Historic agreement on organic equivalency between the USA and Canada
Posted - September 21, 2009
Canada launches organic regulations
Submitted by the Organic Trade Association in Canada
Canada’s long-awaited Organic Products Regulations (OPR) came into effect on June 30, 2009. The regulations make it mandatory for all food, drink, livestock, livestock feed labelled organic to be certified as compliant with Canada’s organic standards.
At the same time, the U.S. and Canada launched a historic agreement equivalency between the two nations’ organic systems. This agreement will allow the continued smooth flow of certified organic products between the two countries and support the growth of this rapidly expanding market in North America. This first international equivalency for the organic industry was formally signed in June at the Organic Trade Association conference All Things Organic ™ in Chicago.
Organic products in Canada must now be certified to the Canadian standards by a certifier accredited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), or deemed equivalent by a USDA-accredited certifier under the terms of the equivalency agreement. The organic labelling claims permitted in Canada are:
- “Organic” (including such claims and phonetic variations as “organically raised, grown, produced, etc.”) for single ingredient products or those with 95% or more organic ingredients. Must be certified and carry the certifier name on the packaging. Eligible to use the “Biologique Canada Organic” logo. Imported products using the logo must also include “Product of X” or “Imported” adjacent to the logo.
- “XX% organic ingredients” (percentage is rounded down to the nearest whole number) for multi-ingredient products with 70-95% organic ingredients. This differs from the “Made With” claim under the NOP. Must be certified and carry the certifier name on the packaging. Not eligible for the “Biologique Canada Organic” logo.
- No organic claims are allowed on the label of products with less than 70% organic ingredients, except in the ingredient panel. It is impossible for such products to be certified.
- Unlike the US, Canada does not allow a “100% Organic” claim.
Phase-in Policy
Together with the Canadian sector, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has developed a “stream of commerce and enforcement policy” for the first 24-month phase-in of the regulations. During this time, the Canadian regulations and standards are in effect, however CFIA will take a “soft” enforcement approach that will include educating operators if products are found to be non-compliant.
Operators with non-compliant products will be required to provide CFIA with a plan describing how and when they will come into full compliance with the Canada Organic Regime. This applies to labelling as well as standards compliance. Such products will remain on the market as a matter of course, unless CFIA deems the non-compliance serious enough to warrant action.
The full enforcement policy is necessary reading for anyone marketing in Canada and is available on the web site of OTA in Canada, at www.ota-canada.ca
Organic in the Personal Care Aisle
Posted - January 12, 2009
A Pretty Controversy
By Adrian Larose
A new European “organic” cosmetics standard has reignited debate over what it should take to be labeled organic in the personal care aisle, and who should be involved in making those decisions. The Cosmos (Cosmetic Organic) Standard is being developed by seven major European organizations, including EcoCert, BDIH and the Soil Association.
Certifiers, manufacturers, and industry organizations have all come under fire regarding how similar or different from organic food regulations organic personal care (including cosmetics and hygiene) products should be. Some argue what consumers put on their skin and give their children should be as healthy and natural as anything they eat, while others argue the non-organic – for now – necessity of certain large-scale chemical processes and ingredients.
Consumers already face a formidable array of various certified organic, made with organic, and natural claims as they purchase healthier ways to care for themselves. Between big names like the Soil Association and EcoCert, industry alliances such as Cosmos (in Europe) and Oasis (in North America), and various “natural” standards, there is no one acknowledged central player.
The USDA’s NOP food standard could be applied to personal care, perhaps with minor changes, many in the industry have suggested. “My company, Organic Essence, only makes USDA 95% to 100%- certified organic,” said Ellery West, president of Organic Essence. “Many large, established concerns claim that most body care products cannot be made to USDA made with standards, not to mention certified organic standards. They are wrong.”
“They have a tremendous investment in their current business models, and their branding strategies are well set,” West argues. “It is much more cost-effective to make your brand look natural, and advertise it as such, then to actually make a genuine organic product.” Her firm has just created biodegradable packaging for its lip balm and shea butters, green products in many senses of the word.
