I'm completely, completely baffled by this New York Times article, exposing the amazing secret that the USDA organic classification has nothing to do with food safety. Why would rodents and pests be any less inclined to raid organic grains and other produce than conventional food? And in any case, "food safety" in the traditional sense is often the most gruesome enemy of the organic and localist and taste interest groups. For the food safety advocate, after all, the ideal world is where everything is irradiated to a sterile crisp.
I especially liked the nurse practioner's lament at the beginning of the article, which reminds me of a different misunderstanding:
“Why is organic peanut butter better than Jif?” said Ms. Devlin-Sample, a nurse practitioner from Pelham, N.Y. “I have no idea. If we’re getting salmonella from peanut butter, all bets are off
3/04/2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think organic could have meant safer back when it was a tiny niche market. I remember when I was little and my mom's friend who was a bit of a hippie would be looking after us for a day, and she'd take us to the one health food store in town, where you could make your own peanut butter (a fascinating process with disappointingly unsalted, unsweetened, lumpy results). Now that organic is a huge multi-billion dollar business, however, it has efficiencies of scale and the attendant distance between producer and consumer. I think a lot of the local food movement is a response to the mass marketing of "organic" -- people are looking for the next niche that gives them an illusion of greater connectedness and thus safety.
Sure. Organic stuff may well be cleaner and nicer, I agree. But I think you're agreeing with me that there's nothing about the USDA Organic seal that makes it so. Now, I also think food producers play up this particular misunderstanding for bucks. But still.
Post a Comment