Organic Food: Cutting Through The Confusion

As a third-generation insider and granddaughter of the original organic iconoclast, I've seen the evolution of the organic food industry happen in real time. Slow-motion real time. (My grandfather started Organic Gardening magazine in 1942 -- although truthfully, I wasn't born until 1962.) On October 13, 2010, the current leaders of the organic movement in America convened at the Fourth Annual Organic Summit in Boston. Topics ranged from the challenges of procuring organic ingredients, to overall trends and perceptions of consumers, to strategies for defending against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to ways of overcoming the seemingly hardwired American preference for everything cheap.

But three major issues became abundantly clear as the day wore on in that windowless, generic hotel ballroom -- three major issues that could affect every single person on this planet for better or for worse.

1. Americans are very confused about what organic is and is not, and why organic matters. The majority of Americans think foods with the word "natural" on them are better and safer than "organic." And yet there are no governmental safety standards for using the word "natural." Natural, in fact, means nothing. But it's a happy word, so food companies slap it on anything they can to make their products sell better.

The proliferation of other labels: "beyond organic," "locally grown," "humanely raised," "free range" and "sustainable" adds to the confusion. And when people are confused (and frankly, many times even when they are not confused), they revert to their primary emotional driver of decisions, which is most often price. So they choose the cheapest food rather than the safest for the planet. That confusion plays right into the hands of the chemical food industry.

More from MensHealth.com:
11 Easy Ways to Go Organic
15 Ways to Change the World (and Your Life)
The 125 Best Foods for Men

2. The organic industry must focus on clearing up that confusion and communicating why organic food is so important and the safest food you can buy. We, in the organic industry, have spent most of our time and energy trying to prove that organic is more nutritious, when instead, as Kanthe Shelke from Corvus Blue (a nutritional technology think tank) told us, we should be focusing on "what organic does not have." Organic foods do not have neurotoxin pesticides, endocrine disruptors, herbicides and other chemicals, which some doctors and scientists believe might play a role in everything from diabetes and obesity to infertility, autism and cancer -- especially childhood leukemia.

The medical studies that support these seemingly inflammatory hypotheses do exist, and they are not getting picked up by the media. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has even issued a call for a moratorium on GMO foods because it has seen evidence of liver, kidney, and digestive failure as well as infertility and accelerated aging (hello, Hollywood, are you listening?). But it's almost too late already, since over 75 percent of all processed (non organic) foods in America already include GMOs. The tragedy of this statistic is that the pollen from these plants has been unleashed into our environment and can't ever be reined back in.

For any environmentalist to not be a raving organic supporter is outrageous. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by agricultural runoff all the way down the Mississippi, existed even before the BP oil gusher -- and this year it is the largest it has ever been. A giant dead zone is what the whole world is headed for if we don't stand up and do a better job of educating the American public. Colony collapses affecting our bees, frog mutations and amphibian declines, jaw deformities in the wildlife of our national parks (which yes, use chemicals like crazy), and the melting polar caps can all be attributed to agricultural chemicals.

Finally, here's what organic does not do: destroy the soil, which destroys the carbon-capturing capability of our planet, which destroys our atmosphere and causes global warming. Numerous studies have shown that chemical agriculture destroys soil structure, leading quickly to desertification and even more quickly to way too much carbon dioxide leaching into the atmosphere. Yes, it's complicated. But we can't keep living on this planet if we don't start understanding this and paying attention to it soon.

3. If we are going to save the world, we will have to unite and work together instead of fighting among ourselves. One thing is true about Americans, if you believe what you see in the TV ratings, we prefer arguing to action. But there comes a time when all that philosophical hot air (left and right, mind you) needs to take a back seat to true responsibility.