Not all standards are created equal. The Organic Consumers Association, a US consumer advocates group, gave the US NOP food standard 5 stars (when applied to bodycare), the Oasis US industry-led standard 0.5 stars, the Soil Association 3, US NSF standard 3.5, “natural” standard Natrue 0.5, and EcoCert zero.
“Consumers automatically assume that the entire product is organic and that the product itself is certified organic,” Michelle Thomas, owner of US wholesale distributor KISO Organics, said of organic labelling in personal care. “This is very rarely the case.” While a USDA NOP product (whether food or personal care) must have 95% organic ingredients and meet other requirements to feature an organic label, and at least 70% organic ingredients to have a made with organic label, standards such as Cosmos could allow firms to apply “organic” labels with organic content of as low as 20%.
Labels that use large-print, simple “organic” wording without being clear about the percentages are one hot-button issue. Being the big name star, EcoCert is pointed at as not being clear with consumers about what the word “organic” means on its diverse labels; just to look at the list of approved raw materials on its website requires a password given only to organizations that register with EcoCert.
“Personally, I will only use products that are certified organic to food grade standards,” said Thomas. Others argue such standards eliminate too many reasonable options.
Supply-chain issues do exist, West said. For instance, David Bronner of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, generally very supportive of stringent, food-safe standards, highlighted a complex manufacturing process that turns oils into key cosmetic ingredients. “The operations that do this are very capital-intensive, huge-volume operations, and impossible to get a small dedicated batch run with certified organic oil exclusively within any reasonable cost-efficiency structure,” he said, his firm having researched the topic. Organic operations do not yet consume enough of the end ingredient, he suggested, to finance an organic run-through in such a processing plant.
Still, allowing these difficult ingredients to “sunset” by permitting use for several years until the organic supply chain improves is not frank with consumers, West said. “Though well meaning, these new standards will not give health conscious consumers what they want other than confusion as to what ‘organic’ really means.”
Even water is a problem. Standards approach it differently. The USDA NOP considers it neutral – neither organic nor non-organic. If a product is, say, 70% water (as plenty of personal care items are), only the remaining 30% is considered. “Organic consumers know that the non-organic content cannot be more than 5% by non-water product weight,” Bronner said of certified organic NOP personal care.
The Cosmos standard requires 20% organic content. It counts water as non-organic, seemingly justifying this low percentage. Yet, Bonner said, “there is no implicit and accurate disclosure of non-organic non-water content” – which might constitute up to 80% of the product.
Large organizations are already taking sides. Cosmos members account for more than 1,000 certified companies and 11,000 products in about 40 countries. Firms like Clorox, a large US conventional firm, are buying up “natural” consumer-oriented companies such as Burt’s Bees, a purchase Clorox made in 2008.
Some small entrepreneurs see their own position as an advantage, though. “Small, nimble firms can innovate circles around the established behemoths. Size and scale can get in the way of innovation,” West said. Little firms have the flexibility to create genuinely organic product and standards.
And innovation is just what is needed to help gradually develop a uniform, accepted standard as to what “organic” will mean when a consumer wanders out of the produce section and into the personal care aisle.
Canada Prepares National Regulations
Posted - September 9, 2008
Being “Canada Ready”
By Matthew Holmes, Managing Director of the Organic Trade Association in Canada
Like much of the world, the Canadian organic market is growing at a sometimes-breathless pace. With well over 20% annual growth, the Canadian organic market has been estimated at $1- to $3 billion per year. It is now more than a niche market, responsible for over 1% of all food and beverage sales in the country, and with a significant presence in national grocery chains and through private label product lines.
Considering Canada’s highly educated and environmentally-sensitive population, it is likely this market share will continue to grow. With the implementation of Canada’s Organic Products Regulations (OPR) on Dec. 14, 2008, the case for an upswing in consumer belief in organics is only stronger.
