|
Directories Int'l Realty US Realty
|
 |
Organic Food Guidelines Weakening Stuart Lieberman, Esq., You all know what organic food is supposed to be. Organic food is supposed to be pure food, food that does not have fertilizers and preservatives. Food that is untouched by a host of modern chemicals that are designed to enhance yield, rather than promote quality. Ideally, organic food that is grown would be grown in pure soil, untouched by contaminants and fertilizers and artificial pesticides. And ideally, organic livestock would be treated humanely, given ample room to roam, and fed only pure, wholesome foods. At least, that is what people have in mind when they think about what organic is supposed to represent. The problem is that for quite some time what has been organic to one person has fallen below the mark to another. Indeed, a lack of uniformity has resulted in the implementation of federal guidelines that recently went into effect controlling what can be sold as organic. Those rules went into effect in October, 2002. With the implementation of the new Federal Organic Guidelines, it appeared as if we were on our way to developing a uniform grade of fairly high quality, organic food. And looking at this from the perspective of a person who does not think that pesticides, heavy metals, sewage sludge and other constituents that have been historically used to grow food are good things for us to consume, I believe that this is the right direction. The problem is that the current administration has generally shown disdain for all things wholesome. We know for example that our environment seems to have taken a back seat to the interests of the large energy producers and large corporate polluters. Look, for example, at steps taken by the administration to safeguard our large coal burning electric production facilities from attempts to compel them to stop belching dark, black smoke into the air. This smoke ultimately finds its way to the eastern seaboard causing asthma and other illness. And there have been so many more examples. So we should not be to suprised that recent federal legislation has reduced the standards for organic livestock. Whereas federal regulations had required that organic livestock be fed 100% organic feed, federal legislation has opened the door to allowing such livestock to be fed with some non-organic feed. There goes organic purity. This is of course a step in the wrong direction. But then taking steps in the wrong direction with issues concerning our environment and our health is not that uncommon anymore in Washington. What is unfortunate is that there had been a strong pro-organic food lobby in this country that worked so hard to purify our standards and ensure that the term organic really meant what people thought it meant. Now, in apparent response to pressure from large agriculture business lobbies, the federal government has significantly jumped backwards. I think that the organic food industry needs to be promoted. Rather than weakening the standards, the States and the Federal government should continue to encourage strong and stringent standards. And we as consumers can support the organic food industry by purchasing locally grown food, supporting local farmers and local businesses. Here is another strange twist in food production. The government has just approved a new, genetically engineered corn that will produce its own insecticide. Apparently, this will ward off the rootworm. I don't like pesticides. Do we really want to eat food that will produce its own pesticide? Will we know whether the corn that we will be purchasing will be "real" corn as compared with this new, genetically engineered corn? Don't we have a right to know so that we can make our own decisions? Guess what I think the answer is to these questions.
The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.
|