What does that mean for the organic world? We actually have enough scientific evidence to know that modern organic farming is our best shot at long-term survival for all, so now it's time to unite and focus on what is most important. The vegetarians need to get along with the omnivores. The locavores need to draft a peace treaty with the fair traders. Slow foodies will need to hang out a bit more with the fast foodies. Those who support their local, small family farmer will have to learn to appreciate industrial organic, which feeds a lot of people without creating tons of toxic waste. And we all need to start singing from the same songbook.

"Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of ineffective communications," one speaker at the summit said. And while we have each been singing our own songs and marching to the beats of different drums, chemical companies -- including Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Pioneer, Cargill, ADM and DuPont -- have been making huge profits with the financial and legislative support of our government. But here is the good news: Despite all our stumbling and well-meaning confusion and the worst economic times since the Great Depression, the organic industry grew 5.3 percent in 2009. The USDA Certified Organic label is still the strongest, safest and most trustworthy label available to consumers and is backed up by independent testing. Many of the longtime leaders who spoke at the summit have already exceeded their expectations of success.

So now, together, we are all standing on a precipice. We can all work together to build the road to the other side (where the water is pure and clean, the children are healthy and strong, the air and soil and forests alive and thriving). Or we can continue to go our separate ways, each one thinking his own path is the best path, and creating a web of meandering, poorly marked trails that lead in circles going nowhere fast.

The first step is supporting the USDA Organic Label, supporting certified organic farmers, buying certified organic foods, and not being embarrassed or apologetic for using the word "organic." The scientific evidence exists to prove it is safer and healthier for everyone and the environment. Now it's time for action. It's time to demand organic, support organic, buy organic, and protect and defend organic. It's our best hope for a healthy future for us all.

Maria Rodale is CEO and Chairman of Rodale Inc., and the author of "Organic Manifesto."

Comments

[Christie Buchovecky]

11:18 AM on 11/07/2010

Since the author never actually states what organic really means, though she points out that it is often incorrectly conflated with words like natural, I thought it would be helpful to have this definition from the USDA website so we all know we're talking about the same thing:
"Foods are produced without antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, irradiation or bioengineering. Organic farmers are required to adhere to certain soil and water conservation methods and to rules about the humane treatment of animals." http://usda-fda.com/articles/organic.htm
I have to say, as a poor graduate student, I don't go out of my way to buy organic, but I'm very much for the limitation of antibiotic, hormone, and pesticide release into the environment, water conservation, and humane treatment of animals.
I'm not sure about the irradiation thing, not having read up on it, but from my limited understanding, I suspect that irradiated crops are not harmful to us, but may have lowered levels of certain nutrients.
The bioengineering thing, however, is nothing but a boogeyman. There is nothing scary about GM in concept. Adding one or two genes isn't likely to change the organism in unpredicted ways. In practice, yes, we have to study each mutant individually and be vigilant to prevent cross-pollination.
That said, I did a project in college where we identified modified elements in soy beans that were labeled "organic". Just know the regulations aren't as strict as you think they are.

[KarlaElisa]

10:07 PM on 01/03/2011

"The bioenginee­ring thing, however, is nothing but a boogeyman. There is nothing scary about GM in concept. Adding one or two genes isn't likely to change the organism in unpredicte­d ways."

Wrong. It does change things in unpredicted ways. It turns on and off genes in plants that we have no way of knowing what the end result is. The built in pesticides are IN the food. The Round up Ready seeds allow a plant to be sprayed with that chemical killing everything but the plant. A super resistant Pig Weed has been born out of this and now occupies what was formerly 10k plus acres where cotton used be grown.

Super weeds, super bugs and contamination of NON GMO crops...like the heirloom crops I'm growing here are a pretty big thing in my world. I save seeds. I grow over 3/4 of my own food. I don't WANT to eat their crap.

I appreciate most of your post but that last bit on the GE stuff is not true. There IS no way to prevent cross pollination. It's happened, its happening and typically when it does, it's Monsanto that sues the person whose crops were violated, not the other way around. That's 'legal' for a reason. That company has every intention of ensuring all food is somehow patented and under their control.