It is worth noting that Canada enjoys the strongest trade relationship with the United States of any country, powerful linkages to the rest of North and South America, an ever-growing Pan-Pacific and Asian trade, and strong traditional trading relationships with Europe’s biggest markets. Considering Canada is the fifth-largest agricultural importer in the world, no one in today’s global organic market should ignore this country’s potential.
This obviously begs the question: What are Canada’s new regulations all about, and what will you need to do to comply with them?
The answer to the first question is straightforward: Canada is in the final stages of implementing a mandatory, exclusive standard for all food and livestock feeds marketed within the country as organic. If your product is not certified to the new Canadian standards by an accredited certifier (one recognized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or CFIA), your product will not be allowed to enter the Canadian marketplace.
Which raises the second question: What do you need to do to meet the Canadian requirements?
First and foremost, speak with your certifier to make sure they will be able to offer certification to Canadian standards. A list of pre-approved certifiers active in the Canadian market has been published on the Organic Trade Association’s website.
In addition, all certifiers will need to be accredited by a recognized accreditation body that has agreements in place with CFIA. At this time, the Standards Council of Canada, CAEQ (Quebec), COABC (British Columbia), the International Organic Accreditation Service (IFOAM), and DAP (Germany) have all been audited by CFIA to provide services under the new Canadian regime.
The Canadian organic standards are unique, at times similar to either the U.S. or E.U. standards, though the fundamentals of all three are the same (i.e. third-party verification, inspection and audit trails, conversion, and other key points).
Canada has a positive materials list (the “Permitted Substance List”), which allows only specific uses for specific materials. If the material, input or processing aid you use is not on the list, it is not allowed in organic production or processing.
Once accredited and certified, products must be labeled according to the OPR. Canadian labeling requirements will be very similar to both the U.S. and E.U. A voluntary organic seal will be available, and products will be identified as “Organic” (95% or more), “Made with XX% organic ingredients” (70-95%), or, for products with less than 70%, the organic content may be identified on the ingredient panel (only). Unlike the U.S., Canada will not allow a “100% Organic” claim. Unlike the E.U., Canada does not have a labelling provision for “Transition to Organic” claims.
With the new mandatory regime coming into effect in December, there is an obvious need to phase in enforcement so that trade can continue smoothly. The Canadian industry sector has submitted a transition policy to CFIA allowing for “stream of commerce” flow-through of all products produced before the regulations were mandatory, and the sun-setting of certification. (The latter means one can become certified to the new requirements at the next scheduled annual inspection.) Other specific aspects of the transition policy, such as a voluntary compliance period and labelling options, will be determined in the coming months.
To stay up to date on Canada’s new organic regulations, standards, requirements and market reports, visit www.ota-canada.ca
Organic Cosmetics Standards
Posted - July 15, 2008
Varied Requirements, Little Regulation Bring US Lawsuit
Organic-branded cosmetics and personal care products are coming under legal question in the US. A lawsuit was recently launched by soap and cosmetics firm Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps.
The firm filed a claim that says the many organic labels and messages on personal care products that do not meet the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) standard are overly confusing to consumers.
Dr. Bronner’s makes various products that meet those strict standards. Its own packaging shows the green USDA organic seal.
Mislabelling through generic, non-NOP “organic” claims is “creating all kinds of organic noise,” said company President David Bronner. What “organic” means is unclear to consumers, he said: “In the personal care aisle, chances are it does not correspond at all to your basic expectation of what an organic label should be.”
Bronner’s filed the suit in California under a state law that considers what a “reasonable consumer” would expect a product claim to mean.
Petrochemical ingredients can slip into personal care because companies claim products are “organic” without certification. Little regulation exists. These firms place the word “organic” as large as they like on packaging. Certified firms must follow their standard’s packaging guidelines.
