Organic: a four-letter word? - government policy towards the use of agricultural pesticides

THE WORD ORGANIC seems to embarrass some government officials. Throats are cleared. Collars are loosened. And the conversation turns defensive, as in "We have nothing against organic farmers, but. .."

That's the problem with a new federal program designed to reduce pesticide risks in foods. This grand plan, known as the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, is a collaboration between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 60 major growers' associations. The mission: To encourage farmers to adopt "integrated pest management" practices and use pesticides more "judiciously," according to Martin Lewis, a regulatory impact analyst with the EPA.

If these goals sound a bit vague, they are. The barrier to a more effective, realistic plan, say critics, is that government is dancing around the real solution--going organic. This unwillingness to consider organics as a viable alternative roils Jay Feldman, executive director for the Washington, D.C.-based National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, one of the program's critics: "[The USDA] has to be cautious about organics, because [organics] directly threaten the livelihood of their constituents, who are factory farmers and chemical companies."

But American consumers are demanding a safer food supply, and organic farmers desperately want help from the USDA, which has been promoting chemical farming without regard for natural resources for 50 years. Now it's time for the pendulum to swing in the other direction. "We have gone from the lunatic fringe to the leading edge of agriculture," says Robert Anderson, chairman of the USDA's National Organic Standards Board. Here are some practical steps the federal government can take to really demonstrate a commitment to pesticide risk reduction:

* SPEND MORE ON ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH. The USDA's current budget sets aside between 2 percent and 5 percent of all research moneys for alternative farming; critics say this paltry allowance reflects the agency's meager commitment.

* EDUCATE "EXTENSION AGENTS" ABOUT ORGANIC FARMING. Extension agents are the local government officials who local farmers turn to with agricultural questions. Most are trained in textbook, chemical solutions to farming problems, and know nothing about sustainable practices.

* SUPPORT THE ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT. This bill, which will set national standards for organic farmers to meet, will likely pass this spring. Consumers can therefore enjoy an assurance of quality that conventionally grown produce lacks.

* DISMANTLE THE SUBSIDY SYSTEM. Under the current Farm Bill, farmers are rewarded for growing only one crop--usually wheat or corn. Farmers who want to preserve the soil by diversifying their crops or rotating production schedules lose their subsidies.

* REQUIRE LABELING OF FRUITS THAT MAKE IT TO MARKET COURTESY OF PESTICIDES, WAX, IRRADIATION AND GENETIC ENGINEERING. "If an apple said, 'Sprayed with trihexychlorine, a known carcinogen,' you'd think very seriously about whether you'd buy that apple," Anderson says.

* RECRUIT EXPERTS FROM THE ORGANIC FARMING COMMUNITY TO SHAPE POLICY. "Internally, if [government officials] would learn more about alternative agriculture, they would know that it is a viable production method," says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Greenfield, Mass.-based Organic Trade Association.