Organic Food Labels Research Articles

Arguments surrounding organic and genetically modified food labelling: a few comparisons

This paper compares reasoning surrounding organic food labelling with arguments concerning mandatory GM labelling. Focus is placed on argumentative cross-overs, defined as cases where actors or organizations use a certain type of argumentation for one issue (for example, modes of food production), and shift into using their opponent's type of argumentation for a closely related issue (for example, food labelling). The paper is a textual analysis of the arguments across non-governmental organizations, scientists, policy-makers and corporations. Argumentative cross-overs are not only of theoretical interest. They run the risk of, for instance, making consumers assume that all struggles for ‘stricter food labelling’ will lead to more reliable labelling information and to a higher level of consumer empowerment. It is important to call for more nuanced descriptions of food labelling, and to make the public aware of the cross-overs, which often involve vast exaggerations of what food labelling can, or cannot, tell us. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Organic: What's in a Name?

The organic foods industry is booming: by one estimate, the market for organic foods is worth $4 billion annually and is expected to grow at a rate of more than 24% per year. Faced with the threat of pesticide exposures and other food safety problems, many consumers are turning to organic foods in hopes of finding a healthy alternative, but there is currently no consistency in organic food labeling and no guarantee that foods labeled as organic are actually grown and processed in a purely organic fashion. There is also controversy about whether the label "organic" covers such new technologies as irradiation and genetic engineering. As part of the 1990 Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working to develop a proposed rule on organic foods. The rule would regulate the allowable methods, practices, and substances used in producing and handling crops and their processed products. The first draft of the proposed rule, released in December 1997, met with unprecedented opposition, which centered around the fact that the proposal appeared to virtually ignore the recommendations of a standards board formed to assist in the rule's development. Other criticism opposed three practices put forward for comment by the USDA: irradiation, genetic engineering, and the use of sewage sludge in farming. Due to the vehemence of the opposition to its original proposal, the USDA has decided to rewrite the proposed rule. In preparation for that proposal, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service released three issue papers in October 1998 for public comment. The 10,000-plus comments received in response to those papers will be incorporated into the second draft proposal, due out later this year.