccropproduction,forthelistedalloweduses?
2. HasanythingchangedduringthecurrentSunsetcyclethatwouldmakethismaterialnolongernecessaryforitsintendedusesfororganiccropproduction?Ifso,pleasehelptoexplain.
3. ItwouldhelptheNOSBinthereviewofthismaterialifwecouldgetfeedbackastowhetherthecurrentannotation(ataconcentrationofnomorethan6%)presentsanyunforeseenproblemsfororganicstakeholders,certifiers,orforproductformulation.Also,couldyouprovideinputastowhetherornotthisannotationisevennecessary?
HumanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsSensoryirritationappearstobethemostserioushealthconcern.184TheAmericanConferenceofGovernmentalIndustrialHygienists(ACGIH)hassetnewoccupationalexposurelimitsforPeraceticacid.185TheNationalAdvisoryCommitteeforAcuteExposureGuidelineLevelsforHazardousSubstances(NAC/AEGLCommittee)hasestablishedevenmorestringentlimits.186AreviewfromEcolab,amemberofthePCTFandmanufacturerof
184Pechacek,N.,Osorio,M.,Caudill,J.,&Peterson,B.(2015).Evaluationofthetoxicitydataforperaceticacidinderivingoccupationalexposurelimits:Aminireview.Toxicologyletters,233(1),45-57.185http://potentcompoundsafety.com/2014/02/acgih-occupational-exposure-limit-peracetic-acid.html186NationalResearchCouncil(US)CommitteeonAcuteExposureGuidelineLevels.AcuteExposureGuidelineLevelsforSelectedAirborneChemicals:Volume8.Washington(DC):NationalAcademiesPress(US);2010.7,PeraceticAcidAcuteExposureGuidelineLevels.Availablefrom:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220001/
![Page 104: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
101
Peraceticacidproducts,hascomeupwithsimilarlimits.187Thereviewalsostated:“Overall,therearenotabledeficienciesinthePAAtoxicologicaldataset,particularlyinregardstoinformationgapsconcerningchronictoxicity(e.g.,carcinogenicity,mutagenicity/genotoxicity,reproductive/developmentaltoxicity,repeat-dosetoxicity)andthefactthatalargenumberoftoxicitystudiesdidnotfollowconventionaltestingmethodology.”Ofnoteaswell,anhydrousperaceticacidexplodesviolentlyuponheating.Essentialityandalternatives
Non-syntheticalternativestoPeraceticacidsanitizersincludevinegar,naturalalcohols,citricacid,lacticacidandsodiumbicarbonate.UnlikePeraceticacid,vinegarandalcoholareexpectedtohavelowefficacyinthepresenceoforganicmaterials,butbothhavegreaterefficacyasadisinfectantthanlemonjuice(citricacid)andbakingsoda(sodiumbicarbonate).188,189AlcoholisfastactingandeffectiveagainstS.aureus,Salmonella,Streptococcus,andLeptospiraandleavesnoresiduals.
TherearealsoanumberofsyntheticsubstancesallowedintheNOPregulationsforuseasdisinfectantsorsanitizers.Thesearesyntheticalcohols(ethanolandisopropanol),chlorinematerials(includingCalciumhypochlorite,ChlorinedioxideandSodiumhypochlorite,electrolyzedwater),Hydrogenperoxide,copper,ozone,andSodiumcarbonateperoxyhydrate.
AnotherpermitteduseofPeraceticacidisinthecontroloftheplantdiseasefireblightcausedbyErwiniaamylovora.FurtherresearchisneededtoexplorethepotentialroleofPeraceticacidinfireblightcontrolprograms.In2011theUSDAawardedfederalfundingtosupportthedevelopmentofviablealternativestoantibioticsforfireblightcontrol.Muchresearchhasbeendonetoidentifyothercontrolsforthediseasethatarebotheffectiveandcompatiblewithorganicregulations.
Onepossiblebiologicalcontrolagentisaphagetail-likebacteriocinproducedbySerratiaplymiticum,calledSerratine-P.190AcompanycalledAmebaGonesuppliesstrainsofamoebaethatconsumethefireblightpathogen,E.amylovora.191Othersubstancesusedforfireblightcontrolarelimesulfurandfishoil,followedbytheuseofbiologicalcontrolssuchasAureobasidiumpullulansandPantoeaagglomerans.192AwebinarwasrecordedonMarch
187Pechacek,N.,Osorio,M.,Caudill,J.,&Peterson,B.(2015).Evaluationofthetoxicitydataforperaceticacidinderivingoccupationalexposurelimits:Aminireview.Toxicologyletters,233(1),45-57.188PerryKandCaveneyL(2011)"ChemicalDisinfectants."InVeterinaryInfectionPreventionandControl,byCaveney,Jones,andEllis,129-143.JohnWiley&Sons.189OlsonW,VesleyD,BodeM,DubbelP,andBauerT(1994)"HardSurfaceCleaningPerformanceofSixAlternativeHouseholdCleanersUnderLaboratoryConditions."JournalofEnvironmentalHealth56(6):27-31.190SchoofsH,etal.(2002)BacteriocinSerratine-PasabiologicaltoolinthecontroloffireblightErwiniaamylovora.MededRijksunivGentFakLandbouwkdToegepBiolWet67(2)2002:361-368.191AmebaGone.AmebaGone;PioneeringAmoebicBiocontrol(2015)http://amebagone.com/about.php192JohnsonKandTempleTN(2015)Evaluationofnon-antibioticprogramsforcontrolofapplefireblight.DepartmentofBotanyandPlantPathology,UniversityofOregon.
![Page 105: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
102
17,2015,discussingfireblightcontroloptionsusingseveralalternativesatspecificstagesduringthefruitproductioncycle.193
Additionalpracticesthatcanhelpminimizethespreadofplantpathogenicdiseasesincludediseaseresistantvarieties,compost,croprotations,andappropriatemanagementofsoilnutrientsandwater.Enhancingthediversityofsoilmicrobialpopulationsthroughtheapplicationoforganicmatterisknowntoprovidecompetitiontoeffectivelysuppresspathogenpopulations.Plantdiseasecontrolpracticesmustbetailoredtothespecificneedsoftheoperationandmonitoringclimateandsoilconditionsaswellasunderstandingthelifecycleofthepathogen.
CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofPeraceticacidunder§205.601(b)SyntheticsAllowed.However,TheCornucopiaInstituterecommendsthattheNOSBsubcommitteescommissionaTRthat(1)determineswhatdisinfectant/sanitizerusesarerequiredbylaw,and(2)comprehensivelyreviewsthemostorganicallycompatiblemethodsandmaterialstodeterminewhichdisinfectants/sanitizersarebestforspecificpurposes.Ifthereareusesforwhichspecificdisinfectant/sanitizermaterialsarenecessary,thentheNOSBshouldincludethemontheNationalList,asrestricted-usematerials,andlimitthemtothoseparticularapplications.
