Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Organic Vision Marred by TV Dinners
This week marks the fifth anniversary of the implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program. It was five years ago that the little green "USDA Organic" seal first appeared on organic product labels.
By most measures, the program has been an incredible success. Organic sales have soared and tens of thousands of pounds of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers have been kept off farmlands and food. But some organic advocates see a downside to the rapid growth in the organic market.
The federal government gave its official stamp of approval to organic after many years of controversy and struggle by organic advocates. For decades, organic practices were dismissed by political leaders and agriculture officials as impractical and unnecessary. They claimed that the mass production of food crops using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers was safe for human health and the environment. Big agribusiness felt threatened just by the suggestion that its chemical intensive practices were undesirable. But organic sales continued to climb throughout the 1970s and '80s as health-conscious consumers, motivated by a few high profile food scares, sought natural alternatives to conventional products.
As organic goods became more popular with consumers, states began to establish their own standards and certification systems. As organic achieved this kind of legitimacy, larger producers came to recognize the profit potential in the growing organic market. It was then that the federal government agreed to create uniform national standards and to oversee a system of organic certification.
That process took more than 10 years to complete. There were many controversies and fierce political battles along the way. The most significant of these took place when the initial USDA organic rule proposal allowed for practices that were anathema to traditional understandings of organic, such as allowing the use of genetically modified organisms and food irradiation. Organic advocates effectively blocked these measures and, by the end, the USDA had established a set of standards that were largely agreeable to all.
But there are other ramifications of the national system that some find objectionable. The standardization of organic practices and the opening of a single national organic market invited larger and larger enterprises to enter.
Big producers, processors and retailers such as Conagra, Kraft and Wal-Mart started to get in on the organic action. Organic businesses, founded by committed advocates, were bought up by multinational corporations seeking to cash in on the high profits to be made in this growing sector.
Organic sales have expanded dramatically since the start of the national program and topped $14 billion in 2005. But most of the growth is to be found among large conventional businesses that have added organic products to their traditional lines. This has left small organic farmers struggling to survive in the face of low-price competition from organic agribusiness.
In some ways, the mainstreaming of organic is cause for celebration. Organic products are more available and more affordable than ever, and that trend will likely continue.
But the original vision of organic embodies more than pesticide-free food. It is a vision of an alternative agriculture system; one in which small local farmers provide consumers with healthy fresh food produced in ways that protect the environment and the communities in which they live. No one envisioned an organic frozen TV dinner trucked in from California on sale at a big box supermarket.
There is a movement under way to recapture the soul of organic. Local food advocates have regenerated interest in small-scale local organic production. Alongside the growth in corporate organic has been an increase in farmers' markets and community-supported agriculture programs, where members purchase an annual share in a local farm and pick up a portion of the weekly harvest. There are many such opportunities to buy local in the Capital Region and elsewhere throughout New York.
The environmental, health and community benefits of eating fresh foods bought directly from a local farmer are significant. If those foods happen to be certified organic, all the better.
But the soul of organic cannot be found in the USDA seal. For that, you have to talk to your farmer.
Brian Obach is an associate professor of sociology at the State University at New Paltz. He is writing a book on the organic agriculture movement.
© 1996-2007, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation

11 Comments so far
Show AllAs a former Whole Foods Market TM, I have to add that corporations (including WFM) are lobbying continually to relax the USDA definition of organic. They have won concessions already without the public being made aware of the fact, and may win more any time without any publicity.
Makes it all the more important to stay as local as possible if you want to be assured of the sustainability of practices leading to your dinner table.
Still, WFM has done the US a favor by demonstrating the profitability of natural foods. Next, WFM shoppers can do the whole WORLD a favor by demanding, and snapping up, *fairly traded* items, esp. coffee, tea, chocolate, and clothing.
You want organic? Check out "How Cuba Survived Peak Oil"
california certified, or oregon tilth were something i could trust. Whom ever wants to trust our government to certify anything, deserves a corporate tv dinner. blessed uprisings have to happen. We must be enlightened and and get back to the real gardens. usda organic is as phony as it's creators.
The USDA does not set standards for Kosher or Halal foods. Why should it set standards for "organic"?
The term "organic" became a purely religious concept when it was defined to exclude not only the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and antibiotics in feed, practices which have benefits but carry scientifically-established risks and environmental costs, but also exclude irradiation, which is not known to have any harmful effects, and also to exclude any products of a particular type of genetic manipulation which in itself is not known to have any harmful effects, despite the fact that basically all foods that we eat have been genetically modified almost beyond recognition from their wild ancestors through the certifiably "organic" process of selective breeding.
