Once a fad, industry-scale producers are vying to meet mass demand for organic and natural foods, writes Yahia Lababidi* The appeal of natural and/or organic foods harkens back to a pre-global food economy. Given increased awareness of health issues and confronted with food scares around the world, people tend to wander to a time innocent of such interdependence and complicated choices: a time before things became bigger, better and shinier, when produce simply looked and tasted like it was supposed to. Prior to all this novelty of the old, and fetishisation of the natural and ... well, back to basics: the live jolt of fresh fruit or veggies and the emotional connectedness that accompanied it. Not too long ago, choosing organic food was part and parcel of an ideology, a personal ethos. Today, it is an alternative lifestyle on the verge of being adopted by the mainstream. Just like any trendy practice or belief system, there are die-hard adherents willing to make life-altering sacrifices to align their choices with their values, and there are those merely attracted to the skin of things. The allure of the organic lifestyle, superficially stated, revolves around the perceived health benefits of natural living, and foods that are free of the synthetic or toxic -- fertilisers, pesticides, preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, irradiation or genetically modified organisms. But for those more committed to the cause and its attendant ethical issues, it's the difference between yoga as a physical workout versus yoga as spiritual exercise. Which is to say, the philosophy of going organic encompasses broader issues, such as: the health of the planet (environmental issues), humane treatment and slaughter (animal rights), welfare of farms and farmers (farmland preservation and promoting small business), as well as a host of political and global implications. The prevalence of organic food, and its virtues, is a topical and hotly debated issue. Predictably, there have been cries from purists that standards are being diluted, and that organic food has sold its soul. Which is to say, the rise of "Big Organic" (large-scale production of organic food to meet growing demand) is producing concern that the organic movement's original ideals have been forgotten as large companies move in. But it has always been so, the mainstream co-opting (and possibly corrupting) the fringe; which is perhaps all the more reason the fringe must remain eternally vigilant, on the lookout for alternatives. To convert or not to convert Science cannot tell us conclusively that organic food is better for us, just as it cannot definitively state that conventional foods are worse for us. Toxicity appears to be in the dose; and risks of long-term exposure to toxic residues remain uncertain. So foods are assumed innocent until, after rigorous testing, they are proven guilty. For example, it is not evident that low levels of pesticide found on conventional produce causes cancer. But while the powers-that-be -- FDA, toxicologists, etc -- wrangle over MRLs (minimum residue limits) and LD50s (lethal dose 50 per cent), what's fit for human consumption, how much and for how long -- the intuitive mistrust of tampering -- looms large, coupled with a lingering distrust of science or, at least, manipulating science for profit. In this air of uncertainty, more and more people are preferring to err on the side of caution in the belief that to tamper is to upset the balance of things, in this case the integrity of soil, food, animals and the planet. This means taking the time to read labels, eliminating additives from diets, and seeking out foods grown without those pesky chemical pesticides, hormones or antibiotics. Yes, it takes longer and costs more to raise animals without hormones or antibiotics, but consumers are also considering the ethical dimension, too, as well as the wellbeing of animals and the environment in the process. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, Britain's leading organic lobby group, says that environmental concerns, rather than health benefits, are now cited by British consumers as their main justification for buying organic. Likewise, in an Olson Communication survey ( Deli Business magazine, April 2007), "environmentally friendly" was what came to the minds of 53 per cent of consumers when asked to define organic, while only 45 per cent thought to describe it as "healthy". In other words, on both sides of the Atlantic the perception appears to be that going organic is the noble and high-minded thing to do; and that by endorsing organic food, they are thinking of the planet before themselves. Enlightened compromise Practically speaking, a shift to 100 per cent organic ingredients for all products is not immediately foreseeable, since organic sources --specifically dairy -- are as scarce as surplus. The transition to organic is even trickier for the meat industry, and can take up to three years (as the organic label includes ethical criteria as well, such as: humane treatment and humane slaughter). In addition to the perceived health and environmental benefits, perhaps people are opting for natural or organic foods as a means of registering a protest against genetically modified foods; a way of pushing back against FDA-approved genetically modified crops that are part of the American food system. (Genetically modified foods in the US do not require any specific labelling, whereas organic foods do). For consumers, short of growing their own food, or relying on local farmers to stock their pantries -- and in turn determine their menus -- making food choices will entail enlightened compromises. Increasingly, this seems to translate into an interest in natural products, or products that contain no artificial colours, flavours or preservatives, which are cheaper than organic as they don't have to observe the strict requirements of organic certification. For retailers this new sensibility means providing consumers with more choices: natural and organic. One of the primary challenges regarding organic foods and farming will be to see to it that large-scale production does not sacrifice quality control or the principles behind the trend and to try to wed opportunity with accountability. * The writer is author of Signposts to Elsewhere and will be included in the upcoming encyclopaedia, The World's Great Aphorists . Hearts By Yahia Lababidi We must not play with hearts for who can calculate what they are capable of, or what becomes of them How they slip, change shape practice forgetfulness and purge, surrendering pleasure with pain as unsteady burdens of memory Or how they grow wayward, wild the wounded become wounding and, in order to keep alive, treacherous in the trenches Until they are unrecognizeable to their owners, brokers or breakers and what began as deception proves to be a self-delusion The heart has its treasons that reason does not know - why it must cheat, lie, even die just to stand a chance at rebirth.
