The residue contents in organic food is significantly distinguishable from conventionally produced food. While in conventional products residues can often be detected organic food is to a high percentage (95%) free of residues

Huber, Beate

English

Organic Eprints

THE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 24/April 200313Dr. Edelhäuser is a food chem-ist at the Ministry for Nutri-tion and Rural Areas  inBaden-Württemberg, a GermanBundesland. His department is re-sponsible for consumer protection andfood surveillance, and deals specifi-cally with residues and contamination.On the issue of residues Dr. Edelhäuserclaims that organic and non-organicproduce can be distinguished fromeach other by measuring the level ofresidues resulting from environmentalcontamination and drift found on theproduce. Only a small percentage oforganic products contain residues ofplant protection substances. Takinginto account the quality and quantitiesof these substances, Dr. Edelhäuserconcludes that when organic productsare found with pesticide residuesabove a defined limit a non-permittedpractice has occurred or the producehas been mixed with conventionalproduce. Edelhäuser and his depart-ment defined the level where contami-nation from residues is considered as‘an analytical zero value’ to be 0.01mg/kg (limit of evidence). The Minis-try assumes that all organic productsthat are produced in compliance withthe organic EU Regulation would bebelow this limit. This means that allproducts with any pesticide residuehigher than 0.01 mg/kg are, by defini-tion of the department, produced un-der fraudulent practices. And as theMinistry states: 95% of the organicproducts are free of residues, thismeans that 5% of the organic productscontain residues and are therefore –from the perspective of the Ministry –produced under fraudulent practices.Dr. Edelhäuser’s department is theauthority responsible for the surveil-lance of food production in Baden-W￿rttemberg. In 2002  the Ministryinitiated an organic monitoring pro-gramme for analysing residues in or-ganic products. Within the programmethe Ministry appointed three peoplefrom the states laboratories to dealwith the analysis of organic products.When staff of the states laboratoriesdetect pesticide residues above 0.01mg/kg, the Ministry imposes financialpenalties on the trader or producer ofthe products for false labelling andprohibits the further selling of theproduct. It also informs the competentauthority on the results of the analy-sis, the conclusions it has drawn andthe penalties imposed by the depart-ment. It does not seek informed ad-vice from the competent authority orinspection bodies.Dr Edelhäuser explained that theMinistry felt this programme was nec-essary as it was worried that the EURegulation does not provide sufficientroom for manoeuvre and sanctions infraudulent cases. The procedures re-quired by the EU Regulation to provefraud, when contaminated productshad been detected, were considered tobe too slow and, the Ministry felt,would have allowed contaminatedproducts to be sold despite the suspi-cion of fraud. The Ministry sought fora solution to this problem and found itin the German food law. According tothis law, residues of plant protectionproducts in organic food are judged tobe consumer deception if non-compli-ance with the EU Regulation can beestablished, based on the detectedresidues. However, all this is based onassumptions. As yet the Ministry hasnot provided any proof that productscontaining more than 0.01 mg/kgresidues have been produced fraudu-lently, according to the organic regu-lation. Hanspeter Schmidt, an attorney atlaw, harshly criticises the actions ofthe Ministry as illegal. He accuses theMinistry of reopening the ‘ fight onideology and culture’ between con-ventional and organic production. Hefelt that suppliers of organic productswould be intimidated by the threat ofa public court hearing in cases wherethey object to a monetary fine. Suchproceedings would only be stopped bythe authorities if the accused partypays thousands of Euros. ‘Those whocare for their public reputation, bowsto the authority, not everybody canbear to be denounced as dishonest’,says Schmidt.Indeed, it is an old discussion in anew surrounding. Over the years themajority of public research institu-tions and laboratories have deniedthat organic products are better thanResidues re-open argumenton organic standards￿The residue contents in organic food distinguishes [it]significantly from conventionally produced food. While inconventional products residues can often be detected￿organic food[is] to a high percentage (95%) free of residues￿Prof. Dr. Edelhäuserstandards & regulationsThe Ministry believes that a pesticide residue higher than0.01 mg/kg implies fraudulent practices.THE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 