[FatherDannanTavonaDD]

03:02 AM on 01/04/2011

Besides the mal.feasance of the chemical companies. Physicians for Social Responsibility has been working hard nationwide, in cooperation with other health conscious groups to ban rBGH and rBGT from dairy products. The FDA says these are not harmful, but there is a lot of growing evidence that is just not so. Mon.santo was so alarmed, they sold their hormone manufacturing plant to another company this past spring. However, their ev.il practices continue in other areas. Many farmers cannot buy anything BUT GMO-seeds, because the distributors and/or the farmers have signed contracts, and if they break the contract, they lose everything.
http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-to-fight-potential-lawsuit-by-organic-farmer-whose-land-ruined-by-gmos/
The biological dangers listed in the article were underplayed, but are real. Even hormones from various sources (most are not even monitored, and pass through sewage treatments unchanged) have contaminated the water supplies in the eastern seaboard -- affecting fish, amphibians, and young children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen#Environmental_effects
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/sex-hormones-mood-stabili_n_90714.html
Check the latest Frank.en.stein., the GMO salmon. FDA approves this creature even though they found "gaps" in the research!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html
Organ failures? How about this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

[LalaSmiles]

01:21 AM on 11/07/2010

hmmm..."we in the organic industry" - does anybody else feel bothered by this expression? Industry: a branch of commercial enterprise concerned with the output of a specified product or service. The opposite of what I understand organic farming should be.

It is common sense, that naturally/organic food is healthy food. Good for us, good for the environment and good for the small-scale farmers who produce it. Organic farmers preserve biodiversity by e.g. collecting seeds, growing heirloom varieties of plants, and enrich the soil with manure and compost.

We need to get back to the roots and change our mindset regarding food in general. You support your local famers, when buying at local farmers markets. Buy seasonal food according to your geographical location. Who needs strawberries in the middle of the winter? You may want them, but you don’t need them.

Replace quantity, with quality.

[Titanshanks]

11:44 PM on 11/06/2010

I'd need to see some sources. I'm all for organic, but some of the stats Rodale tossed around there really need to be supported, along with that claim about GMO foods (which ones?) causing organ failures.

[onionboy]

04:53 PM on 11/08/2010

Organic also need to come to some sort of position on GMO foods that won't make organic farmers sound wacky and they (meaning the group as a whole, not necessarily individuals) haven't done that. GMO is a competitor to organic in that in some cases GMO does not utilize pesticides. That's what some of the modifications are for. Pesticides are expensive, so large-scale farms have no problem paying the extra for the GMO and dropping pesticides. GMO can also benefit consumers in that they're produce (tomatoes for one) don't rot as quickly. Now, if you buy local and not trucked, you can achieve the same effect. I'm not pitching for either GMO or organic. I'm just saying that the "organic industry" has not really figured out how to communicate their advantages over GMO other than too just trying to scare people by saying "genetically modified" a lot.

There does seem to be some realization in this article that the "organic" label is not a help and spooks most people as much as "genetically modified" everywhere in the country except for coastal urban environments. So, pushing for what is "left out" is a smart start.

[Christopher Stevens70]

11:17 PM on 11/06/2010

It's all a conspiracy.

[DonVitoCorleone]

08:34 PM on 11/06/2010

My only concern with organics is that when I go to the supermarket, virtually all the organics comes from California (I live in Wisconsin). Importing food that distance is counterproductive. Farmer's markets are great, but even the Madison Farmer's market, which is one of the largest, if not the largest in the country, still has venders drive relatively small amounts of produce over a hundred miles one way. Ultimately, the best bet is to grow your own. I have two good sized community plots and a garden in my back yard. Granted I'm a bit obsessed, but it supplies all my produce in the summer, and most in the fall and winter. Moreover, I know exactly how everything is grown, with a carbon footprint which is about zip.

