Make the National Organic Program Better, and Organic Food and Products Safer

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is a Federal Advisory Board made up of 15 dedicated public volunteers from across the organic community. Established by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the NOSB considers and makes recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB also has special responsibilities related to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public meeting to discuss the items on its work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary. The public is invited to participate.

GMO/Toxin Free USA made four recommendations during the NOSB Spring 2023 meeting. For the Fall 2023 meeting, the most important and pressing issues from our view as both organic consumers and organic advocates remain the same, with one additional issue amended, and with additional peer-reviewed science bolstering the need to act swiftly on these recommendations.

Organic consumers generally pay a premium for certified organic foods and products. The USDA Organic label should be improved to align with consumer expectations. We should get what we’re paying for.

GMO/Toxin Free USA’s Recommendations to the NOSB

1. Place entire class of PFAS chemicals on the National List of Prohibited Substances
2. Phase out use of fluorinated plastic containers and packaging
3. Phase out use of fossil fuel-based plastic containers and packaging
4. Phase out use of plastic mulch and tarps for growing
5. Compile and post in the Federal Register a list of all “inert” ingredients used in organic production and begin evaluating them

Implementing these recommendations would protect the health of organic consumers and the wider environment, and bring the organic label closer to meeting the expectations of organic consumers.

The first four recommendations address two primary issues which are inextricably linked – toxic synthetic chemicals and microplastics (fragments smaller than a few millimeters)/nanoplastics (fragments smaller than a few micrometers) – both of which present risks and harms to human and animal health, and the environment.

PFAS “Forever Chemicals”

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS), a class of over 12,000 toxic substances that don’t break down, are increasingly becoming a public health crisis due to historical and current uses. Studies have linked PFAS to cancer, autoimmune disease, thyroid disease, liver damage, high blood pressure, obesity, hormone disruption, decreased immunity, decreased fertility, and birth defects and harmful developmental effects in infants.

PFAS contamination of organic food and products can occur during the production of crops and animals, the storage of raw materials (in fluorinated containers, addressed later), during manufacturing (from machinery and/or the products used to clean and lubricate), and/or from the final consumer packaging (plastic and paper products coated with PFAS).

In a recent 2023 pilot study, researchers found higher levels of PFAS in organic kale than conventional kale.[1]

A thorough investigation into all the modes by which PFAS can contaminate or leach into organic foods and products must be performed. But regardless of the reasons for contamination, PFAS chemicals should be prohibited in all potential areas of exposure under the National Organic Program (NOP) and placed on the National List of Prohibited Substances.

Fluorinated Plastic Containers & Packaging

A March 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters found that fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers contain PFAS, including the highly toxic perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as detected in ketchup, mustard and mayonnaise tested.[2]

The study stated: “In all experiments, short-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) were detected in the highest frequencies and concentrations with analyte concentration decreasing as chain length increased. An estimate for PFAS released into food ranged from 0.77 to 2.68 ng/kg body weight per week, showing ingestion of food stored in these containers could be a significant source of exposure.”

“Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure,” said Graham Peaslee, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame and an author of the study. “We measured concentrations of PFOA that significantly exceeded the limit set by the EPA’s 2022 Health Advisory Limits,” said Peaslee. “Now, consider that not only do we know that the chemicals are migrating into the substances stored in them, but that the containers themselves work their way back into the environment through landfills. PFAS doesn’t biodegrade. It doesn’t go away. Once these chemicals are used, they get into the groundwater, they get into our biological systems, and they cause significant health problems.”[3]

Fluorinated plastic containers, whether used during storage and manufacturing or used for consumer packaging, must be prohibited to protect the health of organic consumers and the environment.

Single-Use, Fossil Fuel-Based Plastic Containers & Packaging

A 2022 study published in the journal Environment International found microplastics in human blood.[4] Another 2022 study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found microplastics in human lungs.[5] Another 2022 study published in the journal Polymers found microplastics in human breast milk.[6] And in another 2022 study, microplastics were detected in the meat, milk and blood of farm animals.[7] A 2023 study published in the journal Nanomaterials found microplastics can breach the blood-brain barrier.[8]

And yet another 2023 study published in the journal International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that microplastics infiltrated all systems of the body.[9] The researchers found that plastic particles bioaccumulate in every organ. “The brain blood barrier is supposed to be very difficult to permeate. It is a protective mechanism against viruses and bacteria, yet these particles were able to get in there. It was actually deep in the brain tissue,” said Professor Jaime Ross, one of the study’s authors. The researchers found that the infiltration of microplastics was as widespread in the body as it is in the environment. They found that microplastic exposure induces both behavioral changes and alterations in immune markers in liver and brain tissues. The study mice began to move and behave peculiarly, exhibiting behaviors akin to dementia in humans. The results were even more profound in older animals. “To us, this was striking. These were not high doses of microplastics, but in only a short period of time, we saw these changes,” Ross said.

