 |
ORGANIC STANDARDS BATTLE
A Corporate-Lobbied Sneak Attack
In a back-door deal that has stunned the organic community and consumer advocates, a Republican-controlled committee has snuck in a provision to the 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spending budget that waters down organic standards. US Congress voted secretly on October 26, 2005 to amend the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and allow the use of synthetic ingredients in foods labeled organic. The move was lobbied for by the Organic Trade Association (OTA), an industry-led coalition made up of Big Food heavies Smucker's, Dean Foods and Kraft. Initial attempts by the OTA to amend the organic standards in September met with large public outcry when over 350,000 concerned citizens blasted the government with their phone calls and letters. Overwhelmed by such vocal opposition, the Senate instead called for further study of the issue. This never happened.
Background
The battle over what qualifies as organic began in 2002 when blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey of Maine took the matter to court, arguing that synthetic ingredients should not be permitted in USDA-certified 100 percent organics. After initially losing and then prevailing on appeal, Harvey's suit worked its way through the legal system until a ruling in June upheld his winning appeal. The U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine ordered the USDA to create new organic rules within 12 months to replace those allowing synthetic ingredients. For large-scale corporate organics producers already invested in using synthetic ingredients, this change spelled big dollars and big trouble. By amending the OFPA, they circumvented the court ruling and shut stakeholders out of the debate.
The End of "Organic"?
As corporations and big business moved vigorously into the skyrocketing organics market, many people foresaw an inevitable conflict of values. Organic is more than a label; it's a way of living and practicing sustainability that seems at odds with the traditional business model's adherence to the bottom line. The organics industry has evolved around these principles and earned the trust of consumers to believe in the integrity of its label. Consequently, the OTA is navigating a precarious position. They want all the dollars associated with the organics label without having to pay for it. Yet by working to erode that trust, they are also undermining its profitability.
The argument often used to justify allowing synthetic ingredients in organics is that a producer unable to meet the criteria would have a less marketable product, even when no organic substitute exists. For example, jam makers who use all organic ingredients but add the binding agent pectin would have to label their product "made with organic ingredients", and that doesn't have the same sales ring. Which seems to beg the question… So what? Isn't the onus on the seller to convince and educate consumers as to why we should buy their product? Leaving aside the notion that such a dark labeling fate may actually spur innovation and organic solutions, it seems ridiculous to suggest that rather than be penalized for public ignorance, companies should instead act to cultivate it.
Many businesses jumped on the organic bandwagon when they saw the kind of money they could be making without understanding people were shopping for a set of values, not a label. Now, they're selling a label without that set of values, and it appears that the initial concerns of cynics were well-founded. In this first round of what will no doubt be a long battle over what it means to be organic, corporate profits trumped public concern. But no matter what it says on the packaging, "organic" values are here to stay.
For more information, please visit www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm
 |
|
|
