Organic The natural choice

Better Nutrition, April, 2000 by Lisa Turner

You're trying to eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean protein. But in this world of modern agriculture, your dark green leafies, brown rice and low-fat tofu may be laced with loads of scary toxins -- not what you wanted on your healthy diet. The solution: make a commitment to organics.

It's the only real assurance you have that your food is safe, healthy and pretty much free of nasty chemicals. Here, Better Nutrition presents a primer on organics, with information on organic laws, the most polluted foods, hints for saving money on organics, and more -- along with ways you can help ensure your right to clean food.

Organic versus natural: what's the difference?

Plenty. Unlike so-called "natural" foods, organically grown and produced foods follow a strict set of guidelines aimed at enhancing the health of people and the planet. According to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.... The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people."

Organic in the legislature: the new organic rules

For many years, organic foods have been certified by independent agencies on a state-by-state basis, but that may soon change. The U.S. government has been mandated since 1990 to create a standardized definition of the word "organic." In late 1997, when USDA released their first version of the new proposed rules for public comment, consumers and the organic industry overwhelmingly rejected it, mainly because it allowed: (1) the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), (2) human waste from sewage treatment plants and (3) food-ionizing radiation (irradiation).

A new proposed Federal rule was expected to be released in February 2000 (as this issue went to press), and industry advocates are optimistic that the revised version will more adequately address the three key issues and concerns. "I think we'll see dramatic improvements over the first proposed rule," says Mark Keating, agricultural marketing specialist with the National Organic Program of the USDA. "We've eliminated the most egregious problems." There are, however, some fears that other unacceptable provisions in the original proposal won't be addressed in the new rules.

"We feel the original proposal gives too much leeway in regard to the care and feeding of livestock -- for example, use of antibiotics and non-organic feed would be allowed," says Brent Weickert, acting executive director of the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) in Newport Beach, California. "In addition, loose wording of the regulation allows loopholes through which synthetic materials and ingredients could be introduced into organic production."

Consumers will once again have the opportunity to respond to the new proposal -- check out the USDA's website (www.ams.usda.gov/nop/) to view the proposed rule and make comments. The public comment period is expected to last from 30 to 90 days. If all goes smoothly, the new rules should be finalized by the end of 2000, and implemented over the following year or two.

In the meantime, "Don't wait for national standards to come out before buying organic," says Betsy Lydon, consumer representative of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and program director of Mothers and Others in New York. "There are plenty of competent private and state-run certifiers, and consumers can buy certified organic with confidence that they do meet good standards."

In our genes: GMOs

Fish genes in your tomatoes? Virus genes in your squash? In the brave new world of genetic engineering, it could happen. The worst part is, under current legislation, you have no way of knowing which of your foods are thus adulterated -- unless you're eating only organic. This is especially true in light of the fact that the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has procedures in place that allow for the deregulation of "genetically engineered organisms to allow for commercialization."

In fact, as of February 9, 2000, the USDA posted a list of 30 "Crop Lines No Longer Regulated by USDA" (www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/not_reg.ht ml) which include genetically engineered varieties of: canola, corn, chicory, soybean, cotton, papaya, squash, potato and tomato put out by such companies/institutions as: Monsanto, DuPont, Calgene, Northrup, Zeneca, Ciba-Geigy and Upjohn.

In other words, unless the "Right to Know" campaign is able to force the USDA to enforce mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (and would this even apply to de-regulated crops?), consumers of non-organic produce and packaged goods containing it would have absolutely no way of knowing whether a given product is the product of genetic engineering.