For now, the NOP is a reference point for companies wanting to do organic cosmetics “right”. Bronner’s and US natal-care products firm Earth Mama Angel Baby are two companies currently producing personal care products to that standard.
“There’s a huge controversy about the standards by which organic personal care products should be certified,” said Earth Mama founder Melinda Olson.
The NOP standard is meant for food, and thus bars some common personal care ingredients and processes that most manufacturers agree are safe.
“Asking personal care products to be certified to the NOP standard is like putting them against the wrong yardstick,” said Olson. Still, she said, Earth Mama will be following the NOP standard until a better one is developed.
Such development has been going on for years under NSF International. Bronner and Olson have both participated in the NSF process. Many insiders expect it to lead to a NOP personal care standard.
“It’s more or less done. The standard should be out the door later in the year,” Bronner said.
However, the OASIS standard recently announced by several firms (see story in OWN Summer 2008 print edition) raised alarm bells for Bronner. “OASIS is basically a breakaway from the NSF effort,” he said. Fearing this could create “organic” standards that allow ingredients and processes that Bronner feels should be barred, his firm eventually sued companies it felt were relevant.
Even firms named in the Bronner lawsuit are launching NOP products, suggesting demand for this category is growing. US Nature’s Gate launched a NOP Rainwater Lotions line late this Spring, with the 95% organic ingredient levels NOP requires.
“The line was developed for our customers who are increasingly seeking personal care products that mirror their commitment to organic agriculture and sustainable living,” said the firm’s Laura Setzfand.
The company “strongly supports the need for standards governing the use of the terms organic and natural,” she added. “We are currently evaluating the proposed standards.”
Canadian Organics Grow
Posted - May 1, 2008
Canadian Organics Growing
By O.W.N. News Network - as printed in O.W.N. Summer 2008
Canada had 60 percent more organic farms in 2006 compared to 2001, the federal agency Statistics Canada announced recently. This represented about 3,500 farms who reported producing certified organic products, versus about 2,200 five years earlier.
Grain and hay crops were the most common, mainly for export. Various produce (combined as one category) formed the second most common Canadian organic crop.
Plenty of farms claimed to be producing via organic methods, but without certification - almost 12,000, mostly meat producers. Another 640 farms reported they were in transition to certified status.
Mandatory national organic standards still do not exist in Canada, a significant obstacle for organic producers. Voluntary standards have existed since 1999; various provincial and private standards that interpret these in slightly different ways exist. A single federal standard is to come into force in December 2008, at which point certification bodies will have to be accredited by the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Such a standard could provide a necessary boost to organics marketing. Despite the growth in farms, Canadian shoppers’ 2006 organic purchases remained less than 1% of the approximately $50 billion they spent in grocery stores in 2006.
Mandatory Labelling
Mandatory labelling about the fruit, vegetable, added sugar and whole grain content of processed foods is not an idea that Canada will support, at least not in its current form, according to Canadian authorities.
The topic is on the agenda at the late April meeting (in Ottawa, Canada’s capital) of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, a body that works globally to implement the World Health Organization’s food standards.
The Canadian delegation, led by the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency, presented Canada’s draft position on the Quantitative Declaration of Ingredients in pre-packaged foods in early April. It indicated Canada would not support a WHO amendment that asks national governments to require labels to list processed foods’ content of ingredients like fruits and whole grains.
By contrast, the Canadian group’s position read, packaging need only include such information where the company’s product pitch emphasizes or describes one or more such ingredients. Such logic does not bode well for genetically-modified organism labelling either. Right to Know Legislation just introduced in British Columbia would require all GMO foods and toxic and cancer causing ingredients to be labelled, but if healthy ingredient labelling is not supported by Canadian authorities, how likely is this to receive the required support?
OASIS
Posted - May 1, 2008
OASIS: New US Cosmetics Standard
By Adrian Larose - as printed in O.W.N. Summer 2008
A new industry-based organic cosmetics standard is attracting attention, and criticism, with respect to the question of how to define what qualifies as an “organic” personal care product.
