How Organic Farming Has Benefited the Food Industry in the United States America's food industry, it is important that steps are taken to ensure that consumers get what they pay for and that they can trust the purchasing process. In ancient times, organic farming was the only way to practice agriculture, but in the recent past, conventional methods have taken over, destroying the fertility of American soils and employing harmful pesticides. When organic farming came back into the spotlight in the 1950s, rules and regulations were put in place to ensure quality, certified organic foods were placed on shelves. Regulations, however, are difficult to enforce in foreign countries like China, which exports so-called organic products to the United States. We developed a method to test the extent to which consumers trust the USDA organic seal placed on so-called organic foods, and we hypothesized that a large number of consumers who purchase foods organic are unaware of the lack of control over these foods before they are authorized. on grocery store shelves. Determining the percentage of consumers who trust this food based on the seal alone will help generate evidence for policy change. In an industry that lacks the ethics to achieve financial gain, many producers will stop at nothing to do so, but when the health of humanity is in question, things can get very dangerous. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayResearch Organic food sales in the United States reached $35.1 billion in 2013, making the United States the largest organic market in the world. This means that 5% of food sales in the United States come from organic products (Mosier). Due to the significant impact of organic products on the market and consumers, this is an industry that should be heavily regulated. “However, the organic food market is in a unique position because its supply chain is interdependent on organic certification policies that are managed by state and federal policymakers” (Mosier). These certification policies have proven unsatisfactory in the past, causing products to slip through the cracks that are not truly organic. Throughout this essay, a scientific article on organic products, the processes by which they are certified, and the problems related to the organic certification systems of the United States and China will be critically analyzed and a new research method on this subject will be presented. When it comes to something as important as food, regulations are necessary, but some industries will go to dangerous lengths to make extra money regardless of the health consequences, resulting in misleading labels on products at your local grocery store. The movement in the United States is called Jerome Rodale. “In 1942, Rodale published Organic Farming magazine, which provided a platform for spreading his belief in organic food and his distaste for chemically induced agriculture” (Liu). Rodale analyzed howmodern agriculture destroyed soil fertility and produced unhealthy products. “Organic agriculture can be broadly defined as a “holistic production management system that promotes and improves the health of agro-ecosystems, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity” (Mosier ). Rodale “likened chemical fertilizers to a horse's whip, accelerating growth but accelerating fatigue” (Liu). Rodale's efforts toward biological processes in the United States bore fruit as the government began to understand the consequences of infertile soil due to continued conventional agriculture. Soon after, organic methods began to become standardized in the United States, and consumers were willing to pay higher prices for fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides. organic products, because conventional production costs were lower. Organic methods are more expensive because "organic producers may face shortages of organic seeds, pesticides and other inputs or may face higher prices for these inputs and because of relatively intense use labor, specialized equipment and other substitutes for synthetic chemicals” (Veldstra). . By the 1970s, local and state governments knew they needed to take action against this fraudulent activity in order to regulate the market. Most states created regulations, but over time they noticed that each state had different standards. This caused disruptions in the market that the federal government became aware of. “The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) was passed by Congress as Title XXI of the Farm Bill of 1990” (Mosier). This law introduced national regulations on what could and could not be labeled "organic." The aim was to help consumers choose what they wanted to eat and ensure they would get value for money. The Farm Bill also gave rise to the National Organic Program (NOP) and the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which were administered by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. “The NOP is responsible for setting standards for organic production, handling and processing. Additionally, the NOP oversees organic certification to ensure compliance with established standards. Another key part of the legislation, the NOSB is an advisory committee charged with establishing the standards by which the NOP operates” (Mosier). Certification was now required to display the USDA Organic seal on products in stores. Many farmers wanted to be certified, but the process was not easy, so some farmers, even those producing organic produce, chose not to obtain certification and simply relied on their close relationships with consumers premises