Farmers, advocates, and ordinary shoppers share the view that the mainstreaming
of organics carries both benefits and risks. On one hand, more organic foods are
available to people than at any time since the advent of the industrial food age, and
this should have very real benefits for public health and the environment. On the
other hand, some fear that corporate giants don’t really believe in the values of sus-
tainable farming and that, in the long run, their participation in the industry will
dilute the very meaning of the term ‘‘organic.’’^68Organic Standards Are EndangeredOrganic standards, which ban synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones, pesti-
cides, genetically engineered ingredients, and irradiation, are good for farming, the
environment, and public health. The organic seal is vitally important in stores, where
the consumer is several steps removed from the farmer. ‘‘Organic’’ is a legal guarantee
that food meets certain standards.
The Organic Trade Association, a food industry group whose members include
national organic brands such as Kraft, Dean Foods, and General Mills, is seeking to
dilute organic standards. If Big Organic gets its way, xanthan gum (an artificial thick-
ener), ammonium bicarbonate (a synthetic leavening agent), and ethylene (a chemical
that ripens tomatoes and other fruit) will be permitted in products labeled organic,
despite a 2005 court ruling indicating they are not acceptable. Whatever the outcome
of legal maneuvering, consumers should look beyond the organic label and seek out
producers who exceed the federal rules. If the organic label loses its meaning, farmers
with higher standards will have to devise new ones. The next generation of labels
could read ‘‘grass-fed’’ butter and ‘‘pastured’’ pork. These foods, and others raised
with ecological and humane methods, are superior to industrial organic foods. Agri-
culture departments may never tell you that, but smart farmers will.^69Failure of a Legislative ChallengeInterestingly, U.S. national organic standards were put to the test only several
months after implementation. The good news: the organic sector was able to uphold
the integrity of the standards.
The challenge came in February 2003, in the form of one long sentence, Section
771, hidden in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The rider, although not overturning
the national organic standards, would have undermined organic standards by failing to
fund USDA’s enforcement of the requirement of 100 percent organic feed for all live-
stock. In effect, if left to stand, it would have opened the door to lesser requirements
for livestock feed, and made it impossible for consumers to trust the organic label on
organic livestock-derived products, from meat and eggs to dairy products.
This raised the ire of those already willing to meet the 100 percent requirement, as
well as the Organic Trade Association, affiliated organizations, organic food compa-
nies, and consumers. Some legislators, who had been on the ground floor when the106 | Pesticides