Many consumers want to buy organic products for health and environmental reasons. Organic products cost more money, but people make the choice to spend that money because they would prefer that their food is not produced using chemicals that harm people, wildlife, and bees, and other beneficial insects. They ought to be able to trust that when they spend that extra money, they are getting what they pay for.
On October 21, 2002, the USDA organic label was implemented. According to the USDA website "Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too."
Organic standards have been strict because the term implies a certain purity. It is easy to meet these standards if you are a small food producer, committed to quality. Since World War II, many food producers are large corporations committed to making profit for shareholders. So, since these large corporations can't meet the standards, they want to have the standards lowered. Rather than being committed to the spirit of organic food, they want to change their methods of production as little as possible while tapping into the extra money that people are willing to spend.
Last week, the USDA caved to industry pressure. They gave interim approval for 38 non-organic ingredients to be used on foods that will still win the coveted label while accepting public comment for 60 days. Friday's LA Times said The list approved Friday includes 19 food colorings, two starches, hops, sausage casings, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin, celery powder, dill weed oil, frozen lemongrass, Wakame seaweed, Turkish bay leaves and whey protein concentrate. Manufacturers will be allowed to use conventionally grown versions of these ingredients in foods carrying the USDA seal, provided that they can't find organic equivalents and that nonorganics comprise no more than 5% of the product. A wide range of organic food could be affected, including cereal, sausage, bread, beer, pasta, candy and soup mixes. The rule change is "good news for consumers," said Barbara Haumann, spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Assn., which represents food makers.
"Good news for consumers"???? You can bet that if organic standards are lowered, organic prices won't be lowered.
The Organic Consumers Association website writes This latest sneak attack on organic standards was developed with absolutely no input from consumers. The USDA proposal has raised the concerns of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as well as a number of smaller organic companies and organic certifiers who say that if passed, this proposal will weaken the organic seal and damage consumer confidence in products labeled “USDA Organic.
The public comment period is open now. You can make a difference one of two ways. Go to the Organic Consumers Association website and sign their petition. Or, if you a have a few hours to spare, you can read the 4-page PDF on the USDA website and comment directly to them.
Since people don't have the time or the resources to research the origin and the ingredients of the food they buy, wouldn't it be great if they could trust that the USDA organic label implies certain standards?
Saturday, June 23, 2007
USDA Organic Standards
Posted by Denise at 5:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Good news for consumers???? You can bet that if organic standards are lowered, organic prices won't be lowered." Absolutely right. Yet another example of corporate influence run amok, and another Federal regulatory agency at the command of BIg Business.
When is organic not organic? When it's not organic. As obvious as this would be to anyone, it's not to the USDA. Come on, people! The moment you put an asterisk next to Organic, the word loses all meaning. There's no justification for this.
I took TFE's advice and joined the OCA's email campaign. I'm really thankful for the OCA; over the past few years they've been central to successful blocking efforts against this sort of dilution of organic standards. I have to admit that I don't know how seriously elected officials or bureaucracies take email campaigns. As the conservative-right groups that seek to manipulate the FCC have proved, email campaigns can easily make a tiny fraction of a percentage seem like a majority opinion. Still, they must listen to some degree, because it's been part of the OCA's efforts for years (and it's worth noting that the OCA's membership is a significant percentage of consumers, unlike the right's media-watchdog obsessives.)
At any rate, it makes sense to me that emails are more likely to be seen as individual efforts if they are personalized to some degree. For that reason I took up the OCA's offer and added my own comments to the copy already provided (leaving their statement intact, I only added a heartfelt plea at the beginning.) I also changed the email subject header; but left in the number referring to the rule-change... just in case they are tracking the emails by subject keywords.
Post a Comment