193JohnsonK,ElkinsR,andSmithT."E-Organic."Non-AntibioticControlofFireBlight.March17,2015.https://articles.extension.org/pages/72567/non-antibiotic-control-of-fire-blight:-what-works-as-we-head-into-a-new-era
![Page 106: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
103
EPAList3–InertsofUnknownToxicity“INERTS”LIST3SUNSET,NPEDISCUSSIONDOCUMENT,LIST4UPDATETheCornucopiaInstitutesupportsthedetailedtestimonysubmittedtotheNOSBbyBeyondPesticidesthatdiscussestheSunsetofList3"Inerts,"theNPEdiscussiondocument,andtheList4update.Inparticular,CornucopiaurgestheNOSBto:
• Moveasexpeditiouslyaspossibleinrecommendinganendtotheuseofendocrine-disruptingAlkylphenolethoxylates(APEs),alsoknownasNonylphenolethoxylates(NPEs).Thereareavailablealternatives.
• Fullyandspecificallyreviewsyntheticmaterialsidentifiedas"inert"orasotheringredients.ThisisaresponsibilityoftheNOSB,notaresponsibilitythatcanbegiventoanotheragencylackingguidanceforwhatmaterialsmeetOFPAcriteria.
• DelisttheList3“inerts”.TheNOSBpreviouslyvotedin2012toplaceanexpiration
dateofDecember31,2015onthesesubstancesandthisrecommendationshouldbefollowed.ShouldtheNOPcontinuetorefusetofollowthismotion,thentheNOSBshouldbeinvolvedwithatimelyandinitialreviewofthesechemicalsandanysubsequentSunsetreviewofthesechemicals.
![Page 107: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
104
CalciumChlorideSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofnon-synthetic(natural)Calciumchlorideon205.602(c),“brineprocessisnaturalandprohibitedforuseexceptasafoliarspraytotreataphysiologicaldisorderassociatedwithcalciumuptake”becausedirectsoilapplicationscausehighchlorideandhighsolubilityconcerns[emphasisadded].Rationale:
! BrineprocessedCalciumchlorideisaminednaturalsubstanceofhighsolubility.Potentialoverusecouldresultinsubsoil,surfacewaterandgroundwatercontaminationwithchloride,thereforethelimitationonitsuseshouldbecontinued.
! Asmentionedin§205.203(d)(3)Soilfertilityandcropnutrientmanagementpracticestandard.“Aproducermaymanagecropnutrients…inamannerthatdoesnotcontributetocontaminationofcrops,soil,orwaterbyplantnutrients…”
! Inaddition,theprohibitionisnecessarybecausenaturalsourcesoffood-grade
Calciumchlorideshouldnotbeallowedasapostharvestdipduetochloridecontaminationoffood.194,195
DISCUSSIONTheSunsetofCalciumchlorideisforitsprohibitionasanatural(non-synthetic)substance,andforitscontinueduseasafoliarspraytotreataphysiologicaldisorderassociatedwithcalciumuptake.ThisprohibitionisinlinewithOFPA,in§205.601(j):“(6)Micronutrients—nottobeusedasadefoliant,herbicide,ordesiccant.Thosemadefromnitratesorchloridesarenotallowed.Soildeficiencymustbedocumentedbytesting.”AnupdatedTRwasrequestedonCalciumchloridebytheNOSBin2011,butneverreceived.ThemostrecentTAPReviewwascompletedbyOMRIin2001.Namesofindividualscientistswerenotdisclosed,althoughintheseolderTAPReviews,thereviewer’sjobtitlesandgeographiclocationswereidentified,butnottheindividualnames(currentTRsdonotrevealtheauthor’snamesorpositions).TheCornucopiaInstitutebelievesitisimperativethatthenamesoftheTRscientistsaredisclosedtoidentify
194HussainPR,MeenaRS,DarMA,andWaniAM(2012)Effectofpost-harvestcalciumchloridediptreatmentandgammairradiationonstoragequalityandshelf-lifeextensionofReddeliciousapple.JournalofFoodScienceTechnology49(4):415-426.195Luna-GuzmanI,CantwellM,BarrettDM(1999)Fresh-cutcantaloupe:effectsofCaCl2dipsandheattreatmentsonfirmnessandmetabolicactivity.PostharvestBiologyandTechnology17:201-213.
![Page 108: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
105
possibleconflictsofinterestandholdreviewersaccountableforaccuracy,asisthestandardforallscientificpublications.Allthree2001TAPReviewersstatedthatCalciumchlorideisinappropriateforsoilapplicationgiventhehighchloridecontentandhighsolubility.Twoofthethreereviewerssuggestedprohibitingallproductionusesexceptforfoliarapplicationstocorrectnutritionaldeficiencies.TAPReviewer2didnotseesupportingevidencethattheuseofCalciumchlorideasafoliarsprayforcalciumdeficiencieswascompatiblewithOFPAstating,“Itappearsthatoneofthereasonsthatcalciumisdeficientintheorgansofcertainfruitsisthatbreedsofcropshavebeenintroducetomaximizefruityield.Ifthedeficiencyisdependentonvarietyoffruit,woulditbehooveustopromotetheuseofvarietiesthatdonotexhibitthedeficiencies?”(lines423-425)
Apetitionwassubmittedin2005andagainin2015toremoveCalciumchloridefrom205.602withthefollowingarguments:
1. Itsallowanceasafoliarsprayisoverlyprescriptive.Modestapplicationratesappliedwiththepropermethodsinirrigationwatercansupplycalciumnutrientswithoutsignificantsoilorwatercontaminationandwithlesssaltburntothecropfoliage,particularlyinsensitivevegetableandgreenhousecrops.
2. Thecurrentannotationdoesnotaddressthefactthatchlorideisanessentialplant
nutrientandcanbedeficientinsomesituations.Inaddition,someirrigationwatershavealmostnodissolvedminerals(includingchloridesandcalcium),whichcancausepoorsoilinfiltrationrates.Smallamountsofcalciumchlorideaddedtoirrigationwaterwouldbeaveryappropriatemanagementchoicetoprovidenutrientsandimprovetheinfiltrationrate.
3. ThelimitationsonCalciumchlorideusearemuchmorerestrictivethantheother
minednaturalchloridematerialsallowedinorganicfarming.ThePotassiumchlorideannotationreads“unlessderivedfromaminedsourceandappliedinamannerthatminimizeschlorideaccumulationinthesoil”.MagnesiumandSodiumchloridearenotontheprohibitednon-syntheticlist,thoughtheyarealsohighsolubilityminedsubstances.Someconsistencyisneededinhowthesematerialsarelisted.
Asaresultofthelatest2015petition,theCropsSubcommitteehasaskedthefollowingquestions:
1. Isthereanyevidencethattheprohibitionisinappropriate?Yes,allthreeTAPreviewersstatedthatCalciumchlorideisinappropriateforsoilapplicationgiventhehighchloridecontentandhighsolubility.
![Page 109: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
106
2. Whatarethealternativestotheuse“asafoliarspraytotreataphysiologicaldisorderassociatedwithcalciumuptake”?Calciumdeficienciesaremostfrequentlycausedbyaproductoflowtranspirationofthewholeplantbecauseofwatershortages.Plantsaresusceptibletosuchlocalizedcalciumdeficienciesindryperiodsbecausecalciumisnottransportedinthephloemduetoirregularirrigation.Slowtransportofcalciumthroughouttheplantcanbeduetopooruptakeofcalciumthroughthestem,ortoomuchnitrogeninthesoil.Addingorganicmattertosoilscanhelpregulatesoilmoisture.EnsuringpropersoilpHalsohelpscalciumbeavailableinaformtheplantcanuptake.
