Awareness of where food comes from and how the foods are prepared is important to consumers in the United States and the world. Added benefits of integrity and the practices involved in the organic food production's quality is marketed and make consmer confidence stronger. Better consumer health and environmental choices are also raised with organic information awareness.

 

 

MAJOR EVENTS LEADING TO US ORGANIC FOOD AWARENESS

---

 Much of the education about organic products and their benefits come from trade organizations like the Organic Trade Association (OTA), Organic Consumers Association (OCA), and the Center for Food Safety. Science's discoveries allowed the "Green Revolution" of agriculture to develop. Largely funded by large foundations those who grew organic saw the use of pesticides as alarming.

   

 

Silent Spring. 

 

"Silent Spring" by Rachel Carlson highlighted the environmental effects through the use of pesticides (in particular DDT) and the misleading scientific data of various chemical companies. The idea of chemicals as harmful had not yet been largely considered, but the scientists of the time were not accoustomed to studying health effects of chemicals on human beings and animal life. "Organic food became established in the public’s mind as a separate identity during the 1960s and 1970s.

 

   

  

DDT & Rachel Carson by the Simpleton's Guide.

(FIGURE 5)

 

 

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring established public awareness of the ecological problems associated with agricultural chemicals in general and the use of synthetic insecticides in particular." [Baker-16] Carlson's appeal to the general publics sense of reason and with rhetorical language framing the seriousness of the problem increases awareness of synthetics and their harmful effects. As the Simpleton's Guide indicates (Figure 5), although not all her conclusions were correct, but we are still learning more about how to use synthetic pesticides. Another way to view concerns of this magnatude are through risk assessments.

   

 

Risk Assessments. 

 

Risk assessments do not necessarily tell how harmful a product is for all people 100 percent of the time. Studies are conducted in lab environments to only answer questions which are asked and not questions that are field tested. From the lab environment to the real world, risk assessments are a capable measure for predicting a range of minimum safety, but they are more useful as numerical a tool for measuring the affect of reasonable safety efficacy. For instance radiation can be given a minumum time exposure, while harmfuls substances are given in terms of amount, over time, or per dosage. Risk assessments appeal to logic and or those of authority when making decisiosn on the acceptable risk to the human safety of people. 

 

According to Peter Montague:  

 

"Starting about 1975, industrialists hoped that risk assessment would become the permanent key to imposing harmful decisions on an unwilling public -- and for a couple of decades it seemed to be working. Corporate risk assessors -- and a phalanx of third-rate journalists transformed into highly-paid "risk communicators" -- like to dress up in white lab coats and hang stethoscopes around their necks, then accuse their critics of being "irrational" devotees of "bad science." Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other major polluters have spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting the idea that risk assessment is the very definition of "good science." Harvard University houses a polluter-funded "center" for risk assessment, which pumps out an endless stream of shameless propaganda aimed at convincing the American public that we all need to make more decisions based on risk assessment, because risk-based decisions are "unbiased," "impartial," "neutral," "rational," and based on "sound science." Sound familiar? The NEW YORK TIMES maintains at least one staffer who writes almost nothing but risk-based propaganda on behalf of polluting industries. In this, he joins a long list of distinguished corporate toadies like John Stossel, Gregg Easterbrook, Elizabeth Whelan, and Michael Fumento." [Montague -17]

 

As the paragraph above indicates, scientific risk assessment can be done correctly, misleadingly, or unscientifically. For most normal conditions dealing with the application of a risk assessment plan, which affects the daily lives of people should be looked at with skepticism. Risk assessment calls into judgement the idea of acceptable losses and weighing tough decisions for lawmakers and policy makers. Awareness of organic foods and healthy lifestyles can educate and encourage people toward stopping risk oriented behaviors much like those highlighted above.

 

 

Alar and apples.

  

In 1989, 60-minutes aired a news report about the chemical Alar being used in apple orchards. As the chemical breaks down into "unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine" or UDMH, the reaction in lab tests on rodents iss carcinogenic. [Sourcewatch -18] The Alar story helped to increase the awareness of organic food and the demand for foods without the use of chemicals outpaced supply. Consumer issues with Alar highlighted a problem within the FDA and the USDA, the earliest study which showed the substance as carcinogenic were from 1973. "A great many pesticides were "grandfathered in", or approved for use without any testing because they were created before regulations" as the case with Alar.[Goettlich -19]

 

If the term "grandfathered" means before regulation, the best analogy in my estimation describes how ancient alchemy is to science today. Alar's allowance and maintanance in the food supply were one reason for the creation of the National Organic Food Protection act of 1990. Largely, experiential and framed for the public swathe, the absorption of the Alar story enormously increased the number of aware consumers to demand organic food. Policy makers followed soon thereafter with a hegemonic agenda and the need for consumer protection policies borrowed laregely from the organic community.

 

 

1990 National Organic Food Protection Act (NOFP).

 

NOFP's organic standards as hegemonic medium for authority transmits assurances that agencies are compliant to consumer needs. May make the uninformed public think the policy makers were knowlegeable, when most likely they were or were not involved with the organic movement in earlier aspects.

 

 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Guidelines on Organic Foods.

  

Organic foods are meat, dairy, agricultural, or raw produce. Organic foods are created from the raw organic produce with certain guidelines. Organic regulations for labeling are required due to the number of different industrial size processes used in the food service industries. Consumers who want control over what they eat and buy. Strict labeling guidelines for the difference of organic traits in agricultural produce aid the consumer's buying habits. Dialogue from freefitnessvideos .com(Figure 6) featured below gives us an overview for consumers who wish to change their diet to that of organic and how to look for the key ideas and information.

 

 

"USDA Organic Certification Guidelines" - by freefitnessvideos.com.

(FIGURE 6)

 

 

Labels help consumers read and determine if the product sasy what she interprets as "healthy" and "making the effort" for getting healthy; although other information can be claimed. USDA policies are enforced to protect the consumer buying decisions from uncertified manufacturer claims. Since the organic food processes that USDA set as a standard for natural agricultural, the idea that organic produce goes futher than the natural produce, the organic flavor differences comes from the quality and class of preparation. [USDA-20]

 

How labeled organic foods should look.

 

• Organic foods prohibit the use of process aids and artificial additives or ingredients.
• 100 percent organic labels are used if the organic food contains 95 percent of the original raw or processed agricultural product to be labled, while the extra remaining five percent can be spices and other minor ingredients (spices, flavors, colorings, oils, vitamins, minerals, accessory nutrients, incidental food additives).
• Organic labels may be applied to foods with 70 percent of the original produce overall, using proccessing or non-organic ingredient formulas.
• For instance, a soup which contains different ingredients, organic soup must not contain agricultural produce derived from a non-organic source; this also applies to other agricultural products like eggs, milk, butter, and other raw organic produce.

•  Products containing more than 50 percent organic ingredients can be labeled as "made with organic ingredients"

• This also applies to most animal feed varieties.