Is the Organic Label Worth the Paper It's Printed On?

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 21:35:49 PM PDT

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.