To me, “organic” is a good word, standing for something natural and pure. But new national definitions proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture could bring a different meaning to the word “organic.”

Organic generally refers to an earth-friendly method of farming and processing foods. Weeds and pests are controlled using environmentally sound practices that sustain the health of our planet, and ultimately, our own health.

For the past year or so, I’ve become a devoted consumer of organic food. I like the security of knowing my food is safe, healthful and pesticide-free. And I like the feeling I get when I know I am buying a product that is good for the earth.

But I may be forced to stop eating certified organic food because of the new national standards proposed by the USDA.

The proposed definitions are meant to standardize practices of organic farming, handling, processing and labeling. On the face of it, it looks like such a standardization would be a good thing for the organic food industry.

However, the proposed definitions do more harm than good because they are much too low.

Currently, the labeling of organic food is dictated by varying but relatively strict standards used by 17 states and 33 private certifying agencies.

While these varying standards have caused some confusion among consumers, they have provided for some assurance of high quality. These standards — such as the state of California organic food laws — need to be made into national standards.

The proposed USDA standards are too low because they allow food to be labeled “organic” if it is irradiated, genetically engineered, grown with synthetic pesticides or fertilized with toxic sewage sludge.

None of the state or agency standards currently in place allow genetic engineering, irradiation, rendered animal protein or toxic sewage sludge within their definitions of organic food.

Both consumers and producers of organic food have found the proposed USDA standards unacceptable.

Not only do these proposed standards threaten the integrity of the organic food industry, but they could be dangerous considering the heavy metal content — such as poisonous cadmium and lead — in the sludge. Making the proposed definitions even more controversial are the unknown long-term effects of irradiation and genetic engineering.

And the new definitions could be problematic because they lend to the propagation of genetically engineered organisms. One of the worst problems facing agriculture today is controlling aggressive non-native plants. What could be more non-native than a genetically introduced organism?

Once again, the USDA has revealed itself to be a tool for agribusiness, biotechnology and chemical companies.

The organic food industry is against using biotechnology, irradiation and sludge because it goes against the very ethos of their industry and damages the reputation and trust they have spent years building.

Big agribusiness supports using these compromising methods because they are cheap, quick and already in place in the mainstream food industry.

I think big business sees the booming organic market and wants to tap it; however, they fail to see that consumers of organic food want natural food grown in a natural way.

In fact, most consumers of organic food — myself included — turned away from traditionally grown and processed food because it WAS irradiated, bioengineered, grown with synthetic chemical application or fertilized with chemicals or sludge.

Synthetic chemicals are not natural. Sludge is not natural. Genetically engineered products are not natural. (Such organisms with artificially spliced DNA could not evolve naturally!)

I feel that if gene transfer and synthetic chemical application cannot happen naturally in the field, then the food produced, by definition, is not organic.

To label products that are not by definition organic will make the organic label meaningless and destroy consumer interest and trust.

The USDA should pay attention to the producers and consumers of the organic food industry and not the lobbyists looking for corporate agribusiness profit.

The organic food industry knows best how to guarantee high standards and continued growth in the organic food industry.

The high standards already in place should be adopted by the USDA.

---

Jonquil Wegmann is a senior in community and regional planning from Bellevue.