Essentialityandalternatives Inorganicsystems,nutrientsareprovidedbythesoil,andthefarmerfeedsthesoilthroughnaturalorganicandmineralmaterials.Ifadditionalnutrientsaretobeapplied,itmustbeinconcertwithsoilbuildingpracticesthatrestorethesoilbalancenaturally.Theseadditivesshouldbeslow-releasenutrientsthatdonotcontaminatesoilsorwaterwayswithnutrientsoraddedsalts.Naturalsubstitutesincludelimestone,gypsum,rockphosphateandbonemeal.Productionpracticescanofteneliminatecalciumdeficiencies.Acidic,sandy,orcoarsesoilsoftencontainlesscalcium,butunevensoilmoistureandoverapplicationofnitrogenandphosphorouscancausecalciumdeficiencies.Insomecases,evenwithsufficientcalciuminthesoil,itisinaninsolubleformand,therefore,unusablebytheplant.Soilscontaininghighphosphorusareparticularlysusceptibletocreatinginsolubleformsofcalcium.Calciumdeficienciescanoftenberectifiedbyaddinglimetoacidicsoils(aimingatapHof6.5)andmaintainingevensoilmoisture.Becauseofpoortransportofcalciumtolowtranspiringtissues,theproblemcannotusuallybecuredbytheadditionofcalciumtotheroots.196Organicmattershouldbeaddedtothesoiltoimproveitsmoisture-retainingcapacity.Therearecurrently20registeredOMRIproductsand10WSDAregisteredproductscontainingCalciumchlorideforuseasafoliarspray.NOSBactionsanddeliberationsNon-syntheticCalciumchloridewasoriginallynotincludedon§205.601or§205.602.TheNOSBoriginallyvotedtoallowCalciumchlorideforusetocontrolbitterpitinapplesandasanemergencydefoliantforcotton.CalciumchloridewassubsequentlypetitionedandaddedtoNationalList§205.602,asanon-syntheticsubstanceprohibitedforuseinorganic
196BangerthF(1979)Calcium-RelatedPhysiologicalDisordersofPlants.AnnualReviewofPhytopathology17:97-122.
![Page 110: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
107
cropproductionwiththeannotation:“brineprocessisnaturalandprohibitedforuseexceptasafoliarspraytotreataphysiologicaldisorderassociatedwithcalciumuptake.”Calciumchloridehashistoricallynotbeenallowedfordirectsoilapplicationsduetohighchlorideandhighsolubilityconcerns,however2005and2015petitionsforremovaloftheprohibitionconteststheseconcerns.In2011theNOSBvotedYes:14No:0infavorofkeepingtheprohibitionandannotationduetopotentialoveruseofCalciumchlorideandresultantsubsoil,surfacewaterandgroundwatercontamination.TherecommendationwastoretainCalciumchlorideon§205.602(c).CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportstherelistingofCalciumchlorideto§205.602(c),brineprocessisnaturalandprohibitedforuseexceptasafoliarspraytotreataphysiologicaldisorderassociatedwithcalciumuptakebecauseCalciumchlorideisinappropriateforsoilapplicationgiventhehighchloridecontentandhighsolubility.AllthreeTAPReviewersagreedCalciumchlorideshouldbeprohibitedforsoilapplication.
![Page 111: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
108
PETITIONEDMATERIALS
AshfromManureBurningSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthepetitiontoannotateashfrommanureburningat§205.602(non-syntheticsubstancesprohibitedforuseinorganiccropproduction),withtheannotation,“exceptwherethecombustionreactiondoesnotinvolvetheuseofsyntheticadditivesandiscontrolledtoseparateandpreservenutrients”becauseburningmanureisincompatiblewithOFPA.Rationale:
! Accordingtothepetition,poultrymanureissourcedfromconcentratedanimalfeedingoperations(CAFOs).
! Burningmanureisnotanappropriatemethodforrecyclingorganicwastes,becausethemajorityofthecarbongoesintotheatmosphere.Thiscontributestoclimatechangeandpreventsthecarbonfromrestoringsoilwithorganicmatter.
DISCUSSIONEnergyWorksBioPower,LLCsubmittedapetitiontorevise7CFR§205.602(non-syntheticsubstancesprohibitedforuseinorganiccropproduction)(a),AshfromManureBurning,toincludethefollowingannotation:“exceptwherethecombustionreactiondoesnotinvolvetheuseofsyntheticadditivesandiscontrolledtoseparateandpreservenutrients.”ThepetitionstatesthatEnergyWorks,“usesastagedthermochemicalreactortoextractover30tonsofmineralsfrom240tonsofegg-layerpoultrymanureeachday.”Thepetitionalsostatesthatannotationapprovalwillprovidethefollowingbenefits:
1. Generaterenewableelectricity2. Preventexcessnutrientsintheenvironment3. IncreasedevelopmentofsimilarcommercialprocessingfacilitiesintheUS.
ThefacilitysourcespoultrymanurefromCAFOs,driesit,andexposesittoheatandoxygentoachieveproperconversionoforganicmaterialintocombustiblebiogas(wheretheprimarygoaloftheprocessisdenitrification).Themineralashisthenremoved,cooled,tested,andsold.Burningamaterialthatiscentraltomaintainingsoilfertilityandtilthinorganicsoilswouldbeincompatiblewithorganicproductionsystems.Organicpracticesincorporatecarboninthesoil.Thepetitioner’sprocessdestroyshigh-energycarbonmoleculesthatareessentialforfeedingthesoilmicrobiology.Thepetitionerdoesnotconsidercarbona“nutrient,”andthereforedevaluesitspresenceinmanure.Whilecarbonmaynotbeaplant
![Page 112: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
109
“nutrient,”incorporatingitbackintothesoilprovidesfoodformicrobes,isessentialtoorganicsoilsashumus,andhelpscombatclimatechange.NOSBactionsanddeliberationsTheCropsSubcommitteevoted5-0againstapprovingthepetitiontorelistashfrommanureburningduringthe2017Sunsetreviewprocessbasedonthefollowingrational:
Ashfrommanureburningwasplacedon§205.602basedonitsincompatibilitywithorganicproduction:“Burningthesematerialsisnotanappropriatemethodtousetorecycleorganicwastesandwouldnotbeconsideredapropermethodinamanuringprogrambecauseburningremovesthecarbonfromthesewastesandtherebydestroysthevalueofthematerialsforrestoringsoilorganiccontent.”
WeagreewiththeCropsSubcommitteestatement,“UtilizingashfrommanureburninginordertoassistCAFOsintheirreductionofenvironmentalandhumanhealthcontaminationisnotacompellingargumentforconsiderationforadditiontotheNationalList.”TheCropsSubcommitteedidnotrequestaTR,havingdeterminedthatthecontinuedblanketprohibitionofashfrommanureburningalignswithpreviousboardrecommendations.Allpastboardrecommendationshavesupportedtheprohibitionofashfrommanureburning.TheCropsSubcommitteedeterminedthattheannotationamendmentfailstheOFPAcriteriaandshouldnotbeaddedtotheNationalList.SubcommitteevoteMotionby:CarmelaBeckSecondedby:ColehourBonderaYes:0,No:5,Abstain:0,Absent:0,Recuse:0Themotionfailed,thustheSubcommitteesupportsretainingtheexistingprohibitionofmanureashinorganiccropproductionwithoutthepetitionedannotation.CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthepetitiontoannotateashfrommanureburningat§205.602becauseburningmanureisincompatiblewithOFPA.
