Hello everyone,
Here is a somewhat long narrative about what happened at the NOSB meeting concerning corn steep liquor. I
am attaching the new wording to the nano recommendation at the end of this narrative, so if you only want to
read that, scroll down to the end. I also have all of the other votes, which were not controversial, but if you
want my table, let me know and I will send it to you. It does contain some of the discussion on the items, if
there was any change to the recommendation before the vote.
There was an interesting debate at the NOSB meeting on Thursday afternoon, the issue was corn steep liquor,
but the ramifications could affect future board process and decision making. Kudos to Jay for staying calm and
continuing to ask the needed questions, while chaos ruled around him.
To start, for those who were not there for Wednesday’s public comment, Dragon Macura of Agri Thrive, a
California based fertility input company (a compost that uses corn steep liquor in their product) gave a very
persuasive speech on how the process of making corn steep liquor is NOT synthetic. His description was
different from what the board and public comment had been based earlier in at the board meeting. Later that
day, Lisa Bunin and I went out to dinner with Jeff Moyer, and impressed upon him that even though Dragon’s
public comment appeared to offer science based and persuasive information, it needs to be reviewed by an
objective third party (TR or preferably a TAP), before it should be considered as equal to the TR and other
information the board had been reviewing to date on corn steep liquor.
The crops committee met on Thursday, before the board meeting started and voted 4 to 2, to withdraw corn
steep liquor from consideration at this time, until they could get further objective information on the new
information provided by Dragon. Tina, even though she expressed she wanted to vote on material, felt the
ramifications were too great, and she wanted to resolve it in the “best possible way”. Tina presented to the
board that the committee wished to remove it from consideration at this time. John, Joe, Katrina and Dan all
stated they would vote it as nonsynthetic and wanted to vote on it now. Tina stated the crops committee would
bring the new board members up to speed so the debate on corn steep liquor would not go over the same
ground.
The votes went along quite well for most of the day, a few small changes to the apiculture recommendation,
and it was passed. Food supplement was removed from the yeast annotation at Miles’ request, and that
passed. All other items passed unanimously until……
John Foster was asked to present corn starch (native) for relisting as a sunset item. Instead of doing this, he
stated that since this was made in the same way as corn steep liquor, he wished to bring the minority opinion
from the original recommendation up for a vote (corn steep liquor is nonsynthetic). Dan stated this was out of
order. The committee did not bring it forward for a vote, so this was out of process. The item under
consideration at the time was corn starch sunset, not the classification of corn steep liquor. Lively discussion
ensued, with Joe, Katrina, Tracy, and John all arguing with Dan that the issue should be discussed. Dan then
pulled out Roberts Rule of Order and stated that a simple majority of the board can overrule his out of order
proclamation. John made that motion to overrule and it passed 7 to 6 with Dan abstaining (Katrina,, Wendy,
Tracy Joe, Joe, Steve, John voted to overrule and have a discussion and vote on corn steep liquor. Jay, Kevin,
Jennifer, Jeff, Tina, Barry voted no).
Discussion then centered on whether or not this was board process, with Jeff speaking eloquently about the
empowerment of committees, and how they debate and bring a recommendation to the board. If the board, by
a simple majority vote, can override any recommendations of the committee, and any material can be
discussed at any time by this process, then the entire way the board functions is now different from what has
been done in the past. They reviewed Page 55 of NOSB board manual item 5. “A motion from the committee
SHOULD instigate a discussion, rather than SHALL”. Dan then stated that the board manual does not
mandate the committee bring the issue forward, even though this is very different from what they have done in
the past.
John’s motion under discussion was that corn steep liquor should be considered synthetic. Jeff asked what
about corn steep liquor produced as part of the ethanol process? Jay asked what exactly are they talking
about. Dragon then ran up to the podium, and John asked him to speak. Dragon stated he was presenting the
counter current corn steep liquor process. Jay then asked, okay, what is the definition of this process? How
can we vote on something without a definition? Dragon stated the graph illustrating lactic acid production and
pH during the process was the definition (this is what I remember as the graph, the audience did not get copies
at public comment, but the board did). Jay was not happy with that answer, but Dan then stated that if Dragon
says that is the definition, so it is….no more discussion on definition. Tracy chimed in that flow charts are
definitions when considering food processes. This graph was not a flow chart, but never mind. Debate
continues.
