Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was enacted, fought to overturn this rider.
They were joined by others who might not have actually supported organic agricul-
ture, but believed it was important to let the new regulation stand and be enforced.
In addition, Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman also stepped up to defend
the national organic standards. In the final analysis, the USDA was willing to back
the National Organic Program. The bottom line: consumers need to be able to trust
a label, and the new rule needed to be given a chance to work. There is another win
that can be traced in part from this incident: growing congressional awareness of the
importance of organic agriculture and products. As a result, the U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives has established a formal Organic Caucus, and the U.S. Senate has in place
an informal organic working group. These developments signal a ‘‘coming of age’’ for
the organic sector in the legislative arena.^70
A Final Caveat
Capitalism is based on incentives and demand, demand created for the products and
the process and benefits of organic farming, sustainability of our resources, and the
health of our bodies. This system was not created in a vacuum, however, nor does it
exist without structure. That structure takes the form of massive government subsidies,
a model that is duplicated across Europe in countries that care about their local small
farmers. Unfortunately, subsidies in the United States typically don’t go to the local
small farm, but instead to large regional corporations that impose non-sustainable prac-
tices and poisons on smaller farms and the environment.
Chemical manufacturers and some farm organizations feel that dietary dangers
from pesticides have been exaggerated, while some consumer groups and scientists
believe that the danger has been understated. We do not know for sure who is right
or wrong on this issue. In the meantime, we prefer to be on the side of safety.
Notes
- W. J. Kroll, T. L. Arsenault, H. M. Pylypiw Jr., and M. J. L. Mattina,
‘‘Reduction of Pesticide Residues on Produce by Rinsing,’’Journal of Agriculture and
Food Chemistry48 (2000): 4,666–4,670. - Agricultural Marketing Service,Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary (Cal-
endar Year 2000)(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000). - Agricultural Marketing Service,Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary (Cal-
endar Years 1993–1998)(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999). - Office of Pesticide Programs,Setting Tolerances for Pesticide Residues in Foods
(Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection, Office of Pesticide Programs, 2000). - Pesticide Monitoring Program, Residue Monitoring (Calendar Years
1993–1999) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Pesticide
Monitoring Program, 2000). - Ibid.
Pesticides in Food | 107