Fighting for a strong "organic" label

Competition is fierce for a sliver of the lucrative organic-foods pie. Witness the stream of efforts, including a recent change in the law, to weaken the “organic” label's meaning, mainly on processed food.

After years of wrangling, the label has become one of the most potent in the food industry. Consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, believe that the label should live up to the confidence placed in it by an increasing number of Americans.

In 1990, the Organic Foods Production Act was passed by Congress as the base for an independent, public program. After years of debate, and a record 275,000 comments from the public, the National Organic Program was launched in 2002.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the act, guided by the National Organic Standards Board, a nongovernmental group that includes consumer advocates, farmers, and food processors. The board also has authority for approving all allowable nonorganic ingredients. Five percent of the ingredients in food labeled organic and 30 percent in “made with organic ingredients” may be nonorganic.

Since 2002, there have been repeated assaults on the board's authority and on the standards themselves from companies that want to reap the benefits of the organic label without the burden of higher production costs (see our February 2006 report on organic products, available to subscribers). CU has been critical of both the Department of Agriculture and Congress for bowing to industry pressures and has worked to thwart many of those assaults.

Recently an amendment was slipped into the agriculture appropriations bill at the last minute and without opportunity for public input. The original law had barred the use of synthetic ingredients in the nonorganic portion allowed in food with the organic label. A 2005 court ruling upheld that standard, but the amendment to the appropriations bill overrode the court. That move to sidestep the court's decision was engineered by the Organic Trade Association and supported by some of its members, including General Mills, Horizon, Kraft, and Smucker's.

CU believes that action must be taken to preserve the organic label's integrity:

• Congress should undo the damage done to organic-label standards by the change made in the appropriations bill. A nationwide online survey of more than 1,200 U.S. adults conducted in March 2005 by Consumer Reports showed that most consumers do not expect to find artificial ingredients in food that is labeled organic.

• Changes in the organic program should follow a public process, and they should represent the interests of all stakeholders. Many revisions to the organic program go unannounced. Consumers Union has been monitoring those changes, educating consumers, and urging national and state governments to protect the integrity of the organic label. But the USDA should be responsible for publishing any final changes--and the intended effects--on its National Organic Program Web site.

• The USDA should allow the organic label only on products with clear, consistent, enforceable standards behind that claim. Fish, for example, can now be labeled organic even when it harbors contaminants such as mercury and PCBs.

Products that truly meet consumer expectations for organic can use additional, approved labels to stand out from products that don't and to transcend the recent weakening of the standards.

Companies that make organic food with no synthetic ingredients can promote that practice with a claim of “no synthetic substances were used in production.” Organic coffee, tea, and chocolate that also carry the certified “fair trade” label ensure that farmers get a fair price for their product. Organic meat and dairy products with a “certified humane” or “free farmed” label meet high animal-welfare standards. And look for the USDA's Process Verified Program seal alongside labels such as “100% grass fed for entire lifetime” or “never fed antibiotics or animal byproducts.”

then	& now

1948		2006
In the spring of 1948, we said that FM radio was no longer just “a hope for the future.” The technology, invented in 1933, had started to fulfill its potential, though on a limited scale and only in particular cities. Unlike AM broadcasting, FM was nearly free from hiss, static, and interference. So you could actually enjoy some AM programming recast onto FM and hear the advertisements that were just beginning to air to pay for it. About 400 FM stations were available that April, and another 600 were expected by year's end. Today, satellite radio offers dozens of channels of music, talk, and sports programming. It's not free, of course, but in return, many stations are commercial-free.