Mis-Informed on an 'Organic' Scale

Are you tired of being inundated with claims by expert nutritionists of sorts, that 'organic' foods are tastier, more nutritious, and better for one's health overall? I am.

If we assume the above-mentioned claims of organic foods are true, so then, where is the empirical evidence to support these such claims? Oh, I see.... I am supposed to blindly subscribe to this quasi-power of suggestion because someone, a so-called certified nutritionist, said so. Hmmmmnn....

**News Flash!** Genetically modified agriculture or foodstuffs are not considered organic!

Here's another tid bit of information, most plants produce their own natural pesticides called tannins - you know, for survival of the species. Tannins are naturally occuring plant polyphenols that act as a defense mechanism in plants against pathogens, herbivores and hostile environmental conditions. Generally, tannins induce a negative response when consumed. These effects can be instantaneous like astrigency or a bitter or unpleasant taste or can even have a delayed response related to antinutritional/toxic effects. What's more, biotech companies like Monsanto take these natural occurring pesticides (e.g. tannins) and synthetically reproduce them on a mass scale. By no means am I suggesting that this is a good thing, I'm just stating the facts by saying that synthetic pesticide compounds are commonly derived from naturally occurring ones.

In general, organic food is, food that is produced without the use of artificial pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modifies organisms (GMOs). In common usage, the word organic is a broad reference that can apply equally to store-bought food products, food originating in a home garden where no synthetic inputs are used, and even food gathered or hunted in the wild. However, the term organic is increasingly associated with certified organic foods, which are produced and labeled according to strictly regulated standards. In many countries, including the United States, Japan, and in the European Union, certification is a matter of legislation, and commercial use of the word organic, outside of the certification framework, is illegal. The specifics of certification are the subject of wide debate and disagreement among organic producers and consumers; at present, there is no universally accepted definition of organic food.

The majority of food industry research of the last 100 years has been focused solely on developing chemical agriculture and modern food processing - very little, if anything has been done to formally investigate side effects of conventional agriculture that are not immediately obvious. Also, organics is an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" proposition, concerned in large part with what NOT to do - "as much as possible, let nature do its thing" - rather than in devising precise formulas for organic production. A strictly rules-based definition of organic farming and organic food, consisting of approved inputs and practices, created and maintained by regulatory agencies, is inevitably subject to "exceptions" and to special interest pressures to modify the rules. As organics become "whatever the rules say it is", the line between organic and conventional food can get blurry.

Without getting into too much detail, a few years ago Canada sold and exported what were believed to be non-genetically modified (non-GM) soybeans to EU member countries only to later discover that a very small percentage of these beans were in fact, genetically modified. Unfortunately, it was too late by the time they discovered this, the organically grown soybean crops of France were contaminated by GM soybeans. An inquiry was later opened by both the French Government and the WTO into this matter. Furthermore, an international conference (GMCC '05) was held - hosted by France's L'Institute National de la Reserche Agronomique and the EU Commission's Joint Research Centre - to establish a better understanding of the world's plant and agriculture producers' empirical findings with regards to the "ecological consequences of gene flow (e.g. by way of seed and pollen) from crops to wild relatives". (Search the web, for example, go to: http://www.pri.wur.nl/UK/publications/ for more information)

Mes chers amis, the conclusion is this, many of these claims of what organic 'is' supposed to be are contentious. To date, the most important issue seems to be the effect of pesticides on people, animals, and the environment. However, this is still being debated by toxicology experts. There are research reports, expert opinions, and anecdotal evidence both supporting and rebutting them.

So please, spare me the 'organic' bullshit!

Did someone say, "fair trade"? ;-)