| He says:
Last week, the WaPo ran a story headlined "Purity of Organic Label is
Questioned" -- a quasi-investigative story on how the organic
"program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the
law itself."
I say quasi-investigative because it wasn't particularly news. The
tension discussed in the article, between those who have always sought
to expand the industry and those who seek a more purist vision, has
been fodder for many articles and was the subject of my book Organic,
Inc. -- published 3 years ago. Often those camps are presented as big
corporations on the one hand (chipping away at regulations) and small
farmers striving to keep things pure on the other, both at one
another's throats.
Consistent with that narrative, the article asserted that big
corporations were compromising the organic label by lobbying for
questionable "synthetic" ingredients in organic food. Small farmers
like Arthur Harvey -- a blueberry farmer -- were trying to limit these
additives. But before we get into that simplistic framing of the
debate a bit of background would be useful.
And I LOVE this quote by Fromartz:
(A memorable petition at one NOSB meeting I attended came from an
English muffin manufacturer who claimed they needed a synthetic
ingredient to extend the muffin's shelf life. My feeling was -- don't
make a fucking shelf-stable organic English muffin!).
That more or less sums up this entire debate right there. If we say
NO to all synthetics, then we won't see as many packaged foods that are
labeled organic. If we say yes, then the organic label doesn't guarantee
us 100% organic food (it guarantees us 95% organic food). There have
been lawsuits and rule changes going back and forth on this over the
years. It's not new. Fromartz makes another good point, saying:
There have been many stories about the corporate sell out of organic
food, and people often say to me, "organic doesn't mean anything any
longer." In other words, why buy it? That's the conclusion people come
to because they read more about big brands compromising organics than
about organophosphate pesticide residues in kid's urine.
And THAT is what really gets to the heart of the debate going on now.
You've got the Organic Trade Association, more or less
blowing off the concerns in the WaPo piece, and arguing that
organics are still relevant and trustworthy. Then you've got others -
notably the watchdog group The Cornucopia Institute - who are always on
the lookout for any effort to water down the organic label, constantly
vigilant to keep the synthetics out of organics whenever possible. (And
before I go on, let me say that I'm a strong supporter of the work
Cornucopia does and I have donated to them before.)
It seems to me that the Organic Consumers Association walks a fine
line down the middle of those two sides, which is roughly where I fall.
They (and I) recognize that organics - however imperfect - are the best
thing we've got and they are FAR better than so-called conventional
foods. We don't want people to stop trusting or buying organics. They
are getting a superior product by buying organic. But we also don't want
to stop working to make the organic label as meaningful and as strong as
possible. That means being honest about the flaws in the standards while
also emphasizing what is good about the standards and the organic
program as a whole. And, as always, if you don't want synthetics in your
food - stop buying packaged food (don't buy a fucking shelf stable
organic English muffin, as Sam might say) and buy your food from a
farmer you know or from a natural foods cooperative that takes care in
selecting which foods it sells. |