The organic food movement is poised to enter the big time: according to the USDA, sales of organic foods will near $18 billion by the end of 2007 -- up from about $10 billion in 2003. You might think this would make organic adherents happy -- but no, there seems to be a fair bit of angst out there, if Michael Pollan's article in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine is an example of the general attitude.
What's the concern? Apparently, organic food has become so popular that big companies like Kraft and Wal-Mart are getting involved in producing and marketing a host of organic foods and groceries -- and now at least some organic promoters are concerned that it won't be your dad's old organic market any more.
That's probably true -- and for consumers who are interested in buying organic food that's a good thing. Involvement of major food companies and retailers like Wal-Mart will likely drive down the price of the more expensive organic products (compared to conventionally produced items).
But for some, organic means more than a production process -- it's almost a religion. For adherents such as Mr. Pollan, the whole organic movement stands for much, much more. Supposedly, organically produced food is more nutritious and because it contains fewer synthetic pesticides, purportedly making it more healthful for consumers and the planet. And supposedly, organic production methods mean that small farmers will be able to survive in a less competitive marketplace.
But as we've noted in the past, there really is no good evidence that organically-produced food is any more nutritious than its conventional counterpart. Further, an insistence on organic agriculture may well be more environmentally harmful than otherwise. Organic farming, for example, is less efficient in terms of crop yield (see Mader P, Fliebach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 2002; 296(5573):1694-1697) and thus would require more land to produce crops than would conventional farming.
Further, to be labeled as organic, foods must be produced without the use of genetic engineering (gene splicing). This taboo means that pesticide-resistant crops that can decrease the use of a variety of synthetic pesticides are forbidden. Also out of reach will be genetically engineered livestock, such as the "enviro-pig," which will excrete less water-polluting phosphorus.
As far as the supposed effects on small farmers, I don't believe that sales of organic food by Wal-Mart will have that much impact. The folks who shop at Whole Foods and farmers' markets now, and who can afford the prices there, are not likely to switch their allegiance to a large supermarket any time soon. These are people who value supporting local producers, and they will probably continue to do so.
So, yes, Mr. Pollan may well be correct in his concern that involvement of major players in the food industry will change the organic marketplace: but he's likely to be wrong that this will harm the health of either consumers or the planet.
Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