[Christie Buchovecky]

11:23 AM on 11/07/2010

I'm with you there, I'm pro-organic in that the movement has led in sustainable farming. Now that it's going corporate, the only benefit you really get is not having to wash your veggies before you bite into them to get rid of the pesticides (and clearly not washing pesticides into the environment). Of course, with all the salmonella and E. coli scares lately, I'm not about to stop washing things before I eat them; organic is no protection against that.

[deweydecimal]

08:33 PM on 11/06/2010

Thousands upon thousands of scientific papers are published every year yet you take a non-peer reviewed position paper by the AAEM written using research DECADES old to make the case against GMOs.

Like electoral polling, because of the sheer body of work that scientists are continually publishing it is possible to "cherry pick" findings.

Let's see some metastudies, PNAS proceedings, 1st tier journal articles etc. etc. on the issue. It really irritates me when people link or refer to non-peer reviewed "scientific papers" to try to lend weight to their opinions.

[Titanshanks]

11:48 PM on 11/06/2010

Thank you, fanned and faved. People need to get over this belief that GMOs are somehow magical, and evaluate them on an individual basis. Generalized nonsense like the statement that GMO food leads to organ failure doesn't help.

[onionboy]

05:06 PM on 11/08/2010

I remember 15 years ago when those slow-rot tomatoes came out. Before that, grocery store tomatoes literally went bad in 2-3 days. I ate all but one and just left it in my vegetable drawer. It was well over a week before it got even slightly soft. Call me crazy, but it would seem that, for people who can't get any locally, that those GMO tomatoes are good way to not waste food. That was the boon for me. So, I agree, everything should be evaluated as an individual product.

[KarlaElisa]

10:16 PM on 01/03/2011

And the peer reviewed papers that support GMO's are from whom? Scientists working for the industry, Scientists getting massive grants at their colleges from the industry....they do not allow independent, not under their thumb scientific studies due to 'trade secrets'. That and the fact that Monsanto has openly declared they wish to control the food supply globally along with suing, harrassing and intimidating the pants off seed savers, non gmo seed crop farmers whose crops get contaminated by open pollinated crops.

No. We were growing crops we knew were safe for thousands of years. This GMO crap came along over the last 3 decades and we saw our government turn into their pushers. Look at the Wikileak cables regarding France and Spain. Spain wanted to write laws that said if the GMO crops contaminated a non gmo grower they could sue. Our Ambassador stated 'we need to get that language changed'.

You'll not convince me that the rise in diabetes, obesity, leukemia, cancers, asthma and allergies isn't directly related with this kind of background with this industry. That you willingly accept it because what....Monsanto and the USG said it was safe is beyond unnerving.

Since when do either do anything that isn't geared to simply lay profits at the doorstep of big Corporations? Besides, the problems I listed are making Big Pharma rich to boot.

[FatherDannanTavonaDD]

03:17 AM on 01/04/2011

Yes! Big pharma has no interest in curing anyone. Cure it, and the customer does not come back. It is more profitable to have people sick and continue treating their symptoms. The only legal requirement of any corporation is to make money for their stockholders. Any desire for ethical behavior must be enforced by diligent agents of the government. We gave that up when we allowed those policed to do their own studies, to fund the agency charged with protecting us (FDA gets more than 50 percent of its operating funds from those it supervises), and allow its members to be hired by the FDA (and go back to private industry, almost at will). Those who believe these corporations will behave decently are, to put it kindly, engaging in wishful thinking.

These issues -- food, drugs, illnesses, rising medical costs -- are interlocked. 2,7 lobbyists for each member of congress. And the rate is growing.