The clear, legislated organic standards that exist for food are rarely used to certify personal care products (including cosmetics). According to some in the organic industry, the food standards are inappropriate for such use.
The draft OASIS (Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards) private cosmetics standard for US personal care products is already backed by about 35 firms, including large conventional companies such as L’Oreal and many small American organics firms. The draft standard is available for comment on-line at www.oasisseal.org until June.
A phase-in period beginning with an 85% organic requirement - counting water, a major ingredient in most cosmetics - to end at 95% just 4 years later is part of the draft, with restrictions on allowed ingredients in the remaining 5%. That has some groups insisting OASIS present itself as a “made-with organic” standard, not simply “organic”.
“We want a tougher list of allowed ingredients,” says Ronnie Cummins, co-founder and national director with the grassroots US Organic Consumers Association. “Certain preservatives and hydrogenated and sulphonated cleansers the draft allows are of concern “, he says.
But some chemicals are obviously necessary in cosmetics, counters OASIS. “You have to use chemistry,” says group chairperson Gay Timmons, with American ingredients firm Oh, Oh Organic. “We felt that the only way you could really do that was to identify those chemical processes and those chemicals that are environmentally responsible.” The OASIS standard follows US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines on green chemical processes, notes Timmons.
The phase-in addresses hard-to-find organic ingredients such as surfactants. The group hopes OASIS participant purchases will support and increase organic production of these, allowing products to reach higher organic percentages over time.
The Organic Consumers Association insists the US National Organic Program food standards can be applied to personal care products. About a dozen companies currently have NOP certified organic personal care products, Cummins noted . Timmons advises that the number includes a few OASIS members , but the particularities of the NOP regulations do not work for all personal care categories.
A cease and desist letter has been sent to OASIS by the consumers association, asking the group not to make organic claims until its plans satisfy certain criteria. According to Timmons, such demands only undermine the standards-creation consensus process - she noted that the NOP food standard only developed after many diverse private standards were created.
“To suggest, or to demand as has occurred in this cease and desist letter, that this is something we shouldn’t do, I think it undermines the very process that has given us a fantastic law in the case of the NOP,” she says. “The federal government’s not going to regulate something so controversial that people are constantly screaming at each other.”
OASIS members are also participating in an on-going national process aimed at creating a USDA-regulated standard Timmons says, and in the meantime, OASIS makes sense. “How are you going to get 360 million people to agree? It takes a while.”
GMO Free
Posted - May 1, 2008
New GMO-Free Initiatives in North America
By Adriana Michael - as printed in O.W.N. Summer 2008
Non-GMO products in North America could soon be clearly differentiated from their genetically-modified competitors. Beginning in Fall 2009, a non-profit called the Non-GMO Project plans to have participating products sport a seal to indicate they have been verified GMO-free.
Founding sponsors of the project include well-known firms like Whole Foods Market and Nature’s Path. A long list of endorsing organizations is available at http://www.nongmoproject.org/endorsers/.
The program began with independent retailers concerned about clear identification of GM foods and gradually spread into a national project. At Expo West 2008 this March, a panel featuring the project attracted a packed, standing-room-only crowd, showing the organics industry’s keen interest in the GM-labelling question.
“Starting right now, we are enrolling products in the verification program,” Megan Thompson, the project’s executive director, said at the presentation. Waiting until Fall 2009 to label products should ensure the system will be running smoothly and products will have had enough time to be verified GMO-free by the project’s independent third party. “Everyone has an equal opportunity in that way to launch the seal together,” Thompson said.
The organization’s draft GM-free standard, available on-line, considers possible GM contamination of non-GM products as well as products that intentionally contain GM ingredients.
“If you are an industry member, whether you manufacture products, or you’re a grower, or a distributor, we encourage you to enrol,” Thompson said. Start by visiting www.nongmoproject.org.
