If you want to sell healthy food, you don't want to be too elitist, but you also do not want to sell organic stuff to just anyone. Obviously, the whole point of an Op-Ed piece is to demonstrate that The Times does not speak with one voice, but juxtaposing the Powell op-ed, and the recent handwringing about Mall-Wart going organic does a) raise the question of just how to improve what Americans eat and b) how intensely connected healthy food and class remain.* What's alarming, too, is how malleable the term "organic" is. In a narrow, scientific sense, the term seems clear:
Originally: relating to or designating compounds which exist naturally
as constituents of living organisms or are formed from such substances
(all of which contain carbon and hydrogen). Later: of, relating to, or
designating any compounds of carbon (other than certain simple
compounds such as oxides, carbides, carbonates, etc.), whether of
biological or non-biological origin. (OED, sv "Organic" def #7.)
In the sense we use it today when we talk about food, the usage dates stems from Rodale's 1942 opus, Organic Farming and Gardening (thanks to Max):
Of a method of farming or gardening: using no chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, or other artificial chemicals. Also designating a farmer or
gardener utilizing such a method, or a farm on which the method is
employed. (OED, sv "Organic, def # 8b)
Here's where the fun begins. "Chemical" and "artificial" are value-laden terms, in this context, and subject to negotiation--as a result, as a consumer label, "organic" is pulled in one direction or another, either constricted to delimit a particularly righteous mode of food production, or expanded to cover something dubious.
So you have Whole Foods working to bring the legal definition of "organic" in line with what their focus groups tell them their customers think it means (scroll down a few grafs). And you have howlers like organic sea salt. Even if it is harvested by home-schooled dolphins using solar-powered fans made from renewable trees, salt is sodium chloride, and as, such, as inorganic as Rosie, pictured at right. Ultimately, the issue seems to have a significant linguistic component--"organic" refers to substances, and the concerns eaters have have as much do with processes as with products. One could, for instance, market organic sugar produced by near-slaves working in inhuman conditions, just like regular sugar is made, while an orchard using a low impact IPM system, and offers health coverage to its workers, must be labeled "conventional."
*Fearless prediction--in the not-too-distant future, having pre-teen daughters who are still flat-chested will be a sign of status, because it suggests that you could afford to feed them BGH-free milk.
Recent Comments