24/April 200314conventional products. The EU regu-lation even requires that the label onorganic produce does not claim that it‘constitutes a guarantee of superiororganoleptic, nutritional or salubriousquality’ (EEC 2092/91, Art. 10.2).This means that it is illegal in the EUto make any claims that organic pro-duce tastes better, is more nutritionalor is healthier for the consumer thanconventional produce. Consequentlythe EU-regulation describes in detailthe inspection regime for the surveil-lance of the organic production basedon a procedural inspection system.Taking and analysing samples may bepart of the inspection regime, but it isonly obligatory ‘where the use of un-authorised products is suspected’(EEC 2092/91, Annex III, Art. 5).Fifteen years ago the organicmovement fought hard to convincelegislators that the specific quality oforganic agriculture is the productionmethod itself and not just the output,i.e. the final product. With the passingof the EU regulation 2092/91, themovement achieved its aim. The pro-duction method of organic agricultureand its inspection scheme, using pro-cedural inspections of farms and com-panies instead of analysing the finalproduct, were legally defined. The ap-proach taken by the Ministry inBaden-Württemberg disputes this le-gal definition of the EU Regulation.While they argue that the proceduresand inspection scheme foreseen in theEU Regulation would be too slow,they have simply redefined organicproduction by assuming that organicproducts produced in compliance withthe EU Regulation would not containany residues. Just as it was twentyyears ago, the Ministry is trying to re-duce the organic production methodto a ‘zero-residue-production’ and re-jects the value of the inspection sys-tem according to the EU-Regulation.In a panel discussion during BioFach,Dr Edelhäuser argued that organic ag-riculture could no longer just toleratedrift from conventional farmers. Hisargument was not that conventionalfarmers should be made liable in caseof drift, but that organic agricultureshould not be allowed to take placewhere drift is possible. The resultingapplication of this argument would bethe elimination of organic agriculturefrom vulnerable areas. For instance, insouthern Germany, where the plotsare small and narrow, and where it isoften impossible to grow hedges be-tween neighbours, organic productioncould not exist under these conditions.Although the stance of Baden-Württemberg Ministry threatens hon-est and honourable organic producers,there has been only a restrained reac-tion within the organic movement.The Bundesverband NaturkostNaturwaren (BNN), an association oforganic traders and processors, hasremained silent in public, which maybe due to how the BNN itself is deal-ing with residues. In 2001 the BNNimplemented the ‘orientation value’, asystem in which BNN members sign acontract with their suppliers that themaximum level for residues in or-ganic products would be the ‘orienta-tion value’. If a product has a residuelevel that exceeds the ‘orientationvalue’ it is suspected to be conven-tional. The BNN ‘orientation value’serves as limit. If this limit is ex-ceeded an investigation is carried outto determine the source of the con-tamination. Apart from two specificsubstances that have a higher value,the ‘orientation value’ for pesticides is0.01 mg/kg. The difference betweenthe BNN position and the Ministry ofBaden-Württemberg seems, at firstglance, to be quite small. However,the distinction in their attitude is quitesubstantial in one particular regard:where the BNN suspects fraud, theMinistry insists fraud has taken place.Nevertheless, the approach taken bythe Ministry’s can be seen as just onestep further.At least the BNN tried to deal withthe problem of residues whereas themajority of the organic movement andthe certification bodies in Germany donot seem to have a policy to deal withresidues.Recent scandals concerning con-tamination with chlormequat andnitrofen in Germany have shown thatit is not sufficient just to deny thevalue of analyses in organic agricul-ture without a system for dealing withcontamination. The organic move-ments needs to develop policies thatcan cope with these issues, whetherthey occur unexpectedly, as withchlormequat, or are caused by fraudor unacceptable negligence, as in thenitrofen case. If a policy cannot beprovided by the organic movement itis quite likely that the view point ofreducing organic production to a zeroresidue production will gain the upperhand. standards & regulationsThe specific quality of organic agriculture is theproduction method itself.Where the BNN suspects fraud, the Ministry insistsfraud has taken place.Beate HuberBeate.Huber@fible.de

Residues re-open argument on organic standards

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints