Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Kucinich Organic Food Amendment strikes $1 of salary from the Secretary's office to raise an objection to the removal of consumer public interest representation from the National…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Kucinich Organic Food Amendment strikes $1 of salary from the Secretary's office to raise an objection to the removal of consumer public interest representation from the National Organic Standards Board.
What is organic food? Organic food is produced in a sustainable manner without pesticides, herbicides, or artificial fertilizers. Organic food production improves the environment and delivers a safe food to our children.
Our fields and streams are relied upon to grow our food; therefore, we must protect these assets with a sustainable agricultural system. Organic food has proven itself commercially viable. It is a multi- billion dollar industry. It has improved the sustainability of our agricultural system. But organic foods cannot be distinguished by how they look, taste, or smell. Consumers can only rely on an organic label. Consumers need to trust that label if they are going to pay the premium for organic food.
The National Organic Standards Board was formed in 1990 as part of the 1990 farm bill's Organic Food Production Act. Its 15 members are meant to assist the Secretary of Agriculture in developing organic food standards. Members have 5-year terms and the board is comprised of four farmers/growers; two handlers/processors; one retailer; one scientist; three consumer public advocates; three environmentalists; and one certifying agent who sits on various committees.
This board is, among other things, tasked with ensuring that consumers can trust the organic food label. There appears to be an effort to undercut consumer public interest representation on the board. Led by Consumers Union, several food safety and public interest organizations raised objections to two recent appointments to the consumer public interest slots because those slots went to industry representatives. One occupant is a food industry lobbyist for General Mills and the other occupant is a consultant to the organic dairy industry. Fortunately, the General Mills lobbyist was responsible and resigned. Unfortunately, the dairy consultant remains on the board.
Now, the Consumers Union letter stated in part: ``These individuals could not reflect the specific interests of the consumers or the public, but rather the interests of the industry. For example, General Mills is a large corporation. It has a vested interest in the sales of organic food products which is in conflict with representing a consumer public interest position on the National Organic Standards Board.''
When the USDA was challenged by the Center For Science in the Public Interest, the USDA staff for the National Organic Standards Board responded with: ``It was the Secretary's decision to pick,'' talking about the General Mills representative, ``and he didn't want to pick anyone else.''
Clearly, the USDA has signaled its intention to leave the consumer slot vacant for the rest of the year. To ensure consumers can trust the organic label, the Secretary should fill the slots with consumer representatives. This amendment would simply remind the USDA that Congress, which created the National Organic Standards Board, believes that the consumer public interest representation on the National Organic Standards Board is critical to setting organic food standards that are credible and trustworthy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey.
Reclaiming my time, the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin make it very clear that Congress has a role here in affirming the position of consumer representatives on the National Organic Standards Board. It was Congress that created this board. It was Congress that wanted to ensure the integrity of the organic label. So I am asking my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect the integrity of the organic food label.
I would once again say that the Consumers Union has taken this position that they believe that the integrity of the consumer public interest positions have been compromised by the appointment.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Would the gentleman endorse the statement of concern that I made so that the appointment would truly go to a consumer representative?
If I may, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it is not my intention to ask you to endorse a particular person or a particular group's nominee. The spirit of this amendment is to protect the organic label through making sure that there is a consumer representative.
I would ask if the gentleman would be willing to work with me to make sure as we move through this process that, in fact, we will have a real consumer representative, whoever he or she may be, and not someone who is necessarily part of the industry. The industry does have representatives, and I have no quarrel with that; but consumer representatives ought to be as such. If the gentleman would agree to work with me on it, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I understand, but the chairman, if we work together, I think that the consumers would have a better feeling that with the Chair being involved there is an opportunity that at least we could address the issue. I am not asking you to guarantee the outcome, but if I have your word that you will make an effort, that is good enough for me.
In consideration of the chairman giving me his word that we will work together on this, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin for their statements in support of the organic transitions program.
As someone who has traveled the country, I can tell you that organic food growers are an emerging sector in agriculture. Mr. Kind pointed out that they now are at 2 percent.
I can tell you that all around this country there are many people getting into organic agriculture. What that means is that there needs to be structures in place to facilitate the growth of organic agriculture, which is just what this amendment will do.
I think we can look at it as emerging small business persons as well. These are individuals who believe in sustainability. These are individuals who believe in the American dream of being able to farm a plot of land and do it in a way that is consistent with a high quality, something that we ought to all be proud of. It is something that affects many Congressional districts in certainly every State.
I wanted to add my voice to support the efforts of Mr. Holt, Mr. Kind and others who understand that the organic transition program is something that is going to help the organic industry grow. It is good for the industry, and it is good for American agriculture, and it is good for our ability to keep growing our economy as we grow with the growth of the organic industry.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would maintain current testing levels for mad cow disease. The underlying bill already appropriates the same amount as that appropriated in fiscal year 2005. This amendment merely calls for the same funding levels using the same funding mechanism.
