Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, January 6, 1992 TAG: 9201060217
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By MARILYNN LARKIN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
BACK TO THE EARTH
OVER THE next two years, the Department of Agriculture will spend millions of dollars deciding what "organic foods" are.Under the 1990 farm bill, the deadline for setting up a National Standards Board to adjudicate this lofty question is September 1993. Between now and then, however, the department will need to answer some very basic questions: What are organic foods? And are they safer, or more nutritious, than other foods we eat?
Unfortunately, even ardent supporters of the new provisions can't agree on a definition of organic foods or how to certify that a product meets the criteria.
Like many Americans, I came of age in the '60s and '70s, when purchasing organic foods was the "in" thing among middle-class suburbanites. For those of us enamored by the back-to-the-earth movement, the rule of thumb was: the worse the produce looked, and the more it cost, the better it must be. Fortunately for my pocketbook, those days came and went pretty fast.
The government has now, in effect, given its blessing to the "organic" (or natural) food designation. Unlike the Kosher food designation, however, this sanction comes from the legislature - not from a higher authority. And it comes without guidelines.
In truth, all foods are organic. There are no inorganic foods. What the term, organic, usually means is: foods grown with no chemicals; grown with fewer chemicals; or grown using old-fashioned farming methods.
The assumption, of course, is that organic food is safer, more nutritious, better for you than ordinary supermarket fare.
Says one leading figure of modern agricultural chemicals: "There isn't any safe level" at all. While such thinking may appeal to the sprouts and quiche crowd, it comes as news to the scientific community.
To the contrary, even the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recommends that Americans increase their consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, noting that the potential benefits far outweigh the potential small risks from increased exposure to pesticide residues.
Currently, several states have standards by which they certify that foods are organically produced. Most of them make such determinations by hiring one of the more than 30 private organizations that do this - each of which uses different criteria.
Organic-food advocates claim that consumers pay anywhere from 3 percent to 5 percent more for organic produce. Surveys suggest the costs frequently are far higher - up to 176 percent more, according to one study. Still, eating organic is like a religion to some people.
The back-to-the-earth crowd has been amazingly effective in eroding consumer confidence in the way food is produced and processed in the United States.
There is no evidence that organically grown foods are any better or any safer than those produced using modern technology.
The fact that the government already spends millions of dollars ensuring the safety of the food supply almost seems beside the point.
Marilynn Larkin is a free-lance health and medical writer. This commentary was excerpted from an article in the summer issue of Priorities.