Who can consumers trust?
02 August 2006 13:50
Luisa Cheshire
As if the organic versus conventional food debate weren’t contentious enough, recent revelations have thrown further controversy into the mix.
In July, A Dallas Morning News investigation discovered serious breaches of national organic standards among USDA-certified products, and found that some so-called organic producers and food manufacturers who consistently flouted USDA organic rules were left unchecked.
In other words, food labelled in US stores as organic might actually contain more man-made chemicals than a beauty parlour.
In the Dallas Morning News report, a USDA spokeswoman admitted the agency hadn’t fined anyone for misuse of the USDA organic label, and revealed that her small team struggled to keep up with the booming industry (see p48).
So, if the USDA isn’t protecting its own organic label, who can consumers trust when they wish to buy organic food?
According to the North American Organic Trade Association (OTA), the USDA is looking into these latest organic-standard complaints. Indeed, as Americafruit Magazine went to press, the USDA announced it was revoking the accreditation of American Food Safety Institute International – an organic certification agency for the National Organic Program.
The USDA issued a final notice to the Wisconsin-based firm after earlier citing "seven serious violations of the NOP regulations". The company may not certify organic producers, handlers, livestock operations and wild crop harvesting operations for at least three years.
But the Dallas Morning News investigation highlights the fact that, when it comes to food, consumers are still at the mercy of everyone in the supply chain.
People tend to buy organic food because they perceive it to be more ‘natural’ than conventional products. What a disappointment, then, to find this may not be the case at all.
Are these breaches just a temporary glitch, or is the organic movement becoming a victim of its own success? Is it possible for organic producers and food manufacturers to stick to their principles and meet the demands of an ever-expanding market? Will we ever really know?
One thing is for sure: more mass-merchandisers are jumping on the organic bandwagon, boosting their organic lines and touting their allegiance as the market swells. According to the OTA, the US organic industry grew 17 per cent overall to reach US$14.6bn in consumer sales in 2005 (see p44-45). Of that, food accounted for US$13.8bn, with fruit and vegetables representing a 39 per cent share.
As organic market leaders, perhaps fresh produce suppliers should set the precedent by always putting consumers first.
As if the organic versus conventional food debate weren’t contentious enough, recent revelations have thrown further controversy into the mix.
In July, A Dallas Morning News investigation discovered serious breaches of national organic standards among USDA-certified products, and found that some so-called organic producers and food manufacturers who consistently flouted USDA organic rules were left unchecked.
In other words, food labelled in US stores as organic might actually contain more man-made chemicals than a beauty parlour.
In the Dallas Morning News report, a USDA spokeswoman admitted the agency hadn’t fined anyone for misuse of the USDA organic label, and revealed that her small team struggled to keep up with the booming industry (see p48).
So, if the USDA isn’t protecting its own organic label, who can consumers trust when they wish to buy organic food?
According to the North American Organic Trade Association (OTA), the USDA is looking into these latest organic-standard complaints. Indeed, as Americafruit Magazine went to press, the USDA announced it was revoking the accreditation of American Food Safety Institute International – an organic certification agency for the National Organic Program.
The USDA issued a final notice to the Wisconsin-based firm after earlier citing "seven serious violations of the NOP regulations". The company may not certify organic producers, handlers, livestock operations and wild crop harvesting operations for at least three years.
But the Dallas Morning News investigation highlights the fact that, when it comes to food, consumers are still at the mercy of everyone in the supply chain.
People tend to buy organic food because they perceive it to be more ‘natural’ than conventional products. What a disappointment, then, to find this may not be the case at all.
Are these breaches just a temporary glitch, or is the organic movement becoming a victim of its own success? Is it possible for organic producers and food manufacturers to stick to their principles and meet the demands of an ever-expanding market? Will we ever really know?
One thing is for sure: more mass-merchandisers are jumping on the organic bandwagon, boosting their organic lines and touting their allegiance as the market swells. According to the OTA, the US organic industry grew 17 per cent overall to reach US$14.6bn in consumer sales in 2005 (see p44-45). Of that, food accounted for US$13.8bn, with fruit and vegetables representing a 39 per cent share.
As organic market leaders, perhaps fresh produce suppliers should set the precedent by always putting consumers first.
|