PDA

View Full Version : What Is Organic? USDA Trying to Define It



Aaltrude
11-09-10, 03:44 AM
(Nov. 7) -- If you've ever wondered exactly what that "USDA organic" seal actually means, you're in good company. The U.S. Department of Agriculture itself has been asking the same question ever since it established the National Organic Program in 2002.

"Organic" is intended to mean agricultural products produced without hormones, pesticides, artificial fertilizers or other synthetic additives. But purists have long argued that the USDA standards contain numerous loopholes that have allowed factory-style farms to operate under the letter, if not the spirit, of the organic law. Now, both the industry and the government are grappling with how to bring meaning back to "organic."

Fred Kirschenmann, a North Dakota farmer and distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, served on the National Organic Standards Board when it was establishing the standards for the USDA organic seal.

Early on, Kirschenmann argued that an organic farm shouldn't be able to "degrade the health of the soil." But when the board gave that to USDA lawyers, they told it to change the language. Any regulation, the lawyers said, needed to be able to be answered with a simple yes or no -- something that can be difficult in the complex world of organic agriculture.

What the organic laws boiled down to were a list of inputs that an organic farm could and could not use. That led to many farmers getting their certification by practicing what some call "substitution agriculture" -- changing the kinds of chemicals they added to the soil without changing the way that they farmed.

"You have organic farmers that don't really use what would traditionally be used, what good organic practices would classify as good agro-ecological systems" Kirschenmann told AOL News. "They're just using natural inputs instead of synthetic inputs."

The confusion extends to livestock as well. For instance, organic cows and chickens were required to have "access to pasture." For some that meant having free-range animals that got the bulk of their food from the outdoors. For others, it meant having a tiny door at one end of a gigantic henhouse.

In a report titled "Scrambled Eggs," small farm advocate The Cornucopia Institute documented several certified organic egg farms keeping up to a million chickens in conditions that seem a long way away from a quaint little farmhouse.

For small farmers trying to raise animals in more humane and ecologically friendly conditions, having the government telling consumers that their products are equivalent to those from giant producers can make for tough business.

"We're one of the few industries that have actually asked for strict regulation," Cornucopia Institute co-founder Mark Kastel told AOL News.

Organic agriculture has boomed in the years since the adoption of the organic seal into a more than $25 billion-a-year industry. But Kastel and others argue that some of that expansion sacrificed the practices that were supposed to be essential to organic agriculture -- and allowed big firms to squeeze out the small producers that helped to build the organic brand in the first place.

Proponents of tighter organic standards, however, agree that President Barack Obama's undersecretary of agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan, and the USDA have been working to clarify some of that flexible language. Last year, they changed the "access to pasture" phrase to say that cows must be allowed to graze 120 days a year. And at a series of hearings in Madison, Wis., recently, producers, distributors, processors and consumers told the National Organic Standards Board what they thought was missing from the current certification standards.

For Kastel and others trying to establish a more exclusive organic seal, the hearings were a success: They declared that nanotechnology would not be allowed in organic products and that conventional hops would not be allowed in organic beer. In the contentious egg issue, he said that the board seemed receptive to farmers and consumers asking for stricter requirements for certified organic eggs.

"Now we've got an administrative management under the Obama administration that respects the organic community, and it's quite a turnaround," Kastel said. "Now we're seeing institutionalized improprieties being reversed."

Egg and dairy giant Organic Valley is one of the largest organic farm co-ops in the country. The company employs its own inspection standards above USDA organic. But Organic Valley, like the USDA, has had to deal with the difficulties of balancing organic ideals with an ever-expanding industry.

"I think that they are only now dealing with the nuances of the language," Organic Valley egg pool director David Bruce told AOL News about the USDA's organics standards. "And they're trying to balance the fact that some there is some idealism around organics, and there needs to be a rubber hitting the road, and that idealism needs to meet the reality of production agriculture."

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/what-is-organic-usda-trying-to-define-it/19694940

Islander
11-09-10, 09:49 AM
The state of Maine has very strict organic standards and regular inspections to insure they are adhered to. Not foolproof; I know one dairy farm that skirts the requirements ("Quick, hide the antibiotics, MOFGA's pulling into the driveway!") and a hay seller who has resorted to chemical fertilizers because the neighbors complained of the smell of manure in spring ...if it can be done on the local level, I'm sure it happens on a larger scale elsewhere. But as you see, word gets around, and sooner or later things change.

At least I'm fairly confident that the few organics I actually buy, e.g. olive oil, coconut oil, gluten-free pasta, fresh fruits, contain no pesticides, nanotechnology or GMOs.