To bridge the gap until the Non-GMO Project’s non-GMO seal hits the shelves, Jeffrey Smith, author of the two books Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, plans to publish a Non-GMO Shopping Guide. The guide will list products that have applied for Non-GMO Project verified status.
Smith’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America: No Genetically Modified Organisms (www.responsibletechnology.org) plans to distribute the guide beginning this Summer. It should be available in certain stores, as a magazine insert and on-line.
The Campaign is run by the non-profit US Institute for Responsible Technology, which Smith founded in 2003. Its Non-GMO Shopping Guide should help consumers decide what belongs in their GM-free shopping baskets. The Campaign’s website also offers tips on what foods are likely to contain GMOs and on how to approach a GMO-free lifestyle.
Seeking a national GM-food labelling system for the United States is The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods (www.thecampaign.org). Started back in 1999 by Craig Winters, Alexander Schauss and Marlene Beadle, this group of environmental lobbyists is seeking grassroots support to convince Washington politicians that a nationally regulated GM-foods label is the best choice.
The group’s website provides links to help consumers easily e-mail politicians, retailers and manufacturers. Also key is spreading the word amongst your circle of organic-oriented contacts!
From developing a private standard, to pushing for national legislation on GM standards, to informing more consumers through GM-free guides in the meantime, the work required to bring North America’s GM foods out of the closet is finally being done.
Consumers have the power to support non-GMO products, Thompson pointed out. But before they can do so, they must be able to tell which products fit that category.
Fish Standards
Posted - May 1, 2008
Organic Fish: Standards May Vary
By Adrian Larose - as printed in O.W.N. Summer 2008
Contrast the isolation of one Peruvian fish farm currently producing organic trout with the debates around the regulatory definition of organic seafood, and you have some idea of the confusion now swirling through organic aquaculture.
Peru’s BioTrucha raises, harvests and processes its own organic fish in Andina, a town on Lake Arapa. The 19 families of the Asociación de Productorres de Trucha Ecológica Bio-Trucha Andina Peru have been producing certified organic trout since 2005 in canned, vacuum-packed and smoked forms.
Organic fish forms about 30% of the co-op’s total production. Production manager Wilfredo L. Vasquez Quispesivana said this ratio is likely to shift towards more organic over time.
Yet what “organic” means in the case of fish (and other seafood) remains complex. Quispesivana said he is often asked how BioTrucha obtained organic certification for fish. Its products are certified by BioLatina, an agency approved to EU and USDA standards. Yet such standards do not yet exist for fish, leaving definitions to the certifiers.
“This is the first canned certified organic fish to hit the Australian market,” says Antonio Ramos of his firm Olive Green Organics’ decision to import BioTrucha’s canned trout as a private-labelled variety. Advantages Ramos identified include relatively low cost, traceability and nutritional properties.
Importing direct from the producer-processor, BioTrucha, should “give consumers assurance that they are eating a clean product that is fully traceable,” Ramos said. A single organization in a single town raises, harvests and processes the fish. The compact Peruvian operation also makes the price attractive, compared to other specialty fish. The few such offerings now available in Australia are quite expensive, Ramos says. Nutritionally, BioTrucha’s trout is very high in omega-3 and omega-6 fats. It contains no heavy metals, including mercury, Ramos said, good news for Australian consumers.
While companies like BioTrucha are already offering such healthy fish, neither the European Union nor the United States has passed a regulatory definition of organic seafood. Both are developing such standards, with EU implementation scheduled for 2009.
Standards/Certifiers
Until now, certification agencies have been certifying organic seafood based on their own standards. The WWF recently studied more than 20 private aquaculture certifiers, 10 of which certify organic products.
It gave most organic certifiers good marks. “Generally, organic aquaculture standards performed better in the benchmarking exercise than their conventional counterparts, indicating that today’s organic aquaculture standards do address the defined criteria to a greater extent,” the report reads.
