Today, I was interviewed on KCBS radio news, based in San Francisco. Our topic was organic certification, and two people threw questions at me which I had to answer on the fly. The questions were old ones: should we trust the organic label, how common is fraud, and so on. Mind you, I completely support organic food, warts and all, so I never like to say “fraud is rampant” and I also don’t care to say things that cast aspersions on organic food. I do not think fraud is rampant, but there is some (although how much is not clear).
I think all systems have some degree of fraud, and I am ok with that. I believe that reducing all fraud is cost prohibitive (I am motivated by the comparison of marginal benefit and marginal cost; it is instinctive for me. I bet it would be for you, too, if you took 30 or so courses in economics.)
But cheating in the organic world is worth a closer look. The food itself is not certified as organic; instead, the manner in which it was produced on the farm and then handled as it makes its way to your plate is certified. In economics jargon, this means the organic standard is a process standard, and not a product standard. There are two crucial parts of this system: (1) the agents that certify farms or handlers as organic, and (2) the people who carry out the business from day to day. The certifier is an agent accredited by USDA as having the power to determine whether a farm’s or handler’s business plan is in keeping with the organic standard. Thus, in this sense, the certifier has the most power in the game, since he/she is responsible for approving the plan. Next, the farmer/handler has to follow the business plan each day.
This suggests that a consumer who is interested in buying organic food that indeed is produced and handled according to the regulation shouldn’t be looking for just the organic seal. I always check for the certifier’s name. Identifying the certifier is not hard, since the name is required to be somewhere on the label. A product without a certifier’s name should immediately raise a red flag.
The list of accredited certifiers is updated fairly regularly. Looking for the name of the certifier – in addition to the logo – can provide additional information as we shop for organic food.
There will always be people who want to cheat any system, organics included.
I’ve been involved in Organic standards/legislation/regulation since the 1980′s and personally know some of the people who have defrauded the public with outright substitution of non-organic commodities and those who used the USDA to cover their non-organic practices. The Organic Trade Association (OTA) has pushed for tighter enforcement since the 1990′s, however many OTA members still push the limits of the regs.
Almost a decade ago I proposed a pro-active approach to Organic enforcement that would require certified entities who use non-organic ingredients (as allowed under the national list) to actively engage in finding or developing Organic analogs for the non-organic ingredients they are currently using. These pro-active programs would become part of the companies annual certification review and failure to actively peruse an Organic alternative could be reason for non-renewal of Organic certification. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) endorsed the proposal and it was sent the National Organic Program (NOP) where it was promptly ignored. In 2009 I sent this information on the pro-active approach to the new head of the NOP, and to date no action has been taken on this proposal.
I also sent the NOP a proposal to bring enforcement into the 21st century by using satellite infrared imaging to show if non-allowed substances have been used on Organic crops as well as pesticide and GMO drift. These images can also be used to estimate crop yields with a great degree of accuracy, thereby reducing the the problem of fraudulent overproduction, particularly in overseas production.
I’ve also called for an Organic clearing house, similar to commodity and equity markets, that can track sales based on estimated harvest volumes to deter non-organic products from entering the stream of commerce.
For what ever reason the USDA, NOP, Certifiers and the OTA have no interest in pro-active steps to reduce fraud in Organics.
Very interesting, George. I can see why some of the players have little interest in what you proposed (the satellite imagery is a great idea, and so is the tracking system). But I can’t see why the certifiers are not fully behind this type of beefed up enforcement system. Is it because they can’t see how the costs of doing so would be borne? Carolyn
The certifiers went from being the guardians of organics to enablers when they figured out that their largest customers paid most of their bills. It happened to both large and small certifiers and has been a source of great disappointment for the organic community.
The “Made with Organic” label was intended to be stepping stone to the “Organic” label but has become a way for corporations to keep the Organic cache and meet price points for bigger margins. The EU has done away with the Made With label but the NOSB recently approved the label citing growth in the category but failing to recognize the growth came at the expense of the Organic label.
Like so many things in the US today big money gets what it wants.