![Page 113: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
110
SquidandSquidByproducts SUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthepetitiontoadd“SquidandSquidByproducts”aspetitionedto§205.601(j)asplantorsoilamendments,butwouldsupportadding“SquidByproducts”totheNationalList.Squidbyproductsareroughly50%ofsquidcatchandmostorganicfarmersneedaddednutrientsforgrowingstarts.However,asthepetitionislisted,squidshouldnotbeincluded,asitallowsforandencouragestheadditionalharvestofwholesquidforfertilizer.Rationale:
! Considerableamountsoffishandsquidprocessingbyproductsarediscardedeachyear.197
! Only“SquidByproduct”shouldbeallowedasfertilizer,becauseitisawasteproduct,whereas“Squid”maynotbe.
! Adding“Squid”totheNationalListencouragestheadditionalwildharvestofsquidforfertilizer.
! Canada,theEU,andIFOAMpermittheuseoffishproductsfromsustainablefisheriesinorganicproduction.Japanpermitstheuseoffishandsquidby-productsinorganicproduction.Semanticsareimportanthere;wedonotwanttoencouragetheadditionalharvestofwholesquidforfertilizer.Instead,recyclingthewasteproductshouldbetheonlyalloweduse.
DISCUSSIONShoresideOrganics,LLCsubmittedapetitioninApril,2015toadd“SquidandSquidByproducts”to§205.601(j)Asplantorsoilamendmentsunder(7)Liquidfishproducts–canbepHadjustedwithSulfuric,CitricorPhosphoricacid.TheamountofacidusedshallnotexceedtheminimumneededtolowerthepHto3.5.foruseasafertilizer.Thepetitionerwouldlikeacid-adjusted“SquidandSquidByproducts”tobecategorizedasfishproductsforuseinorganicproduction.Squidandsquidbyproductshavebeentraditionallypreservedbydryingforbothfoodandfertilizeruse,datingbacktothe1800’s,whensquidwasshippedfromCaliforniafisheriestoAsiancountriesforcalamariandfertilizer.198Squidbyproductsmakeup52%ofthetotalbodyweightandincludethesquidink,pen,skin,milt,liver,andvisceraandaretypicallydiscardedaswaste.Usesforthesebyproductsincludefood,medicine,fertilizer,andfeedinaquaculture.199197KristinssonHGandRascoBA(2010)FishProteinHydrolysates:Production,Biochemical,andFunctionalProperties.CriticalReviewsinFoodScienceandNutrition40(1):43-81.198TRlines62-65.199LianP,LeeCM,ParkE(2005)Characterizationofsquid-ProcessingByproductHydrolysateandItsPotentialasAquacultureFeedIngredient.JournalofAgricultureandFoodChemistry53(14):5587-92.
![Page 114: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
111
Squidbyproductsarethestartingingredientsintheproductionofenzymaticallyproducedhydrolysateswhichhavebeenusedbothasfoliarspraysandsoilamendmentsforpropagatingplants.Ingeneral,squidbyproductsarechopped,heated,digestedwithnaturalenzymes,andstabilizedwithanacidsuchasPhosphoric,SulfuricorCitricacidtopreventmicrobialgrowth.Squidarecommerciallyharvestedusingnetsdirectlyabovespawninggroundsduringmatingseason.Theseharvestsareprimarilyusedforcalamari.Fishermantargetspawningsquidbecausetheydieshortlyafterreproduction.ThereareseveralsquidfisheriesthroughouttheworldandtwomainsquidfisheriesintheU.S.,includingtheAtlanticcoastforlongfinnedsquidandthePacificcoastformarketsquid.TheU.S.PacificsquidfisheryismanagedbytheCADepartmentofFishandGame,theNationalOceanographicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)Fisheries,andthePacificFisheryManagementCouncil.AtlanticsquidaremanagedinfederalwatersbyNOAAFisheries,inconjunctionwiththeMid-AtlanticFisheryManagementCouncil.Managementincludesseasonalcatchlimits,timedfisheryclosures,administrationofpermitissuance,andlimitationsonusinglightstoattractsquidtoensureuninterruptedspawning.SquidarelittoralinvertebratesclassifiedintothephylumMollusca,classCephalopodaandorderLoligo(laterrenamedDoryteuthis).Thereareanestimated300squidspeciesknownthroughouttheworld.CommontothenortheasternAtlanticcoastisthelongfinsquid,speciesDoryteuthis(Loligo)pealli.CommontotheU.S.westcoastisthemarketsquid,speciesDoryteuthis(Loligo)opalescens.TheCanadianOrganicStandardallowsfortheuseofsquidunder“fishproducts”becauseinCanadianfisheries,thedefinitionoffishincludesmarineinvertebratessuchassquid.TheEUOrganicStandardallowstheuseofmolluscan(squid)productsfromsustainablefisheriesandmaybeusedinorganicproductionoffeedsfornon-herbivores.TheJapaneseOrganicStandardpermitstheuseoffoodindustrybyproductsof“fishorigin”iftheyarederivedfromnaturalsources;mollusks(squid)areincludedinJapanesefisheries.IFOAMpermitstheuseoffishandshellproductsandfoodprocessingofanimalorigin.HarmtotheenvironmentWhilesomeliquidsquidproductsaremadefromsquidwaste,othersaremadefromwholesquid.200Squidthatdonothavecommercialvaluemayhaveecologicalvalue.201Useofdiscardedsquidpartsasfertilizermayalsoremovefoodfrommarineecosystems.202AccordingtotheTechnicalReviewcompletedbytheAgriculturalAnalyticsDivisionofUSDA’sAMS[authorsunknown].203
200Petition,#B.5.201http://discovermagazine.com/2001/sep/featfish/?searchterm=menhaden.202http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/ban-on-fishing-discards-may-damage-ecosystem-1-3408818.203TRlines727-733.