to manage their activity. “There were many obstacles to organic certification, including the three-year transition period, the financial and time cost of certification, and the paperwork” (Veldstra). Farmers were left to debate whether the higher income generated by organic produce was worth certification. Many factors influenced this decision by farmers. While market forces have determined the dispersal and policy of organic products, "less direct financial support for the transition, the perceived cost of certification, and other commercialization opportunities that do not requirecertification have led to an interesting dynamic in determining what producers choose to certify” (Mosier). In order to obtain organic certification, farmers had to ensure their produce was grown organically three years before receiving certification. Even though they were unable to obtain certification before the three-year waiting period expired, some farmers were able to increase their prices by marketing their products as “transitional.” Some farmers did not obtain certification because they did not believe the benefits of organic certification would outweigh the costs, and some simply did not have access to consumers willing to pay a premium for organic products. . Since the market determines American policy regarding organic products. , “there is some financial support for organic certification; U.S. growers are eligible for reimbursement of up to 75% of organic certification costs, but not to exceed $750 per year (Veldstra). The situation differs in Europe, where the European Common Agricultural Policy guarantees organic farmers significant subsidies, which make it easier for them to obtain certification. Some producers in the United States do not obtain certification because they believe that certifiers are not sufficiently trained for their task. “The same producers who strongly agree that the certification process is confusing also say that interacting with the certifier is a significant barrier. This suggests that some certifiers may increase confusion” (Veldstra). One solution to this problem would be to train certifiers in a way that allows them to be more useful in conveying information to producers on how the process works and training them to carry out the process quickly and efficiently. In research by Michael D. Veldstra, small farms were more likely to produce organic crops "motivated primarily by their philosophical beliefs, compared to none who farm more than 50 acres." While philosophical beliefs are strong on some farms, others are more concerned with financial gain, leading some of them to hide under the term “local”. In places like farmers' markets, where consumers have a direct relationship with farmers, farmers are able to charge more for their products by appealing to consumers with the term "local," which many consumers say means “organic”. Additionally, this lack of consumer awareness may allow producers to “choose” which organic practices to follow, while still marketing their products as organic” (Veldstra). This is a problem because it is deceptive marketing and the consumer is not getting what they paid for. While this may seem unacceptable, in China even greater measures are being taken to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing organic products, even to the point that some measures are deadly. In 2008, the organic industry in the United States grew into a $21.1 billion industry and, like many other products, producers were unable to meet demand and therefore began to rely on imports to satiate hungry consumers. “Up to 40% of organic foods consumed in the United States are imported from more than 100 countries” (Liu). USDA agents were tasked with traveling to these foreign countries, such as China, throughexample, and to certify producers to grow organic food and allow them to use the USDA organic label and import into the United States (Liu). With demand for organic produce so high, these agents knew they had to return home after accrediting a large number of farmers. “In 2007, USDA accredited agents certified 27,000 organic growers and handlers worldwide, including 11,000 outside the United States. » (Liu). The goal was to hold these international producers to the same standards as American organic farmers, meaning that they were banned from using pesticides three years before the products were sold in stores. Although these rules seem effective, behind all the regulations is the truth that OFPA allows the use of certain pesticides on organic produce. This means that when consumers go to the store to buy organic products under the pretense that no pesticides were used in the production of those products, they are deceived by the USDA Organic label. “As Mr. William J. Friedman, former Vice Chairman of the United States National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), explained: “Organic labels are not statements regarding wholesomeness, nutritional value, or overall safety. of consumption of such products” (Liu Because China is so out of reach of regular visits to NOP (National Organic Program) sites, it is easy for Chinese products to be considered organic in the United States, even though this is not the case of surprise visits by NOP agents crucial to preserving the honesty of farmers, but in one case, "the inspector general discovered that the NOP office had not carried out initial assessments on. room for five foreign certifying agents for a period of seven years after the bureau had conditionally accredited the agents” (Liu) This, however, left plenty of room for