For many Americans organics may evoke nature and health but they also draw conflict. Consider the surge of wrangling over the organics label from the Cornucopia Institute, an environmental watchdog group.  

“Organic consumers, when they pay premium prices, believe that they are supporting a different kind of environmental stewardship, are promoting humane animal husbandry, and are creating economic justice for family farmers," explains Cornucopia attorney David G. Cox.

"When consumers find out that their milk has come from factory-farms in desert states whose scale of operations endanger the livelihood of hard-working families, and the milk is then shipped all around the country, they feel betrayed.” 

Cornucopia and other organics advocates claim that the USDA certified organic label does not represent the spirit of the organics movement.  But the USDA should not be in the business of representing the spirit of any  movement.  Rather, the certified organics label represents solely whether or not the product adheres to a limited set of production and handling standards.  Still, confusion over the meaning of the label invites problems.

 In February, Cornucopia announced they were suing the USDA over the use of the label by factory livestock farms. Labeling issue aside, even some of the widely held misconceptions about organic foods are not entirely accurate.

Many people believe that organic foods are a healthier option than conventionally grown food.  Some studies have shown that children who eat organic foods have lower levels of pesticides in their blood than children that eat regular food.  However, this largely depends on the food, as demonstrated by Consumer Reports in a recent analysis of government data on fruit, vegetables and meats.  Some foods like asparagus and bananas, even when treated with pesticides, do not tend to contain detectable levels of pesticides anyway.  For those foods, there is no real difference between conventional and organic products in terms of the amount of pesticides ingested. 

In a recent study at the University of California, Davis, organically grown tomatoes were observed to have significantly more vitamin C than conventional tomatoes.  But no significant differences were found between conventional and organic bell peppers.  There is also the possibility of disease outbreaks from any food. In March California's Department of Health Services (DHS) announced that the spinach responsible for last September's E.coli outbreak was grown on a small organic farm in San Benito County. 

The certified organic label also does not necessarily mean that a food product is better for the environment.  For certified organic food, growing practices use less synthetic chemicals than traditional farming usually does.  Certification also requires certain soil conservation practices not unique to organic production but used by some traditional growers even though not required. At the same time, some types of organic food, such as poultry, require more energy to produce. Production of organic milk requires more land input and generates more carbon dioxide emissions in the production.

Many widely available organic foods are transported relatively long distances from “farm to fork,” creating environmental impact from the transport. But a recent study commissioned by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests that for some foods, global production might have a smaller environmental footprint than local production. While global products are transported long distances, the reasoning goes, they are also produced and transported in very large quantities.

 The USDA should certainly ensure the integrity of its certified organics label by revoking certification for producers not adhering to the guidelines.  But the department should not cave to pressure to expand the meaning of the label to include the scale of production, the “healthy” nature of the product, or the general environmental impact.  These complex issues remain far outside the reasonable scope of such a program.