USDA’s arbitrary rules about what is permitted for the “organic” designation prohibit important advances in agriculture and food production, and they unnecessarily restrict consumer choice. That could be remedied by expanding what is permitted under the federal National Organic Standards, and this would be an opportune time.
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 required USDA to develop national standards for the production of “organic foods” because of consumer demand for food that was supposedly more healthful and produced with more sustainable farming methods than traditional farming. However, the standards actually adopted do not improve food safety, quality, or nutrition – nor were they intended to. When the final National Organic Standards were issued in 2000, Secretary Dan Glickman said, “Let me be clear about one thing: the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety, nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”
Another Secretary of Agriculture, John Block, added in 2014, “Yet USDA’s own research shows consumers buy higher priced organic products because they mistakenly believe them safer and more nutritious.”
Organic agriculture has burgeoned. According to the Organic Trade Association, sales in the U.S. from domestic and international sources totaled some $47 billion in 2016, an increase of almost $3.7 billion from the previous year. About 56 percent was for crops, and the remaining 44 percent was for livestock, poultry, and related products.
Innovation to improve safety, quality, or nutrition of organic products has faltered. In fact, various studies have raised concerns about a lowering of organic foods’ safety, quality and nutrition, and about the burdens of organic production on the environment, especially its excessive use of water and arable land. Moreover, typically organic crop yields are lower and their retail prices significantly higher.
Meanwhile, innovation in the organic sector has not benefited from three decades of escalating use of precise molecular techniques for the genetic improvement of food crops and food processing. This genetic engineering – primarily of commodity crops but increasingly of some specialty crops – has contributed to more efficient, sustainable food production, and also to the introduction of traits appealing to consumers.
Crop plants have been genetically engineered (aka “genetically modified,” or “bioengineered”) to be fortified with important vitamins and minerals and to be drought-, flood-, pest-, disease-, and herbicide-resistant, requiring less spraying of insecticides and other inputs and often increasing yields. Likewise, animals can be genetically engineered to be more nutritious and disease-resistant, to lessen their suffering (such as by introducing the polled, or hornless, trait) and to impose less stress on the natural environment (for example, by producing less-toxic manure). The genetic engineering of microorganisms has also been pivotal in advances in the production of food, food additives, and beverages. Such innovations are critical not only to meet the global need for improved food quality and availability, but also for adaptation to the challenges of increasing population and a changing climate.
The original draft of the National Organic Standards proposed by USDA did not exclude from the definition of “organic” foods from organisms improved with molecular genetic engineering techniques, or “GMOs,” as long as they met the specified organic production standards. But ultimately, in response to public comments from organizations and individuals, including the organic industry (which sought to prevent market share gains by the nascent plant biotechnology companies), and because of anti-biotechnology sentiment in USDA’s political leadership, USDA used its discretion to exclude genetically engineered products from the definition of organic food.
Accordingly, by definition, the National Organic Standards promulgated in 2000 prohibit the use of the USDA Organic Label on foods derived from organisms created with molecular genetic engineering techniques, even when the foods are otherwise grown with complete fidelity to the requirements of organic production.
With the possible exception of the prohibition on using irradiation to kill pathogens in food, the genetic engineering exclusion is perhaps the most irrational aspect of the organic standards. Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables, and grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another, including through wide crosses, which move genes from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature. The newer molecular techniques are part of a seamless continuum, more precise and predictable extensions, or refinements, of earlier techniques for genetic modification.
The prohibition against “genetically engineered, organically produced” crops denies consumers nutritionally improved foods, such as rice fortified with the precursor of vitamin A; canola oil with enhanced levels of omega-3 fatty acids; apples that don’t turn brown when cut; and potatoes that are bruise-resistant (and therefore, reduce waste) and have lower levels of the precursor of acrylamide, a carcinogen produced at high temperatures.
Thus, the exclusion from organic agriculture of plants made with molecular genetic engineering forfeits their potential for higher yields and lower environmental burdens, which were explicit goals of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
A major reason for the exclusion of genetically engineered products from the definition of organic was to make organic food acceptable to consumers who objected to genetically engineered products at a time when the U.S. government did not require them to be specifically labeled. The FDA had determined that the use of molecular genetic engineering techniques did not, per se, raise nutritional or safety concerns, and so specific labeling was not required unless safety or usage issues were raised by the characteristics of the product.
Thus, as far as the U.S. government was concerned, there was no compelling reason – and hence, no requirement — to label genetically engineered food products. Nevertheless, responding to pressure from a small number of consumer activists and certain industries, several states enacted laws requiring the labeling of food from genetically engineered organisms, thus creating disparate labeling requirements, confusing consumers and creating a significant logistical problem for the agriculture and food industries. That led Congress in 2016 to pass a preemptive disclosure law that required USDA to establish rules for a uniform national label for “bioengineered” food.
The disclosure law does not in any way automatically alter the current National Organic Standards, but it does provide an opening for the Secretary of Agriculture to consider modifying the definition of organic to include genetically engineered food, as originally proposed almost 30 years ago: Section 293 (f) of the disclosure law requires USDA to “consider establishing consistency between — (1) the national bioengineered food disclosure standard established under this section; and (2) the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and any rules or regulations implementing that Act.”
With the new labeling requirements for bioengineered, or genetically engineered, food products, arguably those products should now be eligible for the USDA organic seal if they comply with the requirements of both the National Organic Standards and the new bioengineered-food disclosure rules. No longer would consumers be denied the choice of purchasing food that is both organic and genetically engineered. As noted above, genetic engineering increasingly introduces traits with palpable benefits to consumers, including biofortification of plants with vitamins and minerals, more healthful vegetable oils, leaner meats and reduced levels of allergens.
If consumers who protested the inclusion of bioengineered food within the “organic” definition three decades ago remain opposed, they could simply refuse to purchase organic products bearing the “bioengineered” label. There is no reason that others should be denied the opportunity to partake of “organic bioengineered” products.
The Trump administration should direct USDA to comply with Section 293(f) by amending the National Organic Standards to permit the inclusion of crops, animals, and microorganisms (for example, to produce yogurt or alcoholic beverages) modified with the most precise and predictable genetic techniques. That would establish the United States as the world’s pacesetter in the creation of a new, welcome category of organic bioengineered products. It would favor consumer choice and encourage more sustainable agricultural practices.
John J. Cohrssen is an attorney who has served in a number of government posts in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, including as counsel to the White House Biotechnology Working Group, associate director of the President’s Council on Competitiveness, and counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.
