PrintInorganic Organics OK with the USDA
Andrew Martin reported in the New York Times yesterday that "the Department of Agriculture, the final arbiter of all things organic, is poised to approve a list of nonorganic ingredients that can be used in food stamped with its green-and-white organic seal."
I for one find this whole argument really silly.
I'm outraged that the folks at the Department of Agriculture are approving the use of inorganically made fructoolighsaccharidies in organic processed foods. I've always found organic fructoolighsaccharidies to be so much tastier.
Just kidding. I just wanted to use fructoolighsaccharidies in a sentence a couple of times.
This whole argument is getting really silly. Processed food, whether it's made with inorganic or organic ingredients, is still processed food. When John Foraker, chief executive of Annie's Homegrown, says things like "Organic annatto is not readily available and does not deliver the same cheese color. Making orange colored macaroni and cheese is an important element of our offering. Without annatto, our macaroni-and-cheese products would be white," he totally misses the point.
Eating an organic Dorito is no better for you than a regular one, and I for one like Doritos a lot. The industrial organic movement is merely a marketing ploy, and it seems like it's a mighty effective one at that. These kinds of silly arguments about the use of inorganic additives in processed food deflect attention from the real food issue facing all of us, namely how we as a culture reconcile sustainability with pleasure, health, and affordability.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
6 Comments:
To me, the battle was lost when the USDA decided that "organic" meant "95% organic," like a circle means "mostly round." I believe that "organic" is as much as a marketing ploy as "natural." It's the romantic aspect of food lovers who rate Annie's Homegrown as better than Kraft. There is little separating the two. Full disclosure: I eat both.
Lou at 6:23PM on 06/12/07
Well, Mr. Levine, excuse me, but I think that your comment "Just kidding. I just wanted to use fructoolighsaccharidies in a sentence a couple of times" lends an air of "acceptance" or “acquiesce” to the problem.
And the "problem", as I perceive it, is one of ripping off us consumers:
with "false claims";
with "marketing hype",
with "government, read that 'politician' bullsh**.' . . . as orchestrated by the Republicans and by the Bush Administration.
I agree with Lou with his comment on "romantic aspect(s)”, but I wonder about his "Full disclosure."
Are we supposed to give up that easily?
Are we destined to allow f****** politicians to determine what is "good" for us and what is NOT "good" for us.
I sincerely hope not.
DocChuck at 7:54PM on 06/12/07
It's curious to me that after arguing for years that organic food is better for the environment while no one else cared, "advanced" food thinkers are conceding that its not so important now that it"s become popular and widely available at low prices. Now the emphasis is on "local" and "sustainable" and other characteristics that make food more expensive. I assume that when the capitalists figure out how to make "local" and "sustainable" food widely available at low prices, those in the know will move on to some other bit of unobtanium. The odor of elitism pervades and is a bit sickening.
As to disclosure, there is always a threshold below which characteristics don't matter. The only interesting question is just where that threshold should be. For example, most naturally occurring food has some amount of trace poisons (lead, arsenic, etc.) and some radiation. I don't know whether 95% or 99.5% is the right number, but there is SOME number at which we can say "the rest doesn't matter", even about "organic".
gustoct at 9:47AM on 06/13/07
So what do we do about this? I mean, is there a way to tell the FDA that this is not acceptable to us consumers? Weren't they created to help safeguard our health?
JoAnn at 11:37AM on 06/13/07
As a legal matter under the Administrative Procedure Act, the FDA is supposed to put a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (probably also be available on its website), invite comments and take them into account in issuing its rule. You enter the comments by directing them in writing to a "docket" which has a unique number for this rule. Many agencies (all?) let you do this on their website. If it's not too late, a blizzard of negative comments addressed to the proposed rule and suggesting a threshold (zero is technically acceptable, but not likely to be adopted by the agency, but if enough people suggest zero then that might pul, the agency farther in their direction) which is considerably smaller than what they have proposed.
gustoct at 4:57PM on 06/13/07
Yes, organic junk food is still junk food. But keep in mind that organic farming has impacts far beyond what's in the package. When farmers stop using chemical biocides, chemical fertilizer and other toxic inputs, nearby (and not so nearby) wildlife benefits, the workers are exposed to fewer toxins, and the land might be improved.
The June 13 Ethicurean Digest had two relevant items, one about how the population of river otters in Great Britain has been recovering since certain pesticides were banned, and another about how massive use of chemical fertilizers in the Midwest is causing a "dead zone" at the outlet of the Mississippi River.
Marc at 11:03AM on 06/14/07