Criticisms of the Organic Food MovementCriticisms about organic food production are driven by: competition for marketshares, groups opposed to self-regulated behavior; the corporate entities that feel their products should be available for human use regardless of the benefit to dangers ranges of risk assessments posed on society as a whole; the NGOs who are experts and participants in the business; the grass-roots producers who feel that certain allowances must be made for the third world; and the everyday consumer of foods.

Domestic Food Production.

If you can remember or refer back to The New York Times article's statement of how the food manufacturers tried to block the organic food standard labels from the background section? [NYT -34] USDA felt the food manufacturers rhetorical statement about the labels would confuse consumers about all foods. Manufactuerers would argue that orgainc food damaged and confused consumers and their share of market profits. I think that the manufacturers were short sighted with the long term aspects of what consumer confidence meant.

A consumer's behavior has never been controlled by more information and the denial of new markets and services. Consumers are better off with new markets and services. Yet the manufacturers would argue the opposite. Organics were misinforming the public and the service is uneccessary. Getting people to eat vegetables is hard. Yet, when people who like organic foods as a way to eat vegetables, the food manufacturing industry's voices are raised to the policy makers on high to quash the choices of the people. Thus this sets the dilemna not unlike the story of David versus Golliath.

Organics as an underdog of the food world, though the use of one single idea, that foods should be free from chemicals is sound. What is so difficult for manufacturers to understand about this aspect of Organic foods? I would think food shortages, but that has not been the reletive case with current organic growing systems yielding at the same competitive efficiency as natural industrial size farms. Use of additives and synthetics also increases the amount of waste and dollars spent in energy per year, and drives up the food price per energy unit ever higher.

I think the criticisms by manufacturers fails to address their own concerns and needlessly plods into other's territory without merits. Industry has proven themselves and industrial scales to be as efficient or less than efficient at growing with non-traditional methods; sustainability is also questionable. Unlike tested organics, the new green agricultural technologies may help grow food better and faster in the future without the use of additives, chemicals, or transgenics. We will not know if those foods are any more safe and edible than chemicals, which is one informational sore point the competitors and critics of organic foods do not want made public.

International Food Production & Sustainable Development.

International discourse on the future of organic foods are veering toward sustainable organic development. Most of the rhetoric are forms of scientic and social concerns arguing a ethological and logical reasons why orgainc farming is better than other versions.

Organic farming needs further study to determine why  the lack of "productivity and yield stability gaps" in agro-ecological systems." As with other farming methods, further studies need to be conducted to solve issues of productivity, sustainability, and the consequences of low yields. "The weakness of organic agriculture, so far, is its currently insufficient productivity and stability of the yields (especially of intensive cash crops)." Getting organic farming right could then silence criticisms toward the other methods of farming production. 

Building trade relationships across the planet is not an easy task. How value is placed say on organic varieties from the United States versus another's country varies by how much people are willing to pay and if those products are available from the country of origin. Some countries are unable to build biodiviersity through trade regulation blocks for sales outside their own country. Farmers are then forced to produce to the standards of NGOs like the WTO by local government. If everyone grew the same crops nobody would be able to facilitate a trade. Hence, control what grows in which country or region should help economies grow and benefit consumers and farmers alike.

Although, the theory is sound via a competative marketplace other countries have been forbidden to carry on sales of their traditional goods, bypassing the rules has also been another underpinning and undercuts the sales restrictions of the producers in those countries.

However, there is also the problem that the WTO tells a country which cash crops to grow for settling their debts on the world market. This in turn has led to 48 of the poorest nations benefiting worse off from world trade trade.

Codex Alimentarius.

Food and Agriculture's (FAO) website lists details about setting up international standards for organic food. Interest expressed about selling organic food varieties world wide has increased the demand for fairer trade practices:

"International guidelines on organically produced foods are important for consumer protection and information and because they facilitate trade," said FAO food standards expert Selma Doyran. "They are also useful to governments wishing to develop regulations in this area, including developing countries and countries in Eastern Europe."

The Codex trade guidelines were developed taking into account regulations in force in several countries, as well as standards applied by producer organizations. They clearly define what constitutes organic food production and are designed to prevent claims that could mislead consumers about the quality of foods or the way they have been produced." [ FAO-35]

Organics is about the quality not the claims of quality or the lack thereof. Standards do protect the consumer, but there should be a line that NGOs are afraid to cross when talking about export and import fairness controlling what and who grows food.

During the 2000, UNCTAD meeting in Bangkok Thailand reports also show that trade relations under globalization and the freemarket expectations worsened. Therefore, opening trade through the WTO under Codex is one way that could recorrect the discrepancies." [ Thurber-36]

Organics will meet consumer demands, but lack the neccessary variety and local variety of traditional or regional crops may hurt organics. Cash crops push out most traditional crops due to policies set by NGOs to pay off debts. These polices come in the form of trade negotiations, restrictions, and import export policy. For organics to thrive the market needs to encourage all types of organics to thrive which organics already has a problem doing. Fair trade is an issue when organics sell at a premium price the economic undercutting of producers in other countries besides the United States deserves further study.

Soveriegnty implies that no organization can judge or prevent a country from feeding its people or denying exports due to the policy set by NGOs. Restricting trade is not capitalist and restricting freedom is not democratic. Organics has taken advantage of both captialism and democratic ideals to thrive in the market place both in the United States and internationally. Organic's legacy is one of change over time encouraged through the consumer spending medium.