HERB - What's 'Organic'?

[khkeeler]

Christine A Seelye-King wrote:
> 
> <snip> genetically engineered food, irradiated food and food grown
> >in municipal sewage sludge...According to Agriculture Secretary Dan
> >Glickman, the USDA will now make "fundamental revisions" to the
> >proposal. The Big Three will be jettisoned, and a new draft will be
> >issued later this year..."
> >They don't mention any legislation being passed...could this be on a
> >state level?
> >
> >Catriona Rowley
> 
> Sorry, you are right, it was genetic engineering, not chemical
> pesticides. But, I heard on the news about a week and a half ago (NPR's
> 'All Things Considered', I believe), that the proposal had been approved
> by the FDA.  They used the term "posted Federal Guidelines", so I don't
> know if the term Legislation is appropriate, but the gist of it was
> definately that those 3 qualifiers had been agreed on.
> And I don't recall them mentioning the USDA.  Slanted journalism?
> 
> Hmmmm,
>         Christianna
I have served as a SAP (scientific advisory panelist that is) to
biotech-and-the-environment hearings.  The process requires all of them:
FDA to rule on food safety, EPA to consider environmental issues, USDA
to "protect American agriculture".  Any one of them can force a product
out of the commercial pipeline.
   Changes based on law are often the last resort.  To use the example I
know: the biotech developers are afraid of too many difficult rules
being added, the anti-biotech are afraid commercial interests might sway
Congress to dilute regulation.  And many a potential law has died
somewhere in the process for lack of general interest in Congress.

	So more often, the Agencies (FDA, EPA, USDA) propose new
interpretations of the law.  As federal agencies, they can do nothing
unless their enabling legislation says they can.  But they can redefine
their powers as technology etc. changes.  That process is usually
lengthy with 1) an announcement in the Federal Register, giving the
proposed changes in full and a period of at least a month for receiving
public comment.  2) comments are read and by law all have to be
commented on in writing (I believe) 3) sometimes there's a public
hearing as well (this would be announced in the Federal Register). 
Depending on the response, the rule change might go forward, be slightly
revised, or be scrapped.

	My favorite version of redefinition was when the FDA declared DNA a
chemical so they had jurisdiction over biotech.  FDA isn't empowered to
regulate GRAS (generally regarded as safe) foods (all the common ones),
only food _additives_.  Historically, that was fine.
Genetic engineering, however, is modifying GRAS foods.  But "DNA is in
every cell, all we added was DNA."  What was the FDA to do?  It didn't
wait for a law, it defined DNA added to a food as "a chemical additive"
and viola! it had strong regulatory control over biotech changes to
foods.

Agnes
in this case, Kathy Keeler
kkeeler1 at unl.edu
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.