I want to start this off by saying that I am supportive of organic farming. It is important to reduce our use of harmful chemicals in fertilizers and pesticides, which end up causing worse problems than they solve. I would prefer these chemicals were not used as frequently or at all. Luckily, we have a market based solely on organic food. Should be perfect for me, right?
So I decided to attend a lecture at MSU entitled "Who owns organic?" presented by Phil Howard. I have often wondered who owns the companies which products are sold in places like the East Lansing Food Co-op. I learned that originally, food cooperatives were privately or employee owned and operated on their own terms. As they gained popularity, market demands shifted and many organic producers sold their companies to larger corporations. The organic food movement is continuing to be purchased and thus controlled by major corporations. Walmart, commonly thought of as one of the least socially conscious companies, started selling organic products. Other large grocery stores followed suit. At the same time, companies such as Hershey's and General Mills purchased small scale organic food farms, took these labels and started mass producing products which are organic based on the FDA requirements. Often, the ownership is hidden (did you know Kashi is owned by Kellogg?) so consumers are unaware of where these products are actually coming from. The corporations doing this are able to make a lot of money by selling products to people who are led to believe what they are buying is "more natural" and "pesticide free." I didn't know this, but apparently pesticides are completely ok according to the FDA requirements for organic food.
The term "organic" is losing its meaning as it gains momentum as a movement. Because the people profiting off of organic products are major corporations, they have more power over regulations. They have more money, which makes it much easier to be influential in our government. It is in these companies' interest to keep regulations to a minimum and manipulate consumers' interpretations of what organic means. Thus, labels and advertising are used to promote an image of a small farm and more natural products. The word natural is meaningless as far as labeling. "All natural" could be put on anything, from organic tomatoes to a box of Kraft Mac N' Cheese. Kraft won't do the second because the corporations benefit more by continuing to foster the misinterpretation consumers have. The label of organic doesn't mean much. The regulations are not strict or strictly enforced. Organic is much more effective as a marketing scheme than as a term to inform consumers about their food's production.
So anyone reading this who is about to give up on eating since it is all so corrupt, take this positive note. The major corporations are feeling and responding to demands to offer more organic products. The percentage of products being sold as organic has tripled since 1998. Maybe this is going in a good direction. And some familiar organic companies are still independently or cooperatively owned, such as Eden, Amy's Kitchen, Clif Bar, and Newman's Own Organics. These companies have stood their ground and refuse to sell to a major corporation (though they are faced with countless offers). Hopefully their protest will not be in vain.
2 comments:
First of all, I would like to agree with you that the term “organic” is losing its meaning as the organic movement progresses, and yet, I still agree with the original principles behind traditional organically grown food. That is where the problem is in my opinion, that the organic standards and regulations are helping the large corporations manipulate their way into the food system by green washing; leading us, the consumers, to believe they are “organic.” It is not that the regulations are not strict enough in most cases; it is that the regulations are there for the industrial organic industry to succeed, not to help the small organic farmer. Many don’t even want to bother with certification, despite that it limits where they can sell their food because in some cases people wont sell their produce unless they are certified as organic regardless if they follow all of the organic principles.
The fact that organic is now defined based on a technical aspect opposed to the social spirit that it was originated for, shows that the standards and definitions of an organic farm don’t include the entire organic vision. In the article “Transforming Organic Agriculture into Industrial Organic Products: Reconsidering National Organic Standards” by Laura B. DeLind she states that, “We (organic farmers) are not an industry – we are a community with shared values that cannot be imposed by the regulatory process. We value stewardship of the land, cooperation, conservation of resources, sharing and independence. We are a very diverse group – and that, too, is one of our values.” These characteristics of original organic farmers are not quantified within the standards, and thus are omitted from the definition because it is difficult to measure these values. With a definition omitting these core values, it is easy to see how large industrial organic industries abuse the definition and call their products “organic” purely because they don’t use pesticides. (Which is true, by the way. Synthetic pesticides are not allowed to be used on organic food. There is an acceptable small level of pesticide residue that is tolerated due to the potential pesticide drift from other conventional farms. The use of biopesticides is allowed, but biopesticides may be derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals, but they can still be toxic). By basically only being restricted to pesticide use as a way to still be certified as organic, the industrial organic industry is then able to optimize production in other ways, such as using sludge, irradiation, and GMO’s. These things are not required to be put on the label when it claims to be certified organic. Under the definition, it is indeed “organic.” However, if I had a choice, I would rather buy my food from a farmer who follows the traditional system of organic growing based on values not standards.
A question that was brought up in the DeLind article is “what phrase could adequately describe a Twinkie made from organically grown wheat?” The epitome of unhealthy, processed food with an organic certification label; this is something to think about. If the organic values are based on things like social justice, grower/eater relationships, locality, connections with the community, and health from the soil onwards, how can a Twinkie be considered organic? These marketing schemes hide the reality behind products by cleverly disguising them under organic claims. It is the green washing trick, many people fall victim to it.
Hoping that there really are organic food delivered to our place. The "REAL ORGANIC" foods.
Post a Comment