![Page 115: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
112
Illegal,unreported,andunregulated(IUU)fishingisasignificantproblemthataffectsthemarineecosystemandthosewhodependonitforsurvival.Illegalandunreportedcatchesrepresented20–32%byweightofwild-caughtseafoodimportedtotheU.S.in2011.Thevalueisbetween$1.3and$2.1billionof$16.5billiontotalfor2.3milliontonsofedibleseafoodimports,includingfarmedproducts.Anestimated10-15%ofsquidcaughtbyfishermanfromChina,10-20%fromChile,15-30%fromThailand,and20-35%fromIndiaareillegalandunreported.Liquidfishproductsareacidic,andtoostrongasolutioncanburnplants.204Squidproductsmayalsocontainpersistent,bio-accumulativetoxicchemicalsthatcanaffectcropsandlivestockoverthelongterm.205EssentialityandalternativesOthernaturalmaterialsthatcouldsubstituteforsyntheticsquidproductsaremanure,compost,aquaticplantproducts,bloodmeal,bonemeal,compost,feathermeal,kelpmeal,guano,andothernon-syntheticanimalorplantproducts.206Otherpracticesincludecovercrops,croprotations,andtheapplicationofplantandanimalmaterials.207However,organicfertilizationoftransplantscurrentlyheavilydependsonfishproducts.Inorganicsystems,nutrientsareprovidedbythesoil,andthefarmerfeedsthesoilthroughnaturalorganicandmineralmaterials.Ifsyntheticnutrientsaretobeusedatall,itmustbeasanexceptionandinconcertwithsoilbuildingpracticesthatrestorethesoilbalancenaturally.FromtheTR:208
“Fertilizersproducedwithsquidandsquidbyproductsandacidifiedwithphosphoricacidareeffectiveinprovidingessentialnutrientstosoilswhencomparedtosyntheticcommercialfertilizers.However,ithasbeenobservedthattheyarenomoreenvironmentallyfriendlythanotherorganicfertilizersorsyntheticfertilizers,rathertheyhavebeenfoundtohaveasimilarriskofNO3─NandPO.─Pleachingtothatofliquidorgranularsyntheticfertilizersappliedatratesupto292kilogramsperhectareperyear.LeachingofPO4─Pcanpromoteeutrophication,toxicalgalblooms,lossofdissolvedoxygenandfishkillsinaquaticecosystems.NO3─Nleachingintogroundwatersubsequentlyusedasdrinkingwaterhasbeenlinkedwiththyroiddisease,bluebabysyndrome,andnitrosamineproduction(whichcancausecancer).”
204TRlines660-663.205TRlines500-506;531-536.206TRlines738-750.207TRlines779-781.208TRlines685-693.
![Page 116: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
113
NOSBactionsanddeliberationsThesubcommitteerecommendsamendingthecurrentlistingtoread:Liquidfishandsquidproducts–canbepHadjustedwithsulfuric,citricorphosphoricacid.TheamountofacidusedshallnotexceedtheminimumneededtolowerthepHto3.5.ClassificationMotion:MovetoclassifySquid&SquidByproductsassynthetic.Motionby:CarmelaBeckSecondedby:ZeaSonnabendYes:6No:0Absent:1Abstain:0Recuse:0ListingMotion:MovetolistSquid&SquidByproductsat§205.601(j)oftheNationalList–withtheannotation–canbepHadjustedwithsulfuric,citricorphosphoricacid.TheamountofacidusedshallnotexceedtheminimumneededtolowerthepHto3.5.Motionby:CarmelaBeck;Secondedby:ZeaSonnabendYes:6No:0Absent:1Abstain:0Recuse:0CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteopposesthepetitiontoadd“SquidandSquidByproducts”aspetitionedto§205.601(j)asplantorsoilamendments,butwouldsupportadding“SquidByproducts”totheNL.Squidbyproductsareroughly50%ofsquidcatchandmostorganicfarmersneedaddednutrientsforgrowingstarts.However,asthepetitionislisted,squidshouldnotbeincluded,becauseitallowsforandencouragestheadditionalharvestofwholesquidforfertilizer.
![Page 117: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
114
HypochlorousAcidSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstituteremainsneutralinthepetitiontolistHypochlorousacidat§205.601,603,and605.Thepetitionstatesthatthismaterialisessentiallyalreadyallowedbecause,thealreadylistedchlorinematerials,inthediluteaqueousforminwhichtheyareused,existinsolutionasHypochlorousacid.Therefore,thepetitionerrequeststhatthecurrentlistingsforchlorinematerials(Calciumhypochlorite,Sodiumhypochlorite,Chlorinedioxide)beamendedtoincludeHypochlorousacid.HypochlorousacidisalsoformedbytheelectrolysisofaSodiumchloridesolutiontomakeelectrolyzedwater,usedforsterilization.Electrolysisunitssoldforindustrialandinstitutionaldisinfectantuseandformunicipalwater-treatmentareknownaschlorinegenerators.Theseavoidtheneedtoshipandstorechlorinesolutions.ThecurrentlistingsforchlorinematerialswhichgenerateHypochlorousacidareCalciumhypochlorite,Sodiumhypochlorite,andChlorinedioxideforuseasalgaecides,disinfectants,andsanitizers,includingcleaningirrigationsystems.Chlorinematerialsarealsolistedforpre-harvestuse,whereresidualchlorinelevelsinthewatermustnotexceedthemaximumresidualdisinfectantlimitundertheSafeDrinkingWaterAct.209WebelievetheNOSBandNOPshouldinvestigatethepotentialeliminationoftheuseofchlorine-basedmaterialsanddevelopguidancefortheadoptionandappropriateusageofalternativematerialsandpractices.TheNOSBsubcommitteesshouldcommissionaTRthat(1)determineswhatdisinfectant/sanitizerusesarerequiredbylaw,and(2)comprehensivelyreviewsmoreorganicallycompatiblemethodsandmaterialstodeterminewhetherchlorine-basedmaterialsareactuallyneededforanyspecificpurposes.Ifthereareusesforwhichchlorinematerialsarenecessary,thentheNOSBshouldincludethemontheNationalList,asrestricted-usematerials,andlimitthemtothoseparticularapplications.AlthoughHypochlorousacidisalreadyallowedtobeusedunderthecurrentchlorinelistingsduetothechemistryinvolved,weaskthattheNOSBdelayrecommendingthepetitionedchangeuntilitperformsathoroughreviewofallsanitizers/disinfectantsandtheiruses.Rationale:
! ElectrolyzedwaterproducesHypochlorousacidandSodiumhydroxide.Howisthesodiumhydroxidecurrentlyused/disposed?
! TherearemethodsformanufacturingHypochlorousacidinadditiontoelectrolyzedwater,includingSodiumhypochlorite,Calciumhypochlorite,andothermaterials
209EPA.2009.ListofContaminants&theirMCLs.Availableat:http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List.
![Page 118: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
115
notontheNL.HowwillthislistingensurewhichformsofHypochlorousacidareallowed?Forthisreason,werecommendlistingelectrolyzedwaterinsteadofHypochlorousacid.
! Hypochlorousacidfromelectrolyzedwaterhasshowntobeeffectiveasplantdiseasecontrol.Itisunclearwhetherlistingelectrolyzedwateras“Hypochlorousacid”willallowforthispotentialuseornotandwhetherthisuseisinlinewithOFPA.
! Electrolyzedwaterhasthepotentialtobeanalternativetoiodineteatdips,buttheallowanceforchlorineproductsinlivestockproductiondoesnotpermittheiruseasateatdip.Shouldelectrolyzedwaterbeusedforteatdips?
! Chlorinematerialsareharmfultotheenvironment.Disinfectionwithchlorine,hypochlorite,orchloraminesresultsintheformationofcarcinogenictrihalomethanes,haloaceticacids,andothertoxicbyproducts.Disinfectionwithchlorinedioxideproducesundesirableinorganicbyproducts,chloriteandchlorate.CalciumhypochloriteandSodiumhypochloritearehighlycausticandareaconcernforoccupationalexposures.Chlorinedioxideisasevererespiratoryandeyeirritant,andinhalationofChlorinedioxidecancausenose,throat,andlungirritation.Electrolyzedwaterappearsnottohavethesetoxicbyproductsassociatedwithit.Cantheseotherchlorinematerialsberemovedgivenelectrolyzedwaterisasaferalternative?
