posted 7 years ago
John, I may have something useful here if you will allow me.
I am a chef, and I face the labeling and consumer recognition (in addition to being regulated myself) paradigm on a daily basis. For an in-depth discussion of the evolution of the organic industry , I recommend Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma.
Organic has a legal USDA definition, and a food labeled for retail sale with that word must follow (relatively) strict rules on what they can and cannot do (ex: corn cannot be GMO, and cannot use glyphosate). For animals, there are minimums for square footage and access to XyZ, and the feed used to produce such aninals is likewise strictly described, and must itself be legally organic. Which, please don't misunderstand, is all GOOD. Organic is a far better choice than conventional for the long-term survival of, say, soil health--when you have that choice.
But what's being said here, I think, is that Organic (with the Big G) takes advantage of the pastoral, humble roots of the original movement. Organic as a certification that costs money in licensing and labelling annually, fees which the little guys often cannot afford and don't get. Large multimillion dollar companies--often the same companies who produce the conventional stuff--get into what their bean counters observe to be a lucrative game, and being powerhouses of industry, they use their dominance of scale and efficiency to mop the floor with their mom-and-pop competitors.
So companies like Petaluma Poultry in CA can market Rosie's Organic Chicken under the (carefully unspoken) assumption of rolling green hills and buttercups, when really it's another CAFO not markedly different from that of Tyson or any other mainline chicken manufacturer.
Many farmers--who are organic in all but the stamp--boycott the use of the term because of its almost guaranteed affiliation with multimillion dollar corporate conglomerates who hijacked their movement.