Issues with organic certification

[Guest guest]

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia. Does anyone see a parallel between what is happening here and the FDA approval process for drugs that locks out small businesses and natural and inexpensive products?Certification issues

Organic certification is not without its critics. Some of the staunchest opponents of chemical-based farming and factory farming

practices, also oppose formal certification. They see it as a way to

drive independent organic farmers out of business, and to undermine the

quality of organic food. Other organizations such as the Organic Trade Association

work within the organic community to foster awareness of legislative

and other related issues, and enable the influence and participation of

organic proponents.

 

Obstacle to small independents

Originally, in the 1960s through the 1980s, the organic food industry comprised mainly small, independent farmers, selling locally. Organic "certification" was a matter of trust, based on a direct relationship between farmer and consumer. Critics view regulatory certification as a potential barrier to entry for small producers, by burdening them with increased costs, paperwork, and bureaucracy.

The pressures of certification on the small farmer producing for the local food market are real and significant, particularly for mixed vegetable

production. For instance, certified organic seed is expensive, and the

selection is limited: currently, organic seed generally costs 30-50% more than that of uncertified seed, and only a handful of varieties of each crop

are available, compared to dozens of varieties in uncertified seed.

Seed producers face the same constraints in certification as do organic

farmers, however, unlike farmers who choose to farm organically for an

identified market, the majority of smaller scale demand is for

uncertified seed. Also, the detailed record-keeping formats, from

planting to harvest, are usually designed for larger, single-crop

harvests; observed strictly, the paperwork can be onerous for farmers

harvesting a wide variety of crop in small quantities on daily or

weekly schedules. Balancing strict, rule-based certification with

practical concerns such as these necessitates "case-by-case" exceptions

for all but the biggest organic farmers to survive within the system.

Regardless of the intentions, strict certification in practice favors

large-scale production.

 

Manipulation of regulations

Critics of formal certification also fear an erosion of organic

standards. Provided with a legal framework within which to operate, lobbyists

can push for amendments and exceptions favorable to large-scale

production, resulting in "legally organic" products produced in ways

similar to current conventional food. Combined with the fact that

organic products are now sold predominantly through high volume

distribution channels such as supermarkets,

the concern is that the market is evolving to favor the biggest

producers, and this could result in the small organic farmer being

squeezed out.

Manipulation of certification regulations as a way to mislead or

outright dupe the public is a very real concern. Some examples are

creating exceptions (allowing non-organic inputs to be used without

loss of certification status) and creative interpretation of standards

to meet the letter, but not the intention, or particular rules. For

example, a complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against a

food ingredient producer and its certifying agent charged that tap

water had been certified organic, and advertised for use in a variety

of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them

"organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting

mainly of tap water introduced during the distilling process, were

certified organic, and promoted as an organic base that could then be

used in a claim of organic content. The case was dismissed by the USDA,

as the products had been actually used only in personal care products,

over which the department at the time extended no labelling control.

The company subsequently adjusted its marketing by removing reference

to use of the extracts in food products. Several months later, the USDA

extended its organic labelling to personal care products; this

complaint has not been refiled.[1]

 

Misrepresentation of the term organic

The word organic is central to the certification (and organic

food marketing) process, and this is also questioned by some. Where

organic laws exist, producers cannot use the term legally without

certification. To bypass this legal requirement for certification,

various alternative certification approaches, using currently undefined

terms like "authentic" and "natural" instead of "organic", are

emerging. In the US, motivated by the cost and legal requirements of

certification (as of Oct. 2002), the private farmer-to-farmer

association, Certified Naturally Grown,

offers a "non-profit alternative eco-labelling program for small farms

that grow using USDA Organic methods but are not a part of the USDA

Certified Organic program."[2]

A related concern holds that certification is replacing consumer education, and this goes against the essential, holistic nature of organic farming. By reducing complex issues and regulations to a simple, convenient certified organic

label, consumers may more easily ignore the principles and practices

behind organics, leaving the definition of organic farming and organic

food open to manipulation.