Until the United States Department of Agriculture stumbled upon America's first case of mad cow disease, testing rates were abysmally low. Out of 35 million cattle slaughtered annually, the USDA tested 20,000 in fiscal year 2003. Out of every 10,000 cattle that went to the dinner table, only six were tested.
Then came the first case of mad cow in the U.S., that we know of. The USDA ramped up the testing rate significantly, but only after considerable public pressure. Six months after the positive test in fiscal year 2005, the USDA tested at the rate of 100 cattle tested for every 10,000 slaughtered. Another way of looking at it is 99 percent were untested even after a major increase in testing rates. Though still inadequate, it was a big improvement.
Contrast that with the other industrialized nations, many of whom did not know the extent to which their countries harbored mad cow disease until they got serious with their testing program. France and Germany test over half their cattle. The U.K. tests all cattle over 24 months old. Japan tests every single one.
So far, even with an untested rate of 99 percent, we managed to find a total of three cases in the United States. When we looked, we found cases. Even the USDA predicts undetected cases exist in the U.S.
Now their illogical response is to try to drastically cut back its testing rates again. It is not enough of a gift to the large cattle producers that 99 percent of the cattle do not go tested. Do we have to do more for them at the expense of public health? So now 99.9 percent will go untested?
Now, you could almost call this a we-aren't-looking-so-it-is-not- there policy. And this policy is built on the assumption that we have a firewall in place that prevents infected material from getting into the food supply.
By banning high-risk material like cattle brains and spinal cord from cattle feed, we are supposedly preventing any infected cow from contaminating other cattle. This is an important part of our efforts, because mad cow disease spreads when cattle eat infected parts of other cattle. And yet scientists, advocates, the Inspector General and the GAO have detailed the ways in which this practice is still allowed because of gaping holes in the firewall.
Consider that the infectious material can be found in materials that are allowed to be fed to cattle. Bone marrow, cow blood, peripheral nerves, tongue and now some muscles are well-known or suspected to contain the same infectious agent called a prion.
And they are all still allowed in animal feed. There is very little protection for cattle under 30 months. The
justification is, we do not expect to see the disease in younger cattle. But at least two cases in Japan, 19 cases in the UK and 20 cases in the European Union have occurred in cattle under 30 months old.
This level of protection failed to end the epidemic in the UK. Enforcement of the firewall has been weak. The GAO found on three separate occasions, including 2005, that even the meager laws designed to keep cattle from eating cattle were being poorly enforced.
Finally, we must not forget that the USDA is in favor of this ``do not look, do not find'' policy. When testing results for a cow in Texas were inconclusive in November of 2004, the USDA declared the cow to be free of Mad Cow Disease. But, again, after a public outcry and a public admonition from the inspector general, the cow was tested 7 months later and was found to be positive. And now the USDA wants to reduce testing rates without adequate protections to ensure the disease cannot be amplified through industrial agriculture practice. We need a backstop.
Mr. Chairman, we need a way to know for sure whether our so called firewall is working. Surveillance is the way to do that. But we are taking an already weak program and undermining it; 99.9 percent of our cattle will not be tested unless we signal to the USDA that Congress demands otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking for support for my amendment to keep the same level of testing we are using right now. This is the level that proved what we all knew despite reassurances to the contrary, that undetected Mad Cow Disease is here in the United States.
We must test to build the confidence of both domestic and foreign consumers of American beef.
If the gentleman would yield. I thank the gentleman. I think that the gentleman's expression of concern that is shared by all Members of Congress is correct. I appreciate you voicing it.
I want to point out that the feed ban, which is an underlying problem here, and the USDA insists is strong, in reality is so weak that you have companies like McDonalds, Cargill, Purina Mills, and even Pharma, the pharmaceutical industry publicly calling for closing the loopholes.
So while I would agree with you, that if there were an outbreak, the Secretary would advance more funds, I am also concerned that if we do not keep the present funding levels, that we may not know if there is a problem. So that is why I brought this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I would reluctantly ask for the amendment to be voted on, only because of that underlying concern that there is not enough, and we should just keep things the way they are at the current levels and not cut back on them. That is what my concern is.
I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
As the gentlewoman has pointed out, we have questions about the current testing practices at the current funding levels. If we reduce substantially the funding levels, with the thought that we have flaws in the current test and practices, what could the consumers expect?
I mean, what the gentlewoman has suggested is that the USDA in this regard has not been doing its job. Part of its job is to advocate for defects for which the world has told us they do not want beef from the United States if they cannot be assured of its safety.
Mr. Chairman, in same way you can say that the USDA is sabotaging U.S. beef exports by its failure to have the kind of program that people have a right to expect with the money that has already been appropriated; if that money is cut, it essentially plays into the USDA's lack of performance. So I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing that up. I, again, want to let the chairman know that I am convinced on his commitment to this.
I believe that he wants to make sure that there is safety here. And I just feel that it is important to bring this up and to call for a vote on it.
Mr. Chairman, after conferring with the Chair and the ranking member, I decided that it looks like they are really engaged in this to keep on the USDA, so I am going to withdraw the amendment.