The general consensus is that when you pay a 50% markup for a tomato from the organic aisle or a carton of milk displaying the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification logo, you are buying healthier food. You assume it is healthier for you, since the food should be grown without the interference of man-made chemicals, but also healthier for the animals and the environment.
In reality, as “going organic” becomes more popular, the true definition of “organic” strays farther and farther from these idealized principles. Officially, the USDA defines “organic” as food grown without pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, bioengineering, or radiation. Regulations also specify that animals must be given pasture; however, the conditions and length of grazing are not specified.
Enter: ethics-bending practices that increase efficiency and quantity of production, particularly as the market goes mainstream and consumers demand more and more organic food.
Take Stonyfield Farm—a far cry from mass-producers such as General Mills or Kellogg, who have entered the organic market—as one case study of how a company may be compelled to compromise its practices as the organic food market expands. Back in 1983, Samuel Kaymen founded Stonyfield Farm merely to feed his six children and to promote environmental responsibility. Today, the company’s main hub is an industrial plant in New Hampshire, where it handles milk shipped in from other farms and, perhaps soon, milk powder from New Zealand.
Health-wise, it is no surprise people have begun to prefer organic. If stories of men losing fertility due to hormone-enhanced food and workers falling into comas after spraying pesticides weren’t enough, studies have confirmed organic food to be healthier, as well. A 2008 literature review of more than 40 “organic vs. conventional food” studies concluded that organically grown fruits and vegetables are nutritionally superior to their traditionally grown counterparts. Likewise, a study by Newcastle University, published in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture determined that cows which are raised on organic farms and allowed to graze naturally produce milk that contains significantly higher amounts of beneficial fatty acids, antioxidants, and vitamins.
Yet, beware: not all organic food is equal. Consider the claims made of various organic eggs: “Cage free!” “100% vegetarian/organic corn/roasted organic feed diet!” However, consider what hens eat naturally. Left to roam grass fields (their natural habitat), they certainly do not eat corn; a naturally roaming chicken’s diet consists primarily of the bugs and worms it pecks from the ground. The same goes for cows—their natural diet is grass, not corn. However, corn is cheaper, and land for grazing is scarce.
Should milk and eggs taken from animals kept in confinement count as “organic”? If Styrofoam is added to soil (it keeps plants’ roots damp) in order to grow strawberries, should the berries still be labeled “organic”? These are the issues worth considering as farmers attempt to keep up with organic food demands. Organic is a dietary choice—but it may be environmental and ethical, too.
Watch how the organic industry reorganized between 1995 and 2007.
Compare dairy producers with Cornucopia’s organic dairy scorecard.
Recognize international organic certification labels.
Is organic NOT ethical?
This I think ultimately depends upon your definition of “organic” and your definition of “ethical.” If “organic” can disregard products flown halfway across the world and processed into unnatural powders/etc., and if “ethical” can mean disregarding the environment impact of certain farming practices in order to ensure that humans receive pesticide-free food, then sure, almost anything labeled Organic can be perceived as Ethical.