

In the year since I have been writing this column, readers have sent in many questions about organic foods. With the White House and the U.S. Department of Agriculture planting organic gardens, these questions have become more urgent.

Q:What is the difference between "100% organic" and "organic"?



-- Plants cannot be grown with synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, genetic modification, irradiation or sewage sludge.

-- Animals must be raised exclusively on organic feed, have access to the outdoors, and cannot be given antimicrobial drugs or hormones.

-- Producers will be inspected to make sure these practices are being followed to the letter.

Q:How do we know "organic" truly reflects our beliefs?

A: I am guessing this question refers to the spirit of organics. In the 1920s, the British botanist Albert Howard learned from observing farmers in India that human health depends on growing foods sustainably. Indian farmers taught him the importance of protecting soil nutrients through composted manure, crop rotation and appropriate cultivation, and using biological pest controls. Later, these methods were called "organic."

But USDA organic rules do not say a word about sustainability. This gap occurred as a result of the history of the organic standards (as I recount in "What to Eat"), but also as a result of the USDA's inherent conflicts of interest. The USDA's main job is to promote industrial agriculture. Organics, the USDA says, are just different, not better. Alas, the USDA has not always been a loving home for the organic program.

Q:Do food companies use the word "organic" in the same way they use "health"?

A: USDA organic rules are about the letter of the law, not its spirit. Food marketers, however, take advantage of public perceptions that "organic" implies spirit - sustainability and better nutrition. Companies that follow the rules can legitimately market highly processed foods as organic, taking advantage of their health aura to command higher prices.

No wonder so many big food companies have bought organic product lines (see, organic junk food is free of synthetic pesticides, but the foods still have calories. As I like to put it, an organic junk food is still a junk food.

Q:Which is worse: eating nonorganic produce full of pesticides or not eating produce at all?


If you want to compromise, you can save your organic dollars for the foods most likely to be high in pesticides. These, according to the Environmental Working Group (, are peaches, nectarines, apples, bell peppers, strawberries, cherries, pears, raspberries, imported grapes, celery, potatoes and spinach.


Q:Is organic food nutritionally worth its higher cost?

A: Foods grown on sustainable soils ought to contain higher levels of nutrients - and some studies show that they do - but organic certification does not require higher nutritional values. Without testing, I'd be hard-pressed to know whether the organic foods I'm buying really are nutritionally better. The main point of organics is production methods, and these require hand labor and careful management, both of which come at a higher cost.

If you believe, as I do, that growing foods according to organic practices is better for the environment, then paying more is worth it if you can afford to.






