Start of excerpt-
The USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.
The market's expansion is fueling tension over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of "organic" or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to let more products in.
In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers who are hired by farmers and food producers and inspect products to determine whether they can use the label.
Some consumer groups and members of Congress say they worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself.
"It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."
Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.
end of excerpt
-
-
-
-
- current89
- added this
-
@ophile on twitter says "interesting article on "organics"."
-
-
-
-
- twitterbot
- 4 months ago
-
-
I think that they laws should be much more strict than what they are simply because as a consumer if I am to purchase an organic peach for a price that is three times higher than what the average peach is then I expect it to be fully organic with no pesticides or harmful Cetitves.
-
-
-
-
- moonzNstarz
- 4 months ago
-
-
I know California has very strict standards for the organic label, it may even be higher than the federal labeling laws.
I sincerely hope the organic labeling gets stricter, rather than lax.
I don't want GM or pesticide laden foods. That's the main reason I don't buy foods that are out of season and have to be imported from elsewhere. -
"...interpretation of "organic" or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances..."
well now, thats deceitful...best to grow your own or buy local (check out http://www.localharvest.org) 'cus you know the government is dipping everything in chemibaths and blasting it with UV before it enters our bellies.
-
-
-
-
- Bigdog_mike
- 4 months ago
-
-
Hrm, hopefully they can get this sorted out. I love my organic foods (when I can afford them) and think it's sad that the quality of organics could fall to shambles due to some lazy law enforcement.
-
This is a growing problem.
When and if you can, go to a farmers market - buy local.
-
how frustrating! don't they know that in order to expand the market they have to entice consumers to buy organics buy making it somehow easier to produce but not by lowering standards? are they seriously trying to turn organic produce into just another factory farming industry that isn't healthy for anyone?
if i buy organic, it doesn't matter about the money, it's about the quality. and if a farmer wants to go organic they need to make damn sure that the integrity of the product is intact and enforced. i don't really know if my opinion has been portrayed accurately because i'm kind of just running in circles, but DAMN, this cannot happen.
