Jayson Funke wrote:
This raises the issue of food labeling. As indicated in several of the
recent posts, many people want to know what is in their food and how it
is grown and where it is grown.
An interesting debate revolves around labeling, and whether or not
organic food should be labeled or (as I favor) if GM foods should be
labeled. From my perspective, organic labeling has two effects: 1) it
makes organic food into a niche market (making it more difficult to
absorbed into the mainstream), and 2) it leaves the general public with
the impression that GM foods are normal and thus not in need of labeling(in
other words, why is there not a stronger movement to label GM foods, which
might force them into a niche market instead of organic foods?).
The entire premise of organic labeling (versus GM labeling) is at the
heart of the agricultural industry initiative, since organic labeling
detracts the anti-GM movement into niche marketing and leaves the public with
the impression that organic food is somehow outside the norm.
Another issue is the usurpation by law and dilution by fiat of the
definition of "organic".
There has been legislation on defining the meaning of the word, in
congress, I believe. The resulting definition was more akin to what has
always been understood as "natural", a term applied much more broadly
than any known previous usage of "organic".
CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers) labelling is much stricter
than the federal requirement, and is a highly regarded certification,
unlike the federal certification, which is almost meaningless.
There have also been attempts by the federal government to usurp and
denigrate the role of organizations such as CCOF, NOT to the benefit of
the consumer.
Labelling as "organic" by federal standards under those circumstances is
misleading, if not thoroughly disingenous, and should be resisted.
Leigh
http://leighm.net/
