What is Organic?

Article Tools

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

The controversy has forced the organics community to focus on its most appealing selling point—the unquestioned ecological benefits of chemical-free farming—rather than on scientifically dubious claims that organic foods are healthier or safer than conventional products. In fact, the proliferation of small farmers and processors using inadequate processing equipment and lax quality control to take advantage of the organics industry's premium pricing is one of the key reasons that the industry asked for federal standards.

"Everyone talks about how environmentally progressive our business is. That's bull," says Gene Kahn, founder of Cascadian Farm, now a $30 million company with 150 different products. "The conventional food industry, for all its faults, has higher levels of consumer disclosure and ethics than organics producers. In theory, the organics industry creates an enormous opportunity for us to live our lives as caretakers," he says. "It doesn't necessarily guarantee that."

The government recently extended the period of public comment to April 30, during which time supporters and opponents were encouraged to voice their concerns through calls, letters, public forums, and over the Internet. The USDA will then make revisions, before submitting them to Congress for debate in 1999. The full program is not likely to be implemented until 2000.

Meanwhile, certain factions in the organics community will continue to try to scuttle the proposal. It's all a sign of an industry coming of age, says OTA executive director Katherine DiMatteo, who believes the organics business is moving from the idealism of adolescence to the realism of adulthood. "The controversy has awoken all of us as to who we are and what we really stand for," she says. "Yes, we have real problems, but that's to be expected. Growing up is not always easy."

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print