! PotentiallysaferdisinfectantsexistincludingCitricacid,Hydrogenperoxide,L-lacticacid,ethanol,isopropanol,Peraceticacid,andozone.Thesafestofthese,LacticacidandCitricacid,arebothconsiderednon-syntheticandarelistedon§205.605(a)withnorestrictionsastotheiruse.ATRisdesperatelyneededtoassessthebestdisinfectantsinorganicproductionandhandling.
! Certifiersshouldbecautiousofthefactthatelectrolyzedwaterisoftenusedasabasedisinfectantsolutionandthen“blendedwithaportfolioofproprietaryadditiveformulastocreateapplication-specificproductsfornumerouson-farmapplicationsincludinganimalandpremisehygieneandwaterpurification.”210
DISCUSSIONTheelectrolyzedwaterobtainedaftertheelectrolyzeprocesscontainsHypochlorousacid,hypochlorideions,meltedoxygen,ozone,andsuperoxyderadicalsandhasarelativelystrongoxidationpotentialwithhighantimicrobialactivity.211Thiselectrolyzedwaterhasshowntokillbacteria,virus,fungi,andparasitesquicklyandcanbeusedtodisinfectsurfacesandthewatersystems.Buttheeffectsofelectrolyzedwateronmicrobesisnotlonganddependsonthehalf-lifeofmetabolites,especiallychloride.Presenceoforganicmatterreducesefficacyasanantimicrobial.Therefore,strongerconcentrations,longer
210TimmsL(2013)EvaluationofChlorineStabilityinaNovelTeatDipDisinfectantSystem.AnimalIndustryReportAs659:ASLR2801.Availableat:http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ans_air/vol659/iss1/52211Yaniketal.(2015)Aninvestigationintothein-vitroeffectivenessofelectrolyzedwateragainstvariousmicroorganisms.IntJClinExpMed8(7):11463-11469.
![Page 119: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
116
contacttime,andcombinationwithothersubstancesthatmakeitmoreeffectiveareoftenconsidered.212InMay,2015theNOSBreceivedapetitionbyBotanicalFoodCompanyPtyLtd.toaddHypochlorousacidtotheNLat§205.601,603,and605.Hypochlorousacidisbeingpetitionedforuseinthefollowingareas:
1.OnFarma.Asapost-harvestsanitizerforrawherbandspicematerial<60ppmb.Asanequipmentandcoldroomsanitizer<200ppm
2.InProcessingplantsa.Asapost-harvest,pre-processsanitizerforherbsandspices<200ppmb.Asamicrobialrinseforherbsandspices<60ppmc.Asanequipmentandroomsanitizer<200ppm
ThepetitionwassubmittedinresponsetoapolicymemoissuedbytheNOPonJune9,2014:14-3ElectrolyzedWater(EW).ThememostatedthatanyallowanceofEWbyacertifieroramaterialevaluationprogramwasbasedonanincorrectinterpretationoftheallowanceforchlorinematerialsontheNationalList.TheNOPrequestedthatcertifiersensurethattheuseofEWwasnotallowedinorganichandlingorproductionandthatanypartywishingforfurtherconsiderationofEWforuseinorganichandlingorproduction,shouldsubmitapetitiontogetitaddedtotheNationalList.The2015TechnicalReviewwascompletedbyUSDA/AMSAgriculturalAnalyticsDivision[authorswerenotdisclosed].ElectrolyzedwateristheproductoftheelectrolysisofadiluteSodiumchloridesolutioninanelectrolysiscellcontainingasemi-permeablemembranethatphysicallyseparatestheanodeandcathode,butpermitsspecificionstopassthrough.Intheprocess,Hypochlorousacid,hypochloriteion,andHydrochloricacidareformedattheanode,andSodiumhydroxideisformedatthecathode.ThesolutionformedontheanodesideisacidicEW(pH2to6),andthesolutionformedonthecathodesideisbasicEW(pH7.5to13).NeutralEW,withapHof6to7.5isproducedbymixingtheanodicsolutionwithhydroxide,orbyusingasingle-cellchamberforelectrolysis.213TheeffectivenessofHypochlorousacidasasanitizingagentisdetermined,inlargepart,bythesolutionpH.Hypochlorousacidexistsinterchangeablywithotherchlorinespecies,includingchlorine,Hydrogenchloride(aqueousandgaseous)andhypochlorite.InacontrolledpHenvironment,HypochlorousacidwillexistasthedominantchlorinespeciesunderpHconditionsrangingfrom2to7.214AtapHof6.0-7.5(neutral),EWcontainsprimarilyHypochlorousacid,hypochloriteionandtraceamountsofchlorine.215AtpH<4.0,
212Yaniketal.(2015)Aninvestigationintothein-vitroeffectivenessofelectrolyzedwateragainstvariousmicroorganisms.IntJClinExpMed8(7):11463-11469.213TRlines48-68.214TRlines84-89.215TRlines118-119.
![Page 120: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
117
dissolvedchlorinegasisrapidlylostduetovolatilization,decreasingthebiocidaleffectivenessofthesolutionovertime,andalsocreatinghumanhealthandsafetyissues.216ThereforeitisimportantthatneutralEWbeusedforsanitizing,notacidicEW.Electrolyzedwaterhasreceivedrecentattentionasanalternativetootherchlorinedisinfectantsandsanitizers.AnumberofstudieshavedemonstratedthestrongantibacterialactivityofEWwateragainstfoodbornepathogensonrawagriculturalproductsandfoodcontactsurfaces.217ApplicationsofEWasadisinfectantforreducingmicrobialcontaminationhavebeenreportedforfreshfruitsandvegetables,poultrycarcasses,shelleggs,cuttingboards,andfoodprocessingsurfaces.TheTRstatesthatsomeadvantagesofusingEWwaterare:(1)EWisaseffectiveasanychlorinetreatment,(2)itisnotnecessarytohandlepotentiallydangerouschemicals,e.g.chlorinegas,Chlorinedioxide,bleach,(3)theapparatustoproduceEWisrelativeinexpensiveandeasytooperate,(4)becauseonlywaterandSodiumchlorideareused,EWproductionisenvironmentallyfriendly,and(5)thepropertiesoftheEWcanbecontrolledatthepreparationsite.218Theconcentrationofchlorinepresentinelectrolyzedwaterisusuallyovertenthousandtimeslessthanhouseholdbleach.HypochlorousacidisthesameactivesanitizingingredientthatispresentinSodiumhypochloriteandCalciumhypochlorite.ThereasonHypochlorousacidcanbetenthousandtimeslessconcentratedthansodiumandcalciumhypochloritesolutionsandstillbeaneffectivesanitizeristhatsodiumandcalciumhypochloritesolutions(bleach)haveahighpH.WhenthepHishigh,theHypochlorousacid/hypochloritechemicalequilibriumstronglyshiftstowardsthepresenceofhypochlorite,whereasatneutralpHthechemicalequilibriumshiftstowardsthepresenceofHypochlorousacid,theeffectivesanitizingcompound.Therefore,thepetitionerarguesthatHypochlorousacidisasaferproduct,fortheenvironmentandforhumanhealth,thanchlorinesanitizermaterialscurrentlyontheNationalList.Essentialityandalternatives TheNOSBshouldbelookingatnon-chlorinealternativedisinfectants(otherthantheresiduallevelinfinisheddrinkingwater).AlternativematerialsthatcouldpotentiallybesubstitutedforchlorinematerialsincludeCitricacid,Hydrogenperoxide,L-lacticacid,ethanol,isopropanol,Peraceticacid,Coppersulfate,andozone.AlternativepracticesincludesteamsterilizationandUVradiation.EPA’sDesignfortheEnvironment(DfE)programhasbeeninvestigatingalternativedisinfectants.ADfElabelonadisinfectantmeansthattheproductmeetsthefollowingcriteria:
216TRlines150-152.217Al-HaqMM,SugiyamaLJ,andIsobeS(2005)Applicationsofelectrolyzedwaterinagricultureandfoodindustries,FoodSciTechnolRes11(2):135-150.218TRlines99-108.