Research shows that plastic breaks down into microplastics and nanoplastics, contaminating food and drinks. When plastics are exposed to liquids, they can shed even more. A 2022 study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that all plastics tested released nanoplastics.[10] The authors chose to focus the study on two types of plastic: “food-grade” nylon bags and coffee cups lined with low-density polyethylene. They found that the materials released more nanoplastics as the water temperature rose, up to trillions of fragments.

Virgin plastics are bad. Recycled plastics are even worse.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found that widely-used PET recycled plastic bottles pass more toxic chemicals into their contents than virgin plastic bottles. They found that of the 150 toxic chemicals that leached into drinks from recycled plastic bottles, 18 were at levels exceeding regulations.[11]

The new, groundbreaking report, Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health, published in March 2023 in the journal Annals of Global Health, makes it clear that a worldwide moratorium on single-use, fossil fuel-based plastics (produced from coal, oil and fracked gas) is necessary. The report’s conclusion is that plastic causes environmental damage and premature death at every stage of its life cycle, from production to use and disposal.[12]

“These findings put us on an unequivocal path to demand the banning or severely restricting of unnecessary, avoidable, and problematic plastic items, many of which contain hazardous chemicals with links to horrific harm to people and the planet,” says report co-author, Dr. Sarah Dunlop.

Dr. Phillip Landrigan, epidemiologist and pediatrician, also a co-author, says: “Plastics are full of thousands upon thousands of really toxic chemicals. Some of them can cause cancer. Some of them can cause birth defects in babies. Some of them can cause brain damage. Some can disrupt the functioning of the endocrine system of the human body. And because plastic waste can contain all of these nasty materials, you can’t just recycle it and put it into food packaging.”[13]

A September 2023 study, published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, found pregnant women may experience a greater risk of postpartum depression when exposed to a specific class of chemicals known as phthalates — ubiquitous chemicals found in numerous personal care and plastic consumer products, including food packaging.[14]

Microplastics and toxic chemicals go hand in hand. The two cannot be separated. And both are dangerous to human health.

Ongoing research by Adrift Lab has linked ingestion of plastics by seabirds to sublethal health effects. Their January 2023 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found multi-organ damage in seabirds from ingesting microplastic fragments.[15] A followup February 2023 study concluded that ingested plastic was causing scarring of the birds’ proventriculus, part of the digestive system, in a phenomenon they call “plasticosis.”[16]

It is reasonable to expect that microplastics could be causing organ damage and scarring in humans. “In my view, plasticosis could be a sign that a new age of disease is upon us because of human overuse of plastics and other long-lasting contaminants, and their leakage into the environment,” writes Dr. Matt Savoca, a conservation biologist.[17]

In light of the growing body of scientific evidence about plastics, the shedding of microplastics, and the toxic chemicals they leach under real-world use, we believe the organic sector should not continue the use of these products.

There is no such thing as “food grade” plastic or “safe” plastic that is made from fossil fuels.

We recommend phasing out fossil fuel-based plastics, for the storage and packaging of food and consumer products such as cosmetics, within a reasonable timeframe but not to exceed three years. This would give manufacturers and brands enough time to find truly safe alternatives.

Plastic Mulch & Tarps Used for Growing

Plastic mulch and tarps are often used by growers for multiple reasons: To cover crop row walkways and crop beds, preventing the spread of weeds, to help control soil temperature and moisture, and to cover fallow land, preventing soil erosion, just to name a few. This has provided a convenience to growers.

But the research indicates that it’s time to move away from these products, as plastic mulches and tarps release toxic chemicals, including potentially PFAS chemicals, phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, and microplastics into the soil. Most of these plastic products are considered single-use and are not recyclable, further polluting the planet.

According to the FAO, “Soils are one of the main receptors of agricultural plastics and are known to contain larger quantities of microplastics than oceans.” The FAO also stated, “In 2019, agricultural value chains used 12.5 million tonnes of plastic products in plant and animal production and 37.3 million tonnes in food packaging. The crop production and livestock sectors are the largest users, accounting for 10 million tonnes per year collectively, followed by fisheries and aquaculture with 2.1 million tonnes, and forestry with 0.2 million tonnes.”[18]

A 2020 review study published in the journal Chemosphere shows that crops can uptake PFAS chemicals from the soil, with root uptake being the predominant pathway for the accumulation of PFAS in agricultural crops.[19] The contaminated crops become a direct and potentially significant route of exposure to humans and animals eating the crops.