Mr. Orbach here helpfully explains that irradiation and (a particular type of) genetic modification were "practices that were anathema to traditional understandings of organic." Not that they were harmful in any known way, not that there was any scientific basis for declaring them unwholesome, just that they were "anathema to traditional understandings." In other words, they were a kind of sacrilege.
The fact that the USDA maintains such standards and certifies food as "organic" is thus a violation of the disestablishment clause of the Constitution. It is the establishment of a particular religious faith according to which certain agricultural practices are sacramental and imbue the food thus produced with a scientifically unquantifiable yet legally recognized goodness.
To put it another way, it's one thing to try to eliminate (or at least minimize) the use of toxic or polluting or resistance-promoting chemicals in agriculture, or to buy local produce which has been grown carefully and with high labor input, and not shipped long distances at a high energy cost, but this "organic" wholesomeness, as defined by the government, is little more than a food fetish for those who can afford it.
@Mark Abrams
Why are you even reading CommonDreams if you believe that? Organic food has more nutrients than conventional food, period.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/green_living/article2414745.ece
The studies I've read show that Genetically Modified foods have unintended consequences and are unsafe...
http://www.newstarget.com/021784.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=710tmYMxsyY
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0108-01.htm
Irradiation destroys the nutrients in food...
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF23B.PDF (pdf)
I can't afford organic food (or much else since I gave up my corporate job). Yet, I still buy organic food. I don't have a food fetish, but if I ever met you I'd be sure to show you one, by sticking a GM cornstalk up your ass since you love it so much.
mr. foamweapons
Your comment shows that for you (and countless people like you) this is (and similar issues are) a matter of orthodoxy, or of perceived location on some political spectrum, rather than of fact and reason.
FYI I am a strong progressive on real issues that have a real impact on our world, the people in it and their environment. I'm against war, pollution, tyranny, inequality, injustice...
However, unfortunately, too many people who share these values with me also fetishize certain lifestyle choices and support those attitudes with false or baseless beliefs. The lifestyle leftists who think eating "organic" and wearing hemp makes them revolutionaries are nothing but another species of feckless consumers, IMHO. As people here have noted, all sorts of capitalists are only too happy to satisfy these commodity fetishes. And yeah, some of what they sell is good stuff. But that's because it's premium quality, not because of its "organic" purity.
@Mark Abrams
Why are you even reading CommonDreams if you believe that? Organic food has more nutrients than conventional food, period.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/green_living/article2414745.ece
This article poses the essential nightmare of the organic food movement: Would you still eat organic foods if the only place you could get them was WalMart? Which tells you that the organic food movement isn't really about the organic food (which, by the way, is no more nutritious than other carefully grown foods). It's about capitalism, and business, and profit, all of which are generally anathema to the more vocal proponents of the organic movement.
mr. foamweapons
The "studies" you cite that "show that Genetically Modified foods have unintended consequences and are unsafe" are the work of ideologues based on a mix of false findings by incompetent researchers and some real but insignificant effects.
There is nothing about any particular method of genetic modification that in itself is inherently harmful, unsafe, or likely to produce unintended consequences. We eat almost no foods which have not been genetically modified almost beyond recognition from wild ancestors, mostly by low-tech methods of selective breeding. This "organic" genetic modification has had many unintended consequences, and the agriculture based on it has transformed the landscape and ecology on a vast scale. Nothing that has been done by what you call genetic modification has had anywhere near as much impact.
Food irradiation destroys some fraction of nutrients, but not much. Cooking food destroys much, much more, and the methods most people use to cook end up throwing out a good portion of what they do not destroy.
Thankyou for the link, Ezeflyer, everyone should see that film.
I think the intention of keeping GM foods out of organic was so that small farmers could preserve the biodiversity of our food plants. The loss of our agricultural biodiversity is more alarming to me than our loss of species of plants and animals on this planet, which can itself be considered a mass extinction. Most foods we buy are of only 1 or 2 varieties bred to endure shipping when we used to have hundreds of varieties. There are hundreds of potato and tomato varieties but we see only a hanful in the grocery store. This is the big issue that I think most GM alarmists have ignored, while concentrating on minor or nonexistent ones; GM is not the root of the problem and agricorporations sell other non-GM varieties that similarly limit food biodiversity but is one more step limiting the amount of genetic variation in our foods. Although, I'm sure the organic megafarms aren't doing us much of a favor in that area either! Genetic variation is so important for sources of disease prevention, adaptation to different environmental conditions, and not to mention for better taste! I recommend reading Barbara Kingsolver's new book "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" and checking out seedsavers.org.