It's Not Easy Buying Green

Article Tools

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Whether you say 'to-may-to' or 'to-mah-to' is no longer the question. The issue today is whether the tomatoes you buy are organic, a distinction that matters to a growing number of shoppers. According to the Organic Trade Association, sales of organic food reached $10.4 billion in 2003, a hearty 20 percent increase over the previous year. In many ways, the boom in organics is good news. Consumers are finally paying attention to where their food comes from (not the supermarket, after all) and using their purchasing power to get synthetic pesticides and growth hormones out of what they eat.

But with all the money to be made in organics, some producers are resorting to labels that sound organic but don't meet organic criteria. Terms like 'natural' and 'ecofriendly' are surely accurate in certain cases, but with more than 100 ecolabels making similar promises, how can consumers tell which ones are genuine?

The problem isn't new. In 1990, the federal government made an early effort to address it by establishing organic food standards and the National Organic Standards Board to oversee them. In October 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released updated criteria for earning the now familiar USDA Organic seal.

But organic buyers beware: Even that symbol can mean different things, depending on what else is on the package. First of all, there's a difference between products defined as 100 percent Organic (contain exclusively organic ingredients and may display the USDA Organic seal) and Organic (contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients and may still display the USDA Organic seal). The phrase Made with Organic on a product means that at least 70 percent of its ingredients pass the USDA criteria, while products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients are limited to listing them on the ingredients panel. You won't find the USDA Organic seal on products from these latter categories.

Despite efforts to determine what is and is not officially organic, the field is rife with disagreement. Controversy flared last spring over a set of so-called clarifications that were released (and swiftly withdrawn) by the USDA's National Organic Program. One guideline drew attention to an apparent loophole in the NOP regulations, allowing farmers who had used banned chemicals to avoid losing their organic status if, as allowed by law in certain instances, those chemicals were not named on pesticide ingredient lists. Another guideline emphasized that fishmeal was an acceptable livestock feed supplement, despite its potential to contain antibiotics and other prohibited substances. While the USDA says it meant only to interpret existing rules, critics weren't convinced. Consumers Union, a watchdog group, called the statements a potential threat to the credibility of the USDA's organic label.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print