Here are my notes from the discussion above:
Tina feels this is a dishonorable way of presenting this issue, although that may be too strong a statement.
Jeff said they are usually in agreement to let committees function at a high level. To take public comment
without going to third party verification on its merits or go through the decision tree, is greatly problematic.
That is why the crops committee did not bring it forward.
Jay is concerned there is more than one type of counter current corn steep liquor. This is why the committee
wanted to know the range and usage, to make sure all areas were under consideration. Dragon stated
currently the only way it is made is what he is presenting. The definition presented is a picture, but is not in
words. Jay states time and range are not clearly defined.
Further notes as the debate continued:
Arthur Neal observes there is confusion and a lot of uncomfortable board members and procedures that are
unusual, and the public record will show this.
Katrina wants to explain synthetic and nonsynthetic again, but no one wanted to hear it. Jay stated the crops
committee looked at economic dislocation if corn steep liquor was found to be synthetic, and it was not
present. However he stated someone on the handling committee thinks it will cause economic hardship, but
this is anecdotal from the public that one business would suffer, (assuming this to be Dragon’s company). The
board spent almost an hour going around and around on this issue, discussing both the process and the
material interchangeably.
Finally…..Miles stated that since the process they were involved in was so unusual, and it was obvious that
there was a lot of confusion, he would not implement any decision made by the board on this issue. He also
reminded them that the transcripts are public record and the Office of Inspector General will be reading it.
Miles asked the board to ask John to withdraw his motion. Jeff specifically asked John, and with some
hesitation, John withdrew the motion and no action was taken.
As a postscript from my notes:
Joe wanted to withdraw discussion on the “made with organic label recommendation”. Joe feels that a
committee cannot chose to not bring an issue forward for a vote, since it was discussed earlier in the meeting
and therefore the discussion is open. Joe stated committees must receive the board’ permission to not
bring a recommendation to a vote. Dan stated this is a change to board policy. Tracy wanted to state that
there was no defacto change to board and committee policy, and Dan cut her off as out of order. A no vote
would force the committee to come forward with a recommendation, even though they voted in committee to
not bring it forward. MWO recommendation was withdrawn from consideration by a yes vote. Dan is not happy
and feels board historical procedures have not been followed on this vote.
Further postscript:
I spoke with Claudia Reid of CCOF during a break, and she said that she knows Dragon quite well. He has
presented numerous times to the California Fertilizer Board (this is probably not the official name, but it is a
state committee on which she serves). He gets very defensive when anyone questions his information and her
board or committee has had a lot of difficulty getting him to be transparent about both the process and inputs
used in his final compost based product. I told this to Jay, so he would know that he had done the right thing
by keeping up the pressure on Dragon during the very contentious debate.
On Sunset:
ADD
The reviewing NOSB committee provides its recommendation to the full Board and the public no less than 60
days prior to the Board Meeting which would include the following
1. Simple motion to remove, add or amend a restricting or clarifying annotation (if applicable)
2. Simple motion to renew the existing listing.
Also removed number 7 from the original recommendation.
Nanotechnology
Change to recommendation-added this statement---The NOSB proposes that Engineered Nanomaterials be prohibited from certified organic products as
expeditiously as possible. We respectfully request that the NOP take immediate actions to implement this
document.
Prohibit nanotechnology now, but some on the board feel they want more information.
Changed from should be prohibited to ARE prohibited on page one.
Added or otherwise allowed in organic production to the bulk form statement.bottom on page 2Jim Riddles statement on packaging—asks the program for clarification about how OFPA might prohibit
prohibited materials in packaging.
They believe these specific steps mean nano be prohibited right now, includes the working definition with no
changes.
Added even when those same materials in bulk form are nonsynthetic , to accept materials that meet the
working definition of nanomaterials as synthetic. On the last page.
No other changes to the recommendation, including the symposium to learn more about nano is still requested.