Aaltrude
11-09-10, 02:35 PM
Organic certification in NZ is a lot stricter. There are several organic certifying bodies and they are all independent.

Katee
11-09-10, 06:24 PM
I recently ran across someone who works in food service in the local school. She stated bluntly that "organic" means nothing and she won't waste her money on it.

We discussed it a little bit, but we were at a different function and there was no point in getting hot over it.

However, i think she is very wrong.

"Natural" has no legal meaning. But "organic" does.

I'm sure some things get thru as Islander said, but in general if you are buying organic, you don't have to worry about genetically modified anything, pesticides, or other issues related to them. If you are not buying organic, frankly, you have no idea what you are getting. Now that sugar on the market is genetically modified, even things that look good over all but state they have "sugar" are not safe.

It is worth it to me to be sure that my food is of as high a quality as i can find.

But it makes me sad that the opinion of the general public (and especially someone like this food worker who folks will think has better knowledge) is that organic is not something worth their while or money.

Islander
11-09-10, 06:54 PM
Katee, don't quote me on this because it's merely observation...but ever since GM sugar beets got their one growing season, I've read among the listed ingredients on certain products, "cane sugar." Sounds like a deliberate attempt to differentiate themselves from beet sugar.

Stoneharbor
01-09-11, 07:52 AM
Hey, Katee,

I used to live down the hill from Big Bear in Highland, and visit your town occasionally!

Don't get too worked up about the food service worker. They are specifically trained to avoid all influence from alternative thinkers. In the early 80's when my first child was entering kindergarten, I had some discussions with the teacher over her suggestions for snacks that children brought, as they all contained sugar and my child was totally off sugar. One of the results of these meetings was that I decided to attend a "brush up" nutrition course that the food service employees were required to take to keep their "credentials" with the state of Washington.

One of the subjects of the lecture was how to fend off "health nuts". One of Adelle Davis' books was presented (held up so the audience could see the cover and title) as an example of the subversive ideas that might be mentioned, and of course the audience was coached in what was the correct ideas on foods. At the time, Adelle Davis was the premier proponent of natural diets. I don't even know if organic was an issue at the time. The important point is that big-Ag already had its foot in the door, and was already working toward increasing cravings and addictions in our children. As Kevin Trudeau states in his book, 'More Natural Cures Revealed', "I knew what was going on in the Educational System. I knew firsthand. One of my required missions was to discuss with high members of the Department of Education how specifically we could turn children into zombies, making them lifelong users of products the pharmaceutical industry and food industry were selling. I was secretly involved in these meetings. Many of my suggestions are still in use today within the school lunch programs and the vending machine systems used to get children hooked on the new crack, diet sodas." Of course, Kevin turned the corner since then and is now blowing the whistle.

I know the natural foods movement has made some inroads since then. I see that the web page for the National School Lunch Program (under the Food and Nutrition division of USDA) now has a report consisting of guidelines on "Bringing Small Farms and Schools Together". Since it doesn't outlaw organic growers, I would hope a good percentage of them would be able to supply schools under this program.

This is all off topic, but I happen to have an associative type brain and it just popped out in response to your statement. I have nothing to offer in defining what is organic except this:

Technically, in this country, per the USDA, a farm can qualify as "organic" within 3 years, based on the methods used during those 3 years. I don't know that there is any soil testing procedures comparing the resulting soil with any standard. Probably there is testing to insure that certain substances are not present in any amount, as in harmful substances. But I'm fairly sure there is no testing of the soil in comparison with, say, virgin prairie soil, or even depth of top soil. What I'm getting at is that there are those among us who tend to think that if we eat all organic foods, we may probably be getting back to the nutritive standard enjoyed by the humans originally on the paleolithic diet. I tend to believe, especially since there are no "nutritive content" labels on any fresh produce and never will be, that our "organic", on average, is still sub-standard compared to what our optimistic minds would like to assume.

I garden to provide as much as possible of my foods, and continually expand as well as enrich my garden. But I don't trust myself to provide all the nutrients in the soil that even our great-grandparents may have benefited from, so I still take supplements. In a nut-shell, I'm saying "organic" at best is a stab at a minimum for foods we should be eating. We should be actually either growing our own to the best of our abilities, or be very aware of what our food producer is doing with his soil, etc. if we expect to eat for optimum health. I would have to recommend visiting and getting lots of information from every grower we patronize. When you think how much work that involves its really not too hard to just do it yourself.