Going loco

Organic has gone from little “o” to big “O.” As bigger growers and larger processors become involved in the USDA Certified Organic food market, smaller players get pushed out. What's threatened is the integrity of healthy, ecological food production.

At a farmer's market I frequent, there are a range of growers: larger farms that spray crops to deal with harsh rain and pest conditions, old timers that proudly display the Organic certification, and small farmers whose stalls simply say: Naturally Grown Food. For the latter group, when you ask about their farming practices, they often say that they grow without sprays or fertilizers aside from organic compost. Still, they’re too small to afford certification by the USDA. (The certification fees are structured regressively so that a small farm—grossing, for example, $5,500—might pay 6% of its gross for a year-long Organic certificate, whereas a farm making $60,000 a year would only pay 1.5% in fees. Some states, many of them in the Northeast, will subsidize part of the cost for smaller farms.) Many of these small farms grow organic, but they’re not Organic.

So what are we paying for when we buy Organic, and what are farms paying for to get Organic certification? In theory, we're investing in long-term health benefits. In the short term, we're paying for peace of mind. Yet, the machinery behind the Organic curtain is not always pretty. Under USDA regulations, there is a long list of acceptable synthetic materials for Organic crop and meat production. Some of the more disconcerting include copper sulfate and chlorine products. Copper sulfate is particularly harmful for the sprayers, who experience higher rates of anemia and liver disease. The USDA allows many of these “acceptable” materials because they occur naturally, regardless of safety to the grower, the environment or the consumer.

Foods grown ecologically and naturally may be safer, healthier and more environmentally sound than foods bearing the Certified Organic label. That’s because they rely only on natural processes, such as decomposition (to produce fertilizer from organic waste), biological pest management, and soil maintenance to create healthy farms that grow good food year after year.

A recent study from London researchers reports that organic food is no more nutritious than conventionally-grown food. Some critics have pointed out flaws in their study, but the report signals an important caveat in our concept of organic foods. Namely, we equate organic with healthy, nutritious, ecological and natural. That conception is flawed and results from marketing campaigns telling us why to buy Organic, and from an ideological faith in the beneficence of science. Evidently, the science that distinguishes between synthetic and natural substances does not account for the health of humans or the environment.

In short, what’s organic is not always good for us. Due to the unfavorable economics facing farmers today, and as organic becomes Organic, growers and processors look to the unsavory ends of the “allowable” substances list in order to find materials that promote efficient, large-scale farming. Ultimately, these organic substances may be better than the full arsenal of synthetic chemicals. But it’s time to look behind the big “O” and reevaluate agriculture based on nature rather than industry or regulatory standards. It may be necessary to forego buying Organic if it means supporting healthier, more ecological food production.