Kaitlynn Dixon is a law student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University and a guest contributor to this blog.
Organic farming was first developed in the early 1900s by agricultural researcher Sir Albert Howard, emphasizing the impact that preserving soil’s natural biome has on crop viability. As agriculture became more industrialized in the 1940s, relying heavily on chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce larger crop yields, environmental consequences such as soil erosion and chemical runoff grew. Organic farming gained popularity in response to growing environmental problems because it was a tool for promoting agricultural practices that protect soil health and the environment. In the 1970s, private organizations consisting mostly of nonprofits developed the first organic certification, with support from organizations like the Northeast Organic Farming Association as well as small business owners. Oversight over organic certification then expanded to state agriculture departments in the 1980s. In order to create a national certification, the USDA promulgated rule 205 National Organic Program in 2000. During this transition from private to public governance of organic standards and the decades following, the focus of the National Organic Program has shifted away from its roots of environmental integrity and toward the influence of large corporate agribusinesses. In order to restore the environmental integrity of organic farming to the USDA’s Organic Certification, the 2023 Farm Bill holds great potential to address the weaknesses of the National Organic Program.
In order to be certified as USDA Organic, farms must follow soil and crop management practices outlined in rule 205 National Organic Program. These include implementing cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion. The USDA states the overall purpose of the National Organic Program standards as, “foster[ing] the cycling of resources, promote[ing] ecological balance, and conserve[ing] biodiversity.” While this stated purpose aligns greatly with the environmental integrity of organic farming and its early certification, in practice, the USDA has weakened the program’s standards by including and subsequently expanding numerous synthetic substances deemed as permissible in qualifying for USDA Organic certification.
Upon implementation of rule 205 National Organic Program in 2000, the USDA included 77 synthetic substances as permissible in qualifying for USDA Organic certification. By 2009, the USDA expanded this list to 245 permissible synthetic substances – three times the amount initially listed. Continuously expanding the list of permissible synthetic weakens the initial standards held by the National Organic Program, as well as the program’s legitimacy. The USDA justifies the use of synthetic substances in organic farming by stating that synthetic substances such as herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and synthetic soil amendments are necessary for crop production. Where the original intent of organic farming sought to promote agricultural practices that naturally preserve soil health, objecting to the rise in chemicals being used in industrial agriculture, the inclusion and expansion of synthetic chemicals contradicts this very intent.
Another major concern the National Organic Program (NOP) has faced under the USDA’s oversight is the corporate influence among the members sitting on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB was established by Congress in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which states that the board must be comprised of a certain number of farmers, environmental and ecological scientists, and otherwise environmental experts, ensuring that the NOSB is staffed with professionals who will accurately advise on organic standards that promote the environmental integrity of organic farming and the National Organic Program. However, under USDA oversight, several members appointed to the NOSB have served or continue to serve in directorial positions for large agribusinesses, including Dole, Chiquita, Driscoll’s, Dannon, and Pilgrim’s Pride – the second largest conventional poultry processor in the U.S. By appointing corporate agribusiness affiliates in place of positions intended for on-the-ground farmers and environmental professionals, the USDA has weakened the environmental focus and integrity of the organic certification to favor corporate interests over environmental concern.
In order to address these major issues, Congress should use the 2023 Farm Bill to strengthen the National Organic Program and restore environmental integrity to the USDA Organic Certification. To do this, Congress should limit the USDA’s authority for adding synthetic substances to the list of approved substances in organic production. Additionally, Congress should impose rules for appointing members to the National Organic Standards Board to ensure the language of the Organic Foods Production Act is adhered to and conflicts of interest are avoided.
In limiting the USDA’s authority to expand permissible synthetic substances, Congress should first require the removal of synthetic pesticides from this list and other synthetic substances that do not fall in line with preserving soil health and natural soil biomes. Being that the NOSB would be reviewing additions to the list of permissible synthetic substances, strengthening the integrity of the board’s members would provide more fairness in reviewing permissible substances moving forward.
Addressing the corporate influence of the National Organic Standards Board, Congress could increase the number of allotted seats for environmental and ecological science professionals who sit on the NOSB. This would allow for environmental considerations to hold more weight in the recommendations the board provides to the USDA. Additionally, Congress could narrow the definition of environmental professionals to those who specialize in soil health and biodiversity as they relate to agriculture. This would ensure that members who are chosen for these seats accurately advise on environmental concerns as they relate to agricultural production specifically. With more environmental representation on the NOSB, the environmental integrity of organic farming and the National Organic Program can better be represented in future membership and decisions made by the board.
While there are many ways in which Congress can recenter environmental preservation as the focus of the USDA Organic Certification, addressing the internal expansion of synthetic substances and corporate influence of the NOSB can serve as beginning steps in strengthening the USDA’s National Organic Program.
The views and opinions expressed on the FBLE Blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FBLE. While we review posts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the reliability and completeness of any legal analysis presented; posts on this Blog do not constitute legal advice. If you discover an error, please reach out to contact@farmbilllaw.org.