![Page 121: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
118
• Itisintheleast-hazardousclasses(i.e.,IIIandIV)ofEPA’sacutetoxicitycategoryhierarchy;
• Itisunlikelytohavecarcinogenicorendocrinedisruptorproperties;• Itisunlikelytocausedevelopmental,reproductive,mutagenic,orneurotoxicity
issues;• Ithasnooutstanding“conditionalregistration”dataissues;• EPAhasreviewedandacceptedmixtures,includinginertingredients;• Itdoesnotrequiretheuseofagency-mandatedpersonalprotectiveequipment;• Ithasnounresolvedorunreasonableadverseeffectsreported;• Ithasnounresolvedefficacyfailures(associatedwiththeAntimicrobialTesting
Program,orotherwise);• Ithasnounresolvedcomplianceorenforcementactionsassociatedwithit;• And,ithastheidenticalformulationastheoneidentifiedintheDfEapplication
reviewedbyEPA.219TheEPAhasapprovedthefollowingforuseasDfEdisinfectantproducts:Citricacid,Hydrogenperoxide,L-lacticacid,ethanol,andisopropanol.DfEdisinfectantproductformulationsand“inert”ingredientsmustalsomeettheDfEstandardforsafercleaningproducts.220AlloftheapprovedDfEdisinfectantactiveingredientsareontheNationalList.CitricandLacticacidsareconsiderednon-synthetic,arelistedunder§205.605(a),anddonotneedtobelistedinordertobeusedincroporlivestockproduction.Inaddition,theneedforcleanequipmentmustbedistinguishedfromtheneedfordisinfection,anddisinfectionisdifficulttoaccomplishifasurfaceisnotclean.221TechnicalReviewsonchlorinehaveidentifiedthefollowingalternativematerials:ethanolandisopropanol;Coppersulfate;Peraceticacid,foruseindisinfectingequipment,seed,andasexuallypropagatedplantingmaterial;soap-basedalgaecide/demossers;Phosphoricacid;andozone.TheTRsalsoidentifiedtwoalternativepractices:steamsterilizationandUVradiation.222ResultsofCornucopia’scertifiedorganiclivestockproducersurveyInourlatestsurveyofcertifiedorganiclivestockproducers,conductedin2015,39%saidthattheyusedSodiumhypochloriteonoccasiontodisinfectequipmentandjustoneproducer(outof28respondents)saidtheyutilizedChlorinedioxide.NoonementionedusingCalciumhypochlorite.Ofconcerniswhetherornotcertainlivestockproducers,namelydairyfarmers,arerequiredtousechlorine-baseddisinfectantsinordertomeettheirmilkbuyers’requirementsorstateorfederallaws(suchastheFDA’spasteurizedmilkordinance).Four
219http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/design-dfe-pilot.html220http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/dfe_criteria_for_cleaning_products_10_09.pdf221GuidelineforDisinfectionandSterilizationinHealthcareFacilities,2008.http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf2222011CropsTRand2006LivestockTR.
![Page 122: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
119
producersoutof28(14.3%)mentionedthattheywererequiredtousebleachtodisinfecttheirmilkingequipment.InatleastonecasestateregulatorsspecifiedtheykeepCloroxbrandbleachinthemilkhouseatalltimes.Alternativesusedbysurveyrespondentsinclude2usingPeraceticacid,1usinghotwaterpressurewashing,and1usingSuperSanperoxide-baseddisinfectant.PrevioussubcommitteediscussionsandvoteIn2011,theCropsSubcommitteemadearecommendationtorelistchlorinecompounds,withachangetotheannotationofthefollowingchlorinematerials(Calciumhypochlorite,Chlorinedioxide,andSodiumhypochlorite):forpre-harvestuse,residualchlorinelevelsinthewaterindirectcropcontact,oraswaterfromcleaningirrigationsystemsappliedtosoilmustnotexceedthemaximumresidualdisinfectantlimitundertheSafeDrinkingWaterAct.Fordisinfectingorsanitizingequipmentortoolsorinediblesproutproduction,chlorineproductsmaybeuseduptomaximumlabeledrates.Whiletherewereconcernsabouttherelistingofchlorinematerialsfor2017Sunset,therearealsospecificrequirementstousechlorineabovethe4ppmSDWAlimitinseveralcommodityspecificindustries.Forexample,ThePasteurizedMilkOrdinancestatesthattheproduct-contactsurfacesofallmulti-usecontainers,equipment,andutensilsusedinthehandling,storage,ortransportationofmilkshallbesanitizedbeforeeachusage.In2016,thehandling,crops,andlivestocksubcommitteesallvotedinfavorofthepetitiontoaddHypochlorousacidtotheNationalList.Subcommitteevotes:Motion#1.TolistHypochlorousacidat§205.605(b),chlorinematerials.Motionby:AshleySwaffar,Secondedby:JeanRichardsonYes:6,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:2,Recuse:0Motion#2.TolistHypochlorousacidaspetitionedat§205.603oftheNationalList(a)Asdisinfectants,sanitizer,andmedicaltreatmentsasapplicable.(7)Chlorinematerials—disinfectingandsanitizingfacilitiesandequipment.ResidualchlorinelevelsinthewatershallnotexceedthemaximumresidualdisinfectantlimitundertheSafeDrinkingWaterAct.(iv)Hypochlorousacid.Motionby:FrancisThicke,Secondedby:JesseBuieYes:7,No:0,Abstain:1,Absent:0,Recuse:0Motion#3.TolistHypochlorousacidat§205.601oftheNationalList:Syntheticsubstancesallowedforuseinorganiccropproduction.§205.605(a)Asalgaecide,disinfectants,andsanitizer(2)chlorinematerials(iv)Hypochlorousacid.Motionby:HaroldV.AustinIV,Secondedby:EmilyOakleyYes:7,No:0,Absent:0,Abstain:0,Recuse:0
![Page 123: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
120
CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstituteremainsneutralonthepetitiontolistHypochlorousacidat§205.601,603,and605asanallowedsyntheticsubstanceuntiltheNOSBcommissionsaTRthat(1)determineswhatdisinfectant/sanitizerusesarerequiredbylaw,and(2)comprehensivelyreviewsmoreorganicallycompatiblemethodsandmaterialstodeterminewhetherchlorine-basedmaterials,includingHypochlorousacidareactuallyneededforanyspecificpurposes.TheNOSBandNOPshouldinvestigatethepotentialeliminationoftheuseofchlorine-basedmaterialsanddevelopguidancefortheadoptionandappropriateusageofalternativematerialsandpractices.Thesubcommitteesmusttakeintoconsiderationthewidespreadenvironmentalimpactsandthreatstohumanhealthposedbythemanufacture,use,anddisposalofchlorine.Limitationsontheuseofchlorineshouldbeclarified.
