Kim Severson and Andrew Martin, “It’s Organic, but Does That Mean It’s Safer?,” The New York Times, March 4, 2009

“The plants in Texas and Georgia that were sending out contaminated peanut butter and ground peanut products had something else besides rodent infestation, mold and bird droppings. They also had federal organic certification,” opines this article examining a marketplace perception that organic food is both healthier and safer than conventional products. The authors suggest that a convoluted organic certification program has subverted an organic ethos “built on purity and trust . . . between the farmer and the customer.” With fees sometimes exceeding thousands of dollars, manufacturers are apparently dependent on a “web of agents” sponsored by those farmers and operations seeking certification. “A private certifier took nearly seven months to recommend that the USDA revoke the organic certification of the peanut company’s Georgia plant, and then did so only after the company was in the thick of a massive recall,” states the article, which notes that agents are required to report any health and safety violations to the proper authorities.

Critics of the current system have apparently emphasized this conflict of interest between organic certification agents and those paying for the inspections. According to one organic inspector, “Certifiers have a considerable financial incentive in keeping their clients going.” Organic food advocates have thus urged the National Organic Program and USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan to revamp the certification process with additional funding and staffing. “Meanwhile, consumers remain perplexed about which food to buy and which labels assure safer and better-tasting foods,” concludes the article, adding, the organic label fails to ensure that the food “was grown locally, harvested from animals that were treated humanely or produced by workers who were paid a fair wage.”