|
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
| |
| 334 |
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LAW REVIEW
|
Vol. 26 |
processors, the so-called movers and shakers from the well-known
organic clique. Notices for meetings were placed in insider organic journals,
certification newsletters and on alternative agricultural bulletin boards, etc. Notices
were rarely placed in mainstream newspapers, food co-op mailings, environmental group
newsletters or food safety/pesticide advocacy notices.
III. UNNECESSARY AND AVOIDABLE RISKS OF FOOD PRODUCTION
PRACTICES
The OFPA and its underlying legislative intent
displayed in conference reports outline a clear mandate for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the NOSB to unmistakenly differentiate organically produced goods from
conventionally produced goods.47 The clear intent is to
separate the organic paradigm from the mentality underlying the FIFRA,48 the Pure Food and Drug Act 49 and
the Environmental Protection Act.50 The statute seeks to
recognize that whereas conventional matters seek to balance risks and benefits,51 the organic approach seeks to avoid risks by using alternative
practices and materials that have virtually no toxicity risks.
Congress clearly expected the NOSB to seek the advice of practitioners
who were successfully growing crops without toxic pest control or chemical fertilizer
inputs and to
47. See 7 U.S.C.
§ 6504 (Supp. V 1993). Section 6504 mandates products sold or labeled as organically
produced to:
- have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as
otherwise provided in this chapter.
- . . . not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including chemicals,
have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural
products; and
- be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and
handler of such product and the certifying agent.
S. REP. NO. 357, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 289, 298-299 (1990), reprinted
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656,4952-53.
48. Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, ch
125, 61 Stat. 163 (1947) (codified at 7 U.S.C.§§ 136-136y (1988)).
49. Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, ch. 3915, 34
Stat. 768-772 (repealed by Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ch. 627, 52 Stat. 1040-1059
(1938) (codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-394 (1988 & Supp. V 1993))).
50. Environmental Protection Act of 1969, Pub. L. No.
91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (1988)).
51. The EPA exerts only token efforts to
assess benefits. The EPA assumes a benefit for a material if it is offered for sale and
attempts to assess risk. See generally J.B. CLARK & MERRILL A. CLARK, PERSONAL
CONSULTATIONS WITH AL JENNINGS, EPA BENEFITS STAFF (1989-90); TERRY SHISTAR AL.,
UNNECESSARY RISKS: THE BENEFIT SIDE OF THE PESTICID RISK-BENEFIT EQUATION (1992).
|