Like all plastic products, microplastic pollution is a problem with plastic mulches and tarps. A 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Pollution stated that, “The abundances of microplastic particles increased over time in the locations where plastic mulching was continuously employed… Fourier transform infrared analyses revealed that the composition of the microplastics matched that of the mulching films, suggesting the microplastic particles originated from the mulching films. These findings confirm that plastic mulching is an important source of macroplastic and microplastic contamination in terrestrial environments.”[20]

And possibly most alarming is that, in addition to PFAS, plants can also uptake microplastics through their roots, according to a 2020 study published in the journal Nature Sustainability, exposing humans and animals to the microplastics and the toxic chemicals they release.[21] Another 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Research showed that microplastics are, in fact, in the vegetables and fruit we all eat, with the highest contamination levels found in carrots and shockingly, apples.[22]

We recommend that plastic mulches and tarps be prohibited, possibly allowing a two-year phase out to give growers time to adapt.

“Inert” Ingredients

(The following text is provided by our allies at Beyond Pesticides)

The NOSB needs to evaluate so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production to ensure that they meet the criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The NOSB, which is responsible for giving direction to the National Organic Program (NOP), has passed repeated recommendations instructing NOP to replace the generic listings for EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts” with specific substances approved for the use. NOP must allocate resources for this project. Recent appropriations have increased for NOP, and some of this money must be used for the evaluation of “inert” ingredients to ensure compliance with the law and to maintain the integrity of the USDA organic label.

OFPA provides stringent criteria for allowing synthetic materials to be used in organic production. In short, the NOSB must judge – by a supermajority – that the material would not be harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to the production or handling of agricultural products, and is consistent with organic farming and handling. These criteria have been applied to “active” ingredients but not to “inert” ingredients, which make up the largest part of pesticide products – up to 90% or more.

A comparison of the hazards posed by active and “inert” ingredients used in organic production reveals that in seven of 11 categories of harm, more “inerts” than actives pose the hazard.[23]

As a result, NOP and the NOSB have been allowing unknown toxic mixtures to be applied to organic crops and livestock. They are applied not only in products containing approved National List synthetic materials but also in products in which the active ingredient is nonsynthetic, which requires no NOSB review.

The NOSB and NOP must address this fatal threat to organic integrity by immediately compiling and posting in the Federal Register a list of all “inert” ingredients used in organic production, as recommended by the NOSB in 1999. They must develop a process for beginning the evaluation of those “inerts” before the next sunset date.

The value of organic in eliminating hazardous pesticides and fertilizers has been widely documented as the most effective alternative to chemical-intensive agriculture and land management. These “inert” ingredients and many even more hazardous ones are used in chemical-intensive or conventional food production that consumers buy and feed to their families every day. The continued use of hazardous “inerts” is an anomaly in organic and must be corrected now. Ignoring this issue will undermine public trust in the USDA organic label.

TAKE ACTION AND TELL THE NOSB TO ADDRESS THESE PRESSING ISSUES. CLICK HERE.

References:

1. PFAS in KAle Pilot Study https://anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/230621-ANH-USA-PFAS-in-Kale.pdf
2. Directly Fluorinated Containers as a Source of Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylic Acids https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00083
3. Plastic containers can contain PFAS — and it’s getting into food https://news.nd.edu/news/plastic-containers-can-contain-pfas-and-its-getting-into-food
4. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022001258
5. Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722020009
6. Raman Microspectroscopy Detection and Characterisation of Microplastics in Human Breastmilk https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/14/13/2700
7. Microplastics detected in meat, milk and blood of farm animals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/08/microplastics-detected-in-meat-milk-and-blood-of-farm-animals
8. Micro- and Nanoplastics Breach the Blood–Brain Barrier (BBB): Biomolecular Corona’s Role Revealed https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/13/8/1404
9. Acute Exposure to Microplastics Induced Changes in Behavior and Inflammation in Young and Old Mice  https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/15/12308
10. Common Single-Use Consumer Plastic Products Release Trillions of Sub-100 nm Nanoparticles per Liter into Water during Normal Use https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c06768
11. Unpacking the complexity of the PET drink bottles value chain: A chemicals perspective https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389422001984
12. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health https://www.minderoo.org/no-plastic-waste/minderoo-monaco-commission
13. https://monacolife.net/podcast-interview-prof-phillip-landrigan-on-opening-the-worlds-eyes-to-the-impacts-of-plastic-on-human-health
14. Prenatal Exposure to Nonpersistent Environmental Chemicals and Postpartum Depression https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2809718
15. The one-two punch of plastic exposure: Macro- and micro-plastics induce multi-organ damage in seabirds https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389422019112
16. ‘Plasticosis’: Characterising macro- and microplastic-associated fibrosis in seabird tissues https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389423003722
17. Seabirds that swallow ocean plastic waste have scarring in their stomachs – scientists have named this disease ‘plasticosis’ LINK
18. FAO Assessment of Agricultural Plastics and Their Sustainability  https://www.fao.org/3/cb7856en/cb7856en.pdf
19. Uptake and accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in plants https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520317793
20. Agricultural plastic mulching as a source of microplastics in the terrestrial environment https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749119362475
21. Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0567-9
22. Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120305703
23.  “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/Inert%20Ingredients%20in%20Organic%20Production.FULLreport.final.pdf