[citizen625]

04:51 PM on 11/06/2010

It may be necessary to use fears of tech foods to advance the cause of organic. The people who own agribusiness only care about winning; just witness who represents them. Because agribusiness will do or say anything to win market share, the organic, local, slow food people have to accept that they will need to use every tool of persuasion if the idea is to reach like-minded people. Education takes time; unfortunately, fear is visceral. The wholesome food movement needs to be the one to define the terms and affix the labels of its movement.
We need to understand that we will be outspent and have the government used against us. When you have Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLaurio and her Monsanto paid husband writing food safety legislation, it stands to reason the small, local, responsive, under-represented producers will be squeezed and pushed aside.
Just as it is likely that there are many people who don't want to use fear as a tool, there is also a place for the small sound-byte information whether you approve of it or not. Most people don't realize that the number one production objective of the food business is to sell you as much water as possible. It is the cheapest ingredient to produce. Same with salt. And sugar. Etc. So as long as you can repeatedly eat and buy their watery, sugary, salty stuff and want more, agribusiness and industrial food suppliers are happy. They fund the Institute of Food Technologists.

[Natural Health Guide]

04:45 PM on 11/06/2010

It is very important to buy organic food as often as possible. It may be more expensive, but it's worth the cost to your health. And if you have even the smallest amount of space for a garden, you can always grow your own. Though more human studies are necessary, a number of animal studies have proven that GMOs can be a serious danger to your health.

Why organic food is better: http://www.natural-health-guide.com/benefits-of-organic-food.html

Why GM foods should be avoided: http://www.natural-health-guide.com/genetically-modified-food.html

[Christie Buchovecky]

11:38 AM on 11/07/2010

I have to ask, are you against all GM foods? What about those that don't add pesticides? GM can also be used to enrich foods for certain proteins. It's not done so much in the US because we eat a varied diet, so it's not needed, but it's common in poorer countries.

Also, I'm not 100% sure on this point, but I THINK at least some GM crops produce pesticides only their non-edible tissues. If it's not being done yet, it very well could be; you can protect an ear of corn by expressing the chemical only in the husk and stalk. Since you don't eat these parts, you don't get significant levels of exposure.

[FatherDannanTavonaDD]

03:35 AM on 01/04/2011

Most of these chemicals pass through cell barriers just fine. You're thinking these plants are sectioned off, like neighborhoods. These are living organisms, and the entire plant is serviced by the same system.
Science may be advancing, but they are experi.menting on us. There is so much about genetics we just don't know. And more so, while we may know the overall code sequence, we don't know what it all means, nor do we understand the gestalt of how blocks of DNA might interact with other blocks. We are just beginning to have an idea from having worked with billions of generations of fruit flies. Many of which ended prematurely from various malformations. I'd rather not be their guinea pig so they can learn about how it affects humans.

[Jason Bussell]

03:40 PM on 11/06/2010

Can someone post links to the studies that show the gmo's health detriments. And those showing the increased nutritional content in organic food? I always tell my patients to eat more organic, but I would like to have some more info to back up that suggestion.

[BettyEverdene]

09:56 AM on 11/07/2010

This Huff Post article has many live links to studies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/will-genetically-modified_b_145320.html - Also this article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html
Try - http://www.organicconsumers.org/ for updates on GMOs and the struggle to keep organics. Monsanto is currently patenting GMO seeds and buying up seed companies.

[KarlaElisa]

10:22 PM on 01/03/2011

Physicians for Social Responsibility in Oregon have a Food Safety Campaign. They have list of links you can peruse for information: http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/safe-food/safefoodlinks.html

[FatherDannanTavonaDD]

03:37 AM on 01/04/2011

Awesome group! From doing my own blood sugar, commercial rBGH milk will spike my blood sugar over 100 points. Organic milk raises it about 5 points. For me, it's a done deal.

[atcrossroads]

02:11 PM on 11/06/2010

Thanks for a great article, Maria. Where I live it is not always easy to get organic produce, but my little vegetable patch expands year by year, and I added chickens to the garden this year as well, for eggs and insect control. I know there is a lot of confusion about organic foods, and whether there are advantages to it or not. But your point 2 sums up my motivation exactly - it is not so much about the nutritional value of organic foods, it is more about avoiding all the chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, etc, that comes with non-organic food.