![Page 124: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
121
SoyWaxSUMMARYTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportsthepetitiontoaddsoywaxto§205.601(o)asproductionaids,withtheannotation,“mustbemadefromnon-GMOsoybeans,”andwitha5-yearexpirationdatetoencouragetheproductionoforganicsoywax.Rationale:
! Soywax,foruseinmushroomculture,ismorecompatiblewithorganicproductionthanmicrocrystallinecheesewax,apetroleum-basedproduct.
! Nature’sGiftsInternational,LLC,acompanythatcurrentlymakessoywaxforthispurpose,claimsthatitismadefromdomesticallygrown,non-GMOsoybeans,buttheyarenotUSDAcertifiedorganic.
! TheremovalofmicrocrystallinecheesewaxfromtheNationalListwillbepossibleshouldthereprovetobesufficientquantitiesofsoywaxavailable.
! Soywaxshouldhaveanexpirationdate,becausethecurrentcompanythatmanufacturesthismaterialdoesnotuseorganicsoybeansandtheprocessformakingwaxissynthetic(involvingachemicalchange).Thisislikelytochangeifthereismarketdemandtodoso.
DISCUSSIONSoyWaxwaspetitionedbyBeyondPesticides,anationalgrassroots,membershiporganization,toprovideorganicmushroomgrowerswithanon-petroleumderivedalternativetomicrocrystallinecheesewaxforsealinginoculationsites.Mushroomsmaybegrownonlogswithoutsealant,buttheuseofasealantincreasesthechancesofsuccessbyreducingparasites,competitors,anddrying.Thepurposeofawaxsealantistoprovideaphysicalbarrierthatpreservesmoistureandexcludescompetingfungiandotherorganismsfromcolonizingcutendsandholesinmushroomlogs.Vegetableoilshavebeentestedandfoundtobebiodegradable.Beeswaxisenvironmentallybetter,butitcracksincoldweatherandattractssomeinsectsandrodents.ThecurrentsyntheticalternativeontheNationalListforthispurposeislistedas:
Microcrystallinecheesewax-foruseinloggrownmushroomproduction.Mustbemadewithouteitherethylene-propyleneco-polymerorsyntheticcolors,listedat§205.601(o)Asproductionaids.
Thepetitionedalternative,soywax,issyntheticbecauseitismadebyhydrogenatingsoyoil(makingitasolidatroomtemperature).Hydrogenationistheprocesswherebypoly-andmono-unsaturatedoilsaresolidifiedinordertoincreaseviscosity,thesameprocessusedtomakemargarine.Soybeanoilisheatedto(140-225oC)inthepresenceofanickel
![Page 125: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
122
catalyst.Sincehydrogenationcausesachemicalchangenotproducednaturally,soywaxisasyntheticsubstance.Currently,soywaxissoldbyFungiPerfectithatisrepresentedasbeingmadefromnon-GMO,domesticallyproducedsoybeans;however,allsoywaxisnotnecessarilynon-GMO,sothesuggestedannotation“mustbemadefromnon-GMOsoybeans”isnecessary.Soywaxismorecompatiblewithorganicandsustainableproductionthanmicrocrystallinecheesewaxandshouldbeallowedtobeusedinorganicmushroomculture.Shouldsufficientquantitiesofsoywaxprovetobeavailable,microcrystallinecheesewaxshouldberemovedfromtheNL.A5-yearexpirationdateonsoywaxwouldallowthislistingtobefurtherannotatedinthefuturetorequiretheuseoforganicsoybeans,ortoberemovedinfavorofanon-syntheticalternative.BecausetheNOSB’srevisedSunsetpolicyprohibitsannotationatSunset,theseimprovementsareonlypossiblewithanexpirationdate.UnderNOP’srevisedSunsetpolicyafullreviewatSunsetdoesnotnecessarilyoccurbecausethesubcommitteemaychoosenottoproduceadelistingmotionthatwouldsubjectthematerialtofullboardreview,andthematerialdoesnotrequireadecisivevoteinordertoberelisted.Giventhatthesoywaxcurrentlyavailablecomesfromconventionalsoybeansandtheprocessformakingwaxissynthetic,thismaterialshouldnotremainonthelistindefinitely,asislikelyundertherevisedNOPSunsetpolicy.Organicproductionoperatesonthepremiseofcontinualimprovement,thereforethisconventionalsoy-basedmaterialshouldreceivecomprehensivereviewinfiveyears,accordingtoOFPAcriteriaandstandards.NOSBactionsanddeliberationsSubcommitteeVoteProposedAnnotation:Mustbemadefromnon-GMOsoybeanoil.Motionby:FrancisThickeSecondedby:ColehourBonderaYes:4,No:0,Abstain:0,Absent:1,Recuse:0CONCLUSIONTheCornucopiaInstitutesupportsthepetitiontoaddsoywaxto§205.601(o)asproductionaids,withtheannotation,“mustbemadefromnon-GMOsoybeans,”andwitha5-yearexpirationdatetoencouragetheproductionoforganicsoywax.
![Page 126: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
123
DISCUSSIONDOCUMENTProhibitionofNonylPhenolEthoxylates(NPEs)inInertsAnnotationChangeIncludedincommentsonpage103.
![Page 127: Comments to the National Organic Standards Board...1 INTRODUCTION The Cornucopia Institute is pleased to offer the National Organic Standards Board our formal analysis of, and recommendations](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022071401/60eb94a598520c4fe561f8b5/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
124
INDEXAgar-Agar,35AncillarySubstancesProcedure,84,86AnimalEnzymes,39,41AshfromManureBurning,108β-Carotene,68CalciumChloride,104CalciumSulfate,45,46,47,49Carrageenan,37,50Cellulose,56,57,58,59CopperSulfate,91,92,93EPAList3,103ExcludedMethodsTerminology,2,3,5Fenbendazole,18,25,26GluconoDelta-Lactone,50,51HypochlorousAcid,11,81,114Inerts,103,123Ivermectin,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26
Lidocaine&ProcaineAnnotation,12Moxidectin,19,21,22,23,25,26
NaturalEcosystems,28,32NonylPhenolEthoxylates(NPEs),103,123
NutrientVitaminsandMinerals,87,88,90
Oatbeta-glucan,78OzoneGas,95Parasiticides,17,18,19PeraceticAcid,98,99,100PolicyandProceduresManual,27PotassiumHydroxide,61SeedPurity,7,8SiliconDioxide,65SodiumandPotassiumLactate,74SodiumDodecylbenzeneSulfonate,81SoyWax,121SquidandSquidByproducts,110,113SunsetTimeline,27Tartaricacid,53,54,55