Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman discovered what happens when the government tries to write rules that please everyone: All sides are unhappy, the rules are mush and interested parties begin to have their doubts about the person in charge. To his credit, Secretary Glickman reviewed his department’s proposed mushy rules on organic food standards and appears to be ready to try again.

The standards developed by the USDA were faulty because they tried to include too many concerns. Various food producers lobbied to stretch the meaning of “organic” to fit their products and other government agencies — in addition to USDA, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency also reviewed the proposal — had their own choices of what should be included. The resulting stew pot of standards produced the largest (and largest negative) public response in USDA history.

A lot of the conflict could have been avoided if the USDA had relied more heavily on two sources: the National Organic Standards Board, which was created by Congress in 1990 to examine this issue, and organizations in 30 states that have largely reached consensus on what organic means. The standards board offers this useful definition: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.”

With that definition, there is little question that gene-modified, sludge-fed irradiated vegetables would not qualify as organic. Yet in the lobbying around this issue, USDA considered giving food treated this way the organic stamp of approval. Same for meat from animals fed nonorganic feed and given extensive antibiotics. Many practices, no matter how efficient and effective for some farm operations, won’t and shouldn’t fit under the organic label.

Or, if the Agriculture Department did not want to closely follow the standards board, it could have looked at what states have done. Organizations and agencies in 30 states, including the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, have devised locally respected standards that give consumers confidence in what is being sold. These groups have established standards that are similar enough so that if the USDA adopted them, according to Eric Sideman of MOFGA and a member of the standards board, all that would be left to do is some fine-tuning to bring them into agreement. Of course, most of the state groups did not have agribusinesses demanding to be included in this rapidly growing area of food production.

Secretary Glickman seems to have gotten the message that favoring USDA’s longtime constituents is not going to work this time. That’s good news. Having national organic standards that consumers can trust is useful and possible. With help from organizations that already have established meaningful standards for organic foods, he should be able to pass palatable rules.