USDA's Organic Standards Rejected
But the Fights Not Over
by Michael Colby

The US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) unseemly foray into the world of organic agriculture became official last December with the release of its National Organic Standards, a dismal, dumbed-down, 600-plus-page document with one ultimate purpose: the further industrialization of organic agriculture.

From the very first call for federal organic standards in 1990, Food & Water has opposed the concept of adopting national standards for a form of agriculture that has long celebrated its decentralized roots.

These proposed new standards are grounded in corporate attempts to nationalize, globalize and centralize organic food production, and cannot be "fixed." Instead, we must seize this opportunity to reject the USDA's crippling organic standards. We must create a new food movement encompassing the social and ecological ideals beyond the grasp of federal bureaucracies.

Here Come The Feds
To understand just how ridiculous the USDA's meddling in organics actually is, consider USDA Secretary Dan Glickman's caveat as he unveiled the new standards: "I want to make it clear that these (organic) rules are not about creating a category of agriculture that is safer than any other."

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

As an agency that has had nothing but disdain for organic agriculture, the motives behind the USDA's new commitment to ensuring low standards are obvious: to pave the way for the commodification and centralization of organics. As multinational agribusiness corporations increasingly seek an entry into the booming organics market, they need plenty of regulatory cover, particularly when they get around to "taking organics global."

Many in the mainstream have deluded themselves that such growth in the production and consumption of organic food products is positive. We find nothing redeeming in the fact that H.J. Heinz now owns Earth's Best Baby Foods, M&M-Mars owns Seeds of Change, and Whole Foods is running roughshod over a once-thriving cooperative food movement.

If the question is whether H.J. Heinz, M&M-Mars and Whole Foods should use toxic pesticides, the answer is obviously "no," they should not. And if we had a federal government and a democracy that truly reflected the will of the people, policies outlawing the use of those poisons would be in place.

But we must go deeper than that. In the pursuit of sane and sustainable food systems, we must take into account factors beyond a simple list of what chemicals farmers can and cannot use. In addition to banning toxic pesticides, we must demand that our food supply not become another weapon used to benefit multinational corporations against the best interests of individuals, communities and the environment. Issues of scale, economic concentration, transportation, resource conservation, animal welfare, farmer and farmworker justice and environmental stewardship - as well as a much-needed emphasis on local production and consumption - must be the centerpieces of a politicized food movement.

The conservative produce-trade publication The Packer provided the best analysis of the new organic standards:

"Is organics a movement or a business?" asked The Packer's Larry Waterfield in an editorial shortly after the USDA announced its organic standards. "Well, it used to be a movement towards environmentally-friendly food production; now it's a business." And it's the business side of organic agriculture that seems delighted with the prospects of an organic Twinky or Pepsi-Cola.

The industrialization of organics through national standards promotes anonymity, the consumers not knowing - or even caring - who produced the food and where. And it's this kind of thinking that has hijacked the organic food industry.

As for where the food was grown; how farmworkers are treated; the amounts of fossil fuels used to produce and transport food and any connection with, or support for, struggling local farmers; we are seduced into not worrying about it. God forbid that the happy organic shopping experience be interrupted by a bit of reality.

Chasing Their Tails (Again)
Most of the action alerts sent out by activist groups centered around the USDA's potential inclusion of irradiation, sewage sludge and genetic-engineering as approved "organic" practices. But wrangling about irradiation, sludge, and genetic engineering, we fell for the red herring. The entire concept of "national organic standards" is destructive. It puts us in the position of begging for insignificant changes to something we should not be asking for in the first place.

In the peculiar reasoning of the USDA, it makes sense that irradiation would be included in any attempt to industrialize organics. Putting organic agriculture on the well-greased path of unchecked growth and corporate concentration inevitably means the organic industry will get bigger, dirtier and less accountable. But with nuclear-waste-powered irradiation units waiting at the end of the line, Presto! - the problem of dirty organics will be "solved."

Creating The New Movement
Regarding organics, the USDA is here to stay. It appears we're faced with two distinct possibilities: beg and whine for better standards, or get on with the necessary work of building real food security.

When the ideals of a movement become the fodder for federal bureaucracies, it's obviously time to move on. When the so-called food revolution (formerly known as organic agriculture) becomes just another opportunity for economic expansion, it ceases to be a revolution. Just as the word "natural" has been so disturbingly devalued and rendered meaningless, "organic" is on the same path.

We need to challenge basic assumptions of a market-based food system incapable of comprehending its own destructive tendencies. Munching a cheap organic carrot shipped from South America may make a Vermonter feel virtuous, but what about the issues of scale, transportation, and resource conservation? If we're serious about "saving the family farm." shouldn't we start by rooting our diets in the foods produced locally?

The more we strive to shorten the distance between ourselves and our food supply, the less anonymous it becomes and the more direct accountability there is between producer and consumer.

The ultimate certifier for food products should not be the federal government, but rather a relationship of trust among producer, consumer and community. Certification should be done on at most a local or regional level, with an understanding of local, social, ecological and economic needs.

Producing your own food, getting to know your farmer, visiting farmers' markets, active involvement in co-ops, or diligently shunning monopolized food supplies are certainly not simple actions. But they're necessary if our goal is to fundamentally change a very destructive food system and the underlying culture that makes it possible.

- Excerpted from Food & Water Journal [389 Rt. 215, Walden VT 05873, (802 ) 563- 3300. $25 a year].