Nariah Francis
As a child, I always asked my mother to buy organic produce at the grocery store. My mom would willingly buy these products because, just like me, she believed that they were the healthier, safer option. Spending money on organic foods was not something that happened regularly, but when my mother could afford it, she always decided to purchase it. At the time, we both figured that the money spent on organic produce was worth it because organic food was better for you. Or so we thought. As I grew up, I wanted more information about organic produce. After all, if conventional foods were so harmful, why would the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Adminstration approve these products for the public’s consumption? To my surprise, the information I found from nutritionists, government laws and research studies all supported the idea that organic foods are not worth the extra cost for health purposes. Yet government departments that handle the ways produce are advertised are not speaking about this issue.
Organic foods are assumed to be safer because they contain fewer pesticides, which also assumes that they do not contain synthetic pesticide residues. However, according to scientist Christie Wilcox from Scientific American, natural pesticides are not any better than synthetic ones. Wilcox found that organic pesticides were more “acutely toxic” than synthetic pesticides. This finding means that organic produce is possibly more harmful than conventional produce. The FDA supports this research on their official website and states, “an ingredient’s source does not determine its safety.” Yet a different message is constantly being promoted and labeled on produce sold at the grocery stores.
When I stumble on false advertisements, I wonder why the USDA and FDA aren’t doing a better job of informing the public. People around the United States are tricked into spending thousands of dollars each week on organic products because they believe that these foods contain little to no pesticides. Advertisements often go too far and blatantly mislead consumers, which is the root of the problem according to Gibbs. The Organic Foods Production Act, which sets the national standards for production and labeling of ‘organic’ foods, states that: “Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues…” and that organic farming entails only the elimination of synthetic pesticides. Therefore, these organic foods with organic pesticides are no better and are potentially more harmful than standard conventional foods. Studies like these need to be more widely available to the general public so they are informed and can buy produce accordingly.
“Organic” and “healthier” always seem to go hand in hand. Nielsen found in 2010 that 76 percent of people purchase organic foods because they believe “they are healthier” and 51 percent because “they are more nutritious.” Given the previously stated findings, the USDA should be doing more to keep citizens informed so they aren’t deceived. At Stanford in 2012, a team of scientists led by Dena Bravata, M.D, M.S did not find any strong evidence that organic foods were more nutritious.
We must change the way organic foods are advertised. The USDA and FDA should actively educate the public through advertisements about the equal benefits from both organic and conventional products. United States citizens will be more informed and feel more comfortable about buying non-organic items. The USDA should only allow stickers that signify organic on organic produce and nothing more. Adding “healthier” and “safer” stickers on produce is unnecessary and persuades consumers to buy organic produce.
Because the USDA is in control of labeling foods, I believe they should control how much advertisers manipulate the public into believing that they need to find the money to buy the organic products. Then, organic items can simply be a personal preference.