The organic food movement has been an ongoing grass-roots phenomenon of people, producers, and associations; more recently government agencies and non-governmental organizations. Consumers and producers feel consuming organic food is healthier and better than processed and natural foods.  There is a percieved difference in the quality of preparation and the processes of organic foods and by equiping people with the knowledge for buying selection.

 

"The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) was formed in 1998 in the wake of the mass backlash by organic consumers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's controversial proposed national regulations for organic food."[OCA-10] In the late 80s and 90s, disenchanted organic farmers formed new organic trade organizations and outlets. Consumers who also felt left out of the decisions about what industrial processes go into the foods on their plate supported the organic market.  (USDA) In hopes to rectify the lapse of oversight from the farm to the dinner plate, new organic standards were later set by the United States Department of Agriculture. This is why in 1990 congress voted in favor of Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The following videos in two parts contains a brief summary about organic foods.

 

 

What's the Deal with Organic Foods? Part 1.

(Figure 1)

  

 

 

What's the Deal with Organic Foods? Part 2.

 

(Figure 2)

  

 

In the videos, the host Natalie tells us why people prefer Organic foods and why they are good for consumers and what consumers need to know. Information in the video covers common themes and communicates common language throughout the discourse of the organic consumer driven movement. You can compare this yourself with the other consumer driven types of marketing from your daily life. What kind of consumer driven marketing through word of mouth might you be exposed to on a regular basis? What does it say about those consumer products, personal, choices, behaviors, and habits? In much the same way as a viral marketing campaign, consumers of organic produce orient themselves and others with information. Popularity of a celebrites in the organic consumer base may also lead more people interested to follow their examples and increase interest.

 

 

History of US Organic Standards.

---

USDA has maintained those standards with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Along with the standards for organic foods, the USDA maintains a 15-member National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to assist with decision making policies, certification, and information regarding product labeling. The food standards accomplish three tasks:

 

• Establishes national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produduced products.
• Assures consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard.
• Facilitates commerce in organically produced fresh and processed food.

 

All these tasks above communicate to consumers and the producers a modicum of hegemonic order in place by the USDA and the US government. Hence, protecting consumers from the producers who make false claims about organic products..

 

"The first NOSB was appointed by then Secretary Edward Madigan in January 1992. Members of the initial board served staggered terms of 3, 4, or 5 years. All subsequent board appointees serve 5-year terms. The current board is comprised of four farmers/growers, two handlers/processors, one retailer, one scientist, three consumer/public interest advocates, three environmentalists, and one USDA accredited certifying agent who sit on various committees. Members come from all four U.S. regions"[NOSB-11].

 

NOSB is important to keep up to date with what consumers and producers of organic food producers what. However, for the advisory board to be effective the secretary of the USDA must listen to their advice and implement ideas if they are good. Occassionally, the board and the USDA do not agree and usually outcry from producers and consumers are raised.

 

 

Push For US International Organic Standards.

---

One "New York Times" (NYT) story from 2000 reports how "the European Union and Japan have made it difficult for American exporters of those foods to do business, because they do not want to deal with the 44 different state and private organic certifying agencies in the United States" [NYT-12 ]. In the United States, consumer backlash against the use of synthetic agricultural pesiticies and artificial fertilizers brought the public's voice to a crecendo totalling near 300,000 people. Creating a climate for food standards helps people choose the best option available for themselves.

 

Confidence in the movement began after 1990, as industry watched the potential growing new market with "domestic sales at 20 percent annually each year since 1990. [NYT -]" Sale of organic goods reached $17 billion in 2006 [OCA-13]. At one time the organic movement never raised awareness on the value of their products and how differetly raised they were. At first, organic farmers felt better by rasing organic crops even if they didn't break even. Now as the demand for organics grows more interesting the future of organic development world wide will be interesting.

 

Then National Food Processors Association (NFPA), "a trade group made up mostly of conventional-food processors." [NYT-14] (Now the Association of Food, Beverage, and Consumer Products Companies aka Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)) wanted to label each organic product as being no different than the processed versions and were denied. Market share determined spending dollars. Offering a special claim in the commodities market of foods had been arguable, however the USDA's primary focus should be consumer choice in the free market, not producers. USDA felt that for the consumer, a label of such sort would errode and marr consumer confidence in all foods.

 

People who enjoy organic foods also worried about the USDA proposed "new standards, which were ordered by Congress and then took the department more than a decade to produce." People wanted to "ban the use of irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer for any food labeled organic." [NYT-15] Principles that could be raised by the USDA were no guarentee of a safety and might marr consumer confidence in foods in general. All three areas of concern for people were issues raised by many groups in the organc movement.

 

 

International Organic Standards: World Trade Organization & Codex Alimentarius.

---

Ironically, the same concerns about irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer for any food labled organic would come under more international scrutiny. Under the non-governmental body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), large panels of unelected and unappointed industry experts are determining the course of world trade in all edible produce, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals (FIGURE 3).

 

 

 

"We Become Silent" is an informative documentary about the problems with WTO/CAC and the FDA.

(Figure 3)

 

 

Organic foods in the Codex Alimentarius agreements are treated no different than store bought vitamins and DDT, and other known toxic agents. This is another reason organic assocations are watching codex carefuly evolve. Codex could harm their businesses overnight. Different panels of experts are meeting to discuss without any voter consent the laws and regulations over consumers and corporations, which will affect both local and global trade standards and policies. WTO experts presume a level of human tolerance for each food, chemical, or pharmaceutical.  Harmonization is the process by which the WTO/CAC uses global influence to take power away from sovereign nation's food standards (Figure 4).

 

 

Natual Solutions Foundations, Dr. Rima Liabow's speech about Codex Alimentarius "Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs."

(Figure 4)

 

Rima Laibow suggests the pharmaceutical companies are working to pass non-govermental organization trade regulations, along with the chemical companies, and genetically modified food companies to re-interpret the harmful affects and standards of countries. Thereby, circumventing trade regulations and monetary fines for not requiring strict access to proven drugs, foods, and chemicals for harmful tolerance ranges within the human body as set by codex. For instance, if potent vitamins can harm the human body, then what level of restriction should be placed as a range for human consumption.By offering vitamins by perscription only food vitamin supplements can become a drug, and a controlled substance. Moreover, if these newly regulated substances are not restricted or not controlled as set by codex, the WTO/Codex will impose monetary fines on trade members.

 

Food has always been seen as a natural way for the body to heal as the quote attributed to Hippocrates, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." If food standards are changed for the worse, Laibow suggests that this will cause widespread nutrient deficiencies, and lead to the errosion of a consumer's choice. Another argument for Codex implementation is that it would be keeping the potential healthful vitamins and supplements from consumers, so drug manufactuerers who are losing money will gain more shares in their lucrative marketplace for only their products.