SEAFOOD.COM NEWS — May 6, 2014 — USDA organic designation for aquaculture is being killed by USDA hostility and efforts to discredit aquaculture by Food and Water Watch, along with other groups that are basically hostile to any net-pen farming.
At issue is a long struggle to reach consensus over how USDA organic standards should be applied to aquaculture. The key question for seafood industry advocates is whether the Organic Standards Board, which is the group that has say over the rules, will treat aquaculture in a similar manner to land based animals. The answer appears to be no.
As George Lockewood writes below, the board rejected all ten of the aquaculture industry proposals that would control how and when medicines and nutrients – that are all allowed for land animals under the USDA standard, be applied to seafood. The political motive is to make seafood organic standards economically unviable, in effect killing them in the cradle.
The basis of the rejection was primarily hostility to farmed salmon, led by an anti-aquaculture coalition.
This may seem like inside baseball, but the net impact is to deny any hope for a USDA organic type designation for domestic aquaculture. It will likely lead companies to continue to rely on European organic designations, or certification from groups such as Naturland in Germany.
This is another example of the toxic nature of the relationship between USDA and seafood.
Below is the report George Lockwood, chair of the aquaculture working group that was advising the USDA on these issues, on the recent National Organic Standard Board meeting:
"I have discouraging news to report about the NOSB meeting that was held last week on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
The meeting got off to a very bad start. To begin with, there was an ugly confrontation when an official of one of the organic organizations disrupted the meeting with loud protests and had to be removed by the police who physically carried her out. That took six or so officers to accomplish.
There were basically two major issues that set the tone for the meeting. The first was the apparent unilateral decision by NOP to revise how synthetic material on the National List are reinstated after their five-year allowance is scheduled to expire. The second was that the head of NOP, Miles McEvoy unilaterally became the chair of NOSB to run the meetings and control the agenda.
The Organic Food Production Act requires NOSB to elect its own chair. It appears that Miles, a USDA employee, wants to be chair himself which some people say is contrary to the law. As a result of these two matters, I am told that a very hostile atmosphere permeated the NOSB members. I can imagine how upset the NOSB members must of been as they tried to do their work later in the meeting.
There was a well organized anti-aquaculture effort involving the Organic Consumers Association, the National Organic Coalition, Consumers Union, Cornucopia, Food and Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides.
Their people spoke against (1) salmon net pens, (2) the use of any synthetic materials in aquaculture, and (3) they strongly objected to NOSB processing the AWG petitions before the adoption of a final rule. The later argument carried the day so all ten of our petitions were referred back to the Livestock Committee for further consideration. There were many negative comments by NOSB about our petitioned materials in spite of the fact that each is allowed for growing terrestrial crops, livestock, and in prepared organic foods.
I am told, that behind the scenes the AWG was badly smeared and we are seen as a tool for commercial fish farmers.
Our longtime friend of organic aquaculture, Jim Pierce, of Oregon Tilth spoke against our carbon dioxide petition for use in growing aquatic plants, and against the inclusion of trace minerals for growing aquatic plants. His crops certifiers do not want these materials used in crops. In my opinion these objections by this respected certification organization added considerably to discredit AWG and raise the paranoia of NOSB members.
Others questioned chlorine, vitamins, and one asked "should vaccines be used in org aquaculture 2 cover up disease problems in farmed fish?" We were not present to address these and other concerns.
In my mind, all of this is due to the unwillingness of Miles McEvoy to allow the AWG to do its job of providing expert advice to NOSB on aquaculture matters. AWG was assigned by NOP in 2009 the task of preparing petitions for essential materials, and then when NOSB began their work, we were deliberately prohibited from interacting with them.
This decision by him has two serious consequences. The first is that NOSB members are left to their imaginations to speculate how our petitioned materials are used in aquaculture rather than to actually know how they are used.
The second consequence is that by completely eliminating AWG from discussions we are viewed in a very negative and hostile light. We have not been allowed to build credibility. During the period from 2005 and 2010 when we worked closely with NOSB members in developing the recommended rules, we were able to build considerable confidence and credibility. Without our participation whatsoever, this good working relationship is missing and has caused considerable damage.
During the meeting Miles told the board that he now plans to have their proposed Final Rule for aquaculture posted by "the end of the year." We heard this same comments in 2012, 2013, and now 2014. I have considerable doubts if that will happen.
It is unclear what will happen next within NOSB and NOP relative to both our petitions and the content of the Final Rule.
Clearly our absence at this NOSB meeting worked against us. Since 2010, AWG has not had funds for attending these meetings, like we had before. If we are to succeed under these adverse circumstances, I will need some financial support in order to make our presence at these critical meetings. We must come up with some sort of funding mechanism.
I will continue to work with Mac Stone the retiring Chair of NOSB and John Foster the new Chair in my attempts to develop a working relationship with the NOSB committees that will further consider our petitions. But, without travel funds from some source, our hands will be tied behind our backs. And, without AWG experts being included in telephone conference calls, NOSB members will continue to be paranoid about aquaculture.
I wish that I could provide a more favorable report. Our many years of diligent work may be lost."
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.