The NOSB Handling Subcommittee described the collection of published research on the subject as “mixed” and, in a split vote, recommended that the full board reapprove carrageenan use at its upcoming meeting in late October.
This despite an extensive body of research, mostly funded by the US Centers for Disease Control, concluding that food grade carrageenan is a potent human inflammatory agent and precursor for cancer. Additional studies also indicate carrageenan could promote prostate and breast cancer along with type 2 diabetes.
OrganicEye points out that the studies suggesting carrageenan is safe have been almost exclusively funded by agribusiness interests.
“The NOSB is charged by Congress with protecting organic food as the last bastion of safe, unadulterated nourishment for families in this country,” stated Mark A. Kastel, OrganicEye Executive Director. “Calling the research ‘mixed’ is not only overly generous, it illegally puts the health of American organic eaters/consumers at risk.”
OrganicEye stated they intended to reach out to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and key members of the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, assuming they will share the organization’s concerns about this risky food ingredient.
Organics was initially commercialized in the 1980s by organic farmers across the country and supported by consumers who were hungry for safer food. Many stakeholders would never have agreed to hand over what was then an unregulated industry to the USDA without the safeguards included by Congress, via the NOSB, designed to prevent corporate hijacking.
However, over the course of subsequent Democratic and Republican administrations, the composition of the NOSB has shifted from the diverse group that Congress mandated to one that is almost exclusively affiliated with agribusiness — with many members, or their employers, belonging to the powerful industry lobby group, the Organic Trade Association (OTA).
“What has happened to the NOSB as corporate interests have become increasingly over-represented is commonly referred to as “regulatory capture,” Kastel added.
In their critique of the Trump/Rollins administration at the USDA, OrganicEye contends that this has never been more apparent than this year.
In January, Secretary Brooke Robbins failed to appoint five new members to fill the open seats on the 15-person panel. In conflict with federal law, the NOSB operated without a full complement of members for over eight and a half months, including during the Spring 2026 meeting.
“The NOSB is different because it has specific statutory requirements and, unlike most advisory committees, was created by Congress, not the USDA Secretary. The size of the committee is not optional. It has a very heavy workload and dividing the necessary technical analysis between fewer members is onerous and opens the industry to the possibility of erroneous decision-making, such as on carrageenan,” Kastel stated.
Congress did not leave the size of the working board up to the discretion of the Secretary. Because it has specific legal authority to review new petitions for synthetic and non-organic materials, and examine all compounds on the list of approved substances every five years for essentiality and health and environmental impacts, OrganicEye contends that any business that transpired at the spring meeting could very well be challenged in court — as could any votes this fall that are based on testimony, discussion, and deliberation that occurred then with a partial board, or in subcommittee meetings that took place during 2026 before the full board was seated.
Furthermore, OrganicEye maintains that, instead of respecting the spirit and letter of OFPA, the law governing organic regulations and establishing the NOSB — which earmarked, very specifically, certain seats to represent industry constituency groups — Secretary Rollins appears to have subverted the congressional mandate with both the delay and with some of her subsequent appointments.
“The two members who were appointed to represent farmers are anything but typical agrarians. One owns an agribusiness that acts as a service provider to farmers, in addition to producing grain, while the other owns a vertically integrated poultry processor and brand doing hundreds of millions of dollars in business each year,” added Kastel.
And according to OrganicEye, the appointments of two individuals to the seats that Congress set aside for public interest/consumer representation are even more objectionable — and possibly illegal.
“One is a real stick in the eye, considering there are many qualified public interest groups and individuals who have applied to serve on the board,” Kastel said. “Jed Murray is a lobbyist with the Texas International Produce Association (TIPA), an industry trade group representing the interests of 400 growers, shippers, importers, and distributors.”
“I can’t imagine a job description — representing a ‘special interest group’ — that is further from being an advocate for rank-and-file organic consumers,” added Kastel.
The other consumer representative, Bradley Hines, PhD, is an academic at the University of Minnesota with expertise in organic dairy management. But he is also affiliated with the OTA’s research arm, The Organic Center, and acts as an “ambassador” to an agricultural technology/supply company.
According to Kastel, “Public interest representatives on the NOSB should be devoid of employment or involvement with corporations or lobby groups representing business interests in the organic industry. Their loyalties could be divided, and their priorities might sometimes differ from those of the people they have been appointed to represent.”
