Culinary Arts Degree Program:
A.O.S. in Culinary Arts
Let’s face it. Organic is now becoming the very thing to which it was supposed to be an alternative. The contradictory term “industrial organic”—an outcome of large corporate conventional farms trying to grab their slice of the organic pie—is fast replacing its more genuine precursor. We evidently have a serious problem at hand: a dilution, and possibly complete erosion, of what organic really stands for. Should we continue to fight for this seemingly lost cause or has enough damage been done already?
When you think “organic,” like almost every other American consumer, you picture a small local family farm with happy cows grazing on evergreen pastures, chickens running about pecking at worms in the soil, and pesticide-free vegetables of different kinds interspaced beautifully across the landscape. Open your eyes and embrace today’s “industrial organic” farm. Acre after acre of the same crop (most likely corn, lettuce, or broccoli) sucks all life out of the very soil it thrives on. Cattle have “access” to the outdoors but are still fed on “organic feedlots” instead of the much-preferred pastures they’re actually meant to graze. And worst of all, this same “organic food” consumes as much petroleum as its conventional counterpart does to eventually reach the supermarket—a reality that could more adversely affect global warming than your body.
Understand that in the mid 1900s when the “organic movement” came about and long before the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) got involved in the organic scenario, the term meant that the food not only was free from synthetics and genetic engineering but also promoted sustainability (capable of maintaining productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely) in the long term. Having acquired renewed focus from a 1962 book—Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring—documenting the negative implications of chemical use in agriculture, “organic” began to grow rapidly due to expanding consumer opposition to chemical pesticides coupled with a desire for food that was produced without harming the environment. By 1990, estimated sales of more than a billion pushed Congress into passing the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. This act established the framework to create the National Organic Program (NOP), which implemented a stringent NOP certification for organic labeling in October 2002. According to this USDA certification:
“Organic food is [that which is] produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.”
But how can promoting large corporate organic growers whose produce travels thousands of miles to reach the supermarket—instead of the small local farms that probably cannot even afford organic certification—be considered an emphasis on the use of renewable resources? How can growing hundreds of acres of the same crop on the same piece of land and clearly ignoring the implications of not carrying out crop rotation be regarded as enhancing the environmental quality for future generations? Why even have a requirement for cattle to have “access to pasture” and poultry “access to the outdoors” when these loosely defined terms fall at the exploitation of these corporate organic growers?
Now don’t get me wrong. USDA-certified organic food is still considered better both for our health and for the environment. By eliminating the massive quantities of toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (figures placed in millions of tons) used in conventional farming, organic methods help protect the health of our air, water, and soil. The exclusion of synthetic pesticides in produce and growth hormones in livestock also reduces risks of cancer, birth defects, and damage to the nervous and reproductive systems in humans.
There are, however, other relevant issues at hand here. Firstly, the USDA “organic” label only addresses the production side of farming (i.e., the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and Genetically Modified Organisms). It does not check the long-term effect of these farms on the environment and water systems. For example, farms can grow the same crop on the same plot of land over and over again without crop rotation, which is essential to maintain the soil’s fertility.
Another issue of significance is that of exports. As sales of organic food products continue to grow by nearly $2 billion each year, U.S. companies are increasingly being forced to rely on foreign imports in their effort to meet consumer demand. But serious questions remain about the integrity of the inspection and certification process in some countries, especially China. The USDA, in fact, has yet to make an inspection tour of China’s government-controlled certification system, even though the United States is already importing huge amounts of Chinese organic products.
However, the subject of utmost concern today is the industrialization of organic—or at least its consequences. After 35 years of building a multi-billion-dollar replacement for industrial agriculture, large corporations, aided and abetted by the USDA and members of Congress, are now moving to lower organic standards and seize control. According to journalist Michael Pollan of The Omnivore’s Dilemma fame, “Organic is just a word and its definition now lies in the hands of the federal government, which means it is subject to all the usual political and economic forces at play in Washington. Inevitably, the drive to produce organic food cheaply will bring pressure to further weaken the regulations.”
One thing is certain. The word “organic” has been tainted. Today, it’s nearly impossible to buy something that is “organic” in the true sense of the word. Then why bother paying so much (about 50 percent more) for something that is questionable? I am in no way suggesting abandoning organic. I only implore you to first look at your options closer to home. Buying phenomenally fresh local produce from the closest farmer’s market may not always be convenient or even pesticide-free. But it supports the small-scale farmers handicapped by the corporates and carries only a fraction of the foods miles its “industrial organic” counterpart does. An even better bet would be to get involved with CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) like Poughkeepsie Farm Project or Phillies Bridge Farm Project Inc. in New Paltz, where members make a financial commitment to a farm and receive a weekly or monthly basket of produce, eggs, milk, or any sort of different farm products. They may not be as easy as choosing certified “organic,” but most of them have very sustainable farming systems in place. Go for the certified organic in the supermarket when these options are not viable but try and find out about the company’s production methods and make a responsible, informed decision. More importantly, try and stick to what’s available in the season and hence most likely local. Remember, the key word here is local, not organic. As renowned author Wendell Berry puts it, “Eating is an agricultural act.” Treat it that way.
0 comments:
Post a Comment