That leaves Stefan Bergleiter , aquaculture expert with the Naturland certification organization, wondering how much coming EU and US regulations will affect private certifiers. Establishing rules will certainly bring diverse private standards closer together, but some private standards - such as Naturland’s - also include detailed social and environmental criteria. “We certainly would not expect the EU regulation to really address these issues, at least not in detail,” Bergleiter said.
The legislated standards must address some controversial topics. What types of fish meal to allow is a major debate. In fish farming, “it looks like it’s not possible to do completely without fish meal,” Bergleiter said. “In conventional aquaculture, you can replace animal protein by plant protein and then substitute amino acids that are absent in the plant protein.” Such synthetics are banned from organic operations.
“Certified organic seafood is still only a tiny percentage of seafood,” Bergleiter said. “It’s far less than one per cent.” If broad standards develop sensibly with input from certifiers like Naturland and groups like the WWF, perhaps that can change as consumers feel more confident - and less confused - about organic seafood.
Halal Certification
Posted - May 1, 2008
Organic and Halal Foods:
Complementary Lifestyles
By Ehsan Sairally - as printed in O.W.N. Summer 2008
Business guru Peter Drucker, in his book, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, speaks about one of the biggest driving forces in innovation: demography. In multicultural hubs such as Toronto, where about half the population over 15 years old are first-generation immigrants, diversity has brought with it the cuisines and cultures of many countries.
Some consumers choose the food they eat based on culture and religion. Take the faith-based food habits of Canada’s growing Muslim population. Many organic foods, given their emphasis on quality production and purity, are closer to being halal than their producers and processors may realize.
“Halal” is an Arabic word meaning “permissible.”What foods can be halal? Most meats can be, except for pork and certain other species as defined in the Qu’ran. But the animals must be slaughtered following a specific religious protocol. Most foods from the plant kingdom can be halal, though not alcohol and other intoxicants. These foods must be free from certain disallowed ingredients - so-called “haram” ingredients. But already many organic foods meet most halal requirements. They could readily be certified and labeled as such to benefit the halal consumer and, of course, the producer.
The Canadian halal market is already large. Statistics Canada projections suggest that the Canadian Muslim population will soon exceed one million. By 2011, there could be about 500,000 halal consumers in the metro Toronto area alone - a tenth of the population. Proper halal certification - like that of organic foods, is a total quality control approach from farm to table. Organic producers take heed.
Ehsan Sairally is President of Halal Product Development Services (HPDS) is a Canadian company, with the mission to inform organic producers about halal certification requirements and protocols including labeling. It also provides information about producers, product development and markets. HPDS regularly works with agri-food organizations such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Sustainable Tulips in OR
Posted - April 27, 2008
Oregon Tulip Festival to Feature Certified-Sustainable Blooms
Certified sustainable tulips will be part of this year’s Spring Tulip Fest in Oregon’s Willamette Valley.
The tulips from Iverson Family Farms, a decades-old operation, are now certified as sustainably grown by Scientific Certification Systems according to VeriFlora® program standards.
This standard includes environmental sustainability, social responsibility and product quality. In Iverson’s case, it covers 40 acres of field tulips, 50 of daffodils and about 2 million stems of greenhouse tulips at Wooden Shoe Tulip Farm, located 45 minutes from Portland.
“The process provided valuable focus, and I believe it will help our business,” said owner Barb Iverson.
While not the same as organic certification, VeriFlora® requires careful soil-building, energy efficiency, practices that reduce risk from agrichemicals, and protection of water and wildlife.
Scientific Certification Systems has certified more than 750 million stems of cut flowers since the VeriFlora® program was launched in 2005. The program has gained recognition in cut flowers and more recently in potted and bedding plants.
“We are delighted to add Iverson Family Farms to the growing list of farms, wholesalers, and distributors who have demonstrated their commitment to making sustainability a reality,” said Linda Brown, SCS executive vice president.
For more: VeriFlora®, SCS, Wooden Shoe Tulip Farm