error and a full seven years of deception within the organic industry foreign. Agents occasionally travel to China to monitor production processes and test products for residues to ensure farmers were compliant. these visits were rare. This is due to budget and limited number of agents, and is simply not enough to ensure that organic imports are regulated and meet high enough standards. “In the most egregious cases, the USDA granted foreign certifying agents conditional accreditations based solely on paper applications and did not follow up to verify their compliance for seven years” (Liu). Dishonest producers not only negatively impact consumers, but they also cause compliant producers to leave stores due to their low prices. Some specific cases of deception involving organic products in large supermarkets in the United States have been reported. In one case, Whole Foods marketed one of its organic snacks with large letters saying "California" on the front of the package, but in very small print on the back it said "Imported from China" (Liu) . This Whole Foods marketing misleads consumers into believing the product comes from California, which is likely more tightly regulated than China when it comes to organic produce. “In its rebuttal to the 2008 ABC report discussed above, Whole Foods attempted to convince consumers that it was irrelevant whether their organic products came from Chinese or domestic producers, because both were subject to the same regulations and supervision. However, heIt turned out that certification agents working in China did not even understand the NOP regulations” (Liu). This misunderstanding stems from the lack of training of certifiers by the USDA, which in turn causes confusion among growers when untrained certifiers come in and share incorrect or inadequate information. “In 2006, Wal-Mart stores in China had to remove fresh organic produce from their shelves because a surprise inspection revealed that produce from a trusted Beijing-based farm was actually treated with pesticides.” (Liu). Many Chinese producers claimed to follow production rules while being deceptive and using conventional farming techniques to increase their income. This is harmful to consumers because they may have health problems related to pesticides and other chemicals used by conventional producers, and it is also harmful to their wallets because they spend more money on a product than they think they are held to higher standards, but that is not the case. Arguments for Policy Change When the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was introduced, there were high hopes for the regulation of organic products in the United States. Perhaps now consumers could be assured that the food they bought and ate was free of harmful pesticides. GMOs and chemicals. This law proposed a national list of chemicals and pesticides banned in organic production, and certifiers were sent to organic farms to ensure regulations were followed. “Currently, the national list allows the use of more than sixty synthetic substances in organic agricultural production” (Liu). In addition to national visits to organic producers, international visits should also be made. Throughout this section of the essay, the three ways in which internationally imported products can be sold on American grocery store shelves will be discussed as well as the flaws in this certification process and the means by which the policy This area should be improved in order to put an end to the problems of non-organic products slipping through the cracks. Consumers should not have to worry about whether or not their money is going to certifiable foods and whether they are consuming safe products. The first way for foreign producers to sell organic products in the United States is to be certified by a USDA agent. “Currently, there are ninety-four USDA-accredited agents, of which fifty-three are domestic agents and forty-one are foreign agents” (Liu). These agents are then supposed to perform routine checks on these sites to ensure that they continue to follow USDA regulations to produce honest imports for the United States. “In 2007, USDA-accredited certifying agents certified 27,000 growers and handlers to U.S. organic standards: “approximately 16,000 in the United States and 11,000 in more than 100 foreign countries” (Liu). The second way for foreign producers to access the US organic market is through a recognition agreement under State Organic Program (SOP) regulations. allows products to display the USDA seal when placed on shelves. “Currently, USDA has recognition agreements with Denmark, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom” (Liu). The third method, used by Canada, uses an agreementof equivalence which essentially relies on confidence that Canada's organic regulatory system is strong enough to allow its products into the United States without domestic testing, and vice versa. Chenglin Liu's research was published in the Stanford Journal. of international law entitled “Is USDA Organic a Seal of Deception?” The Pitfalls of USDA Certified Organic Produce Produced in the United States, China and Beyond” provided a ton of information used in this essay. Is Liu's article "USDA Organic" a hallmark of deception? The Pitfalls of USDA Certified Organic Products Produced in the United States, China and Beyond » “concludes that the current regulatory framework is not only inadequate to regulate domestic organic products, but also incapable of ensuring the integrity of imported organic products ". The OFPA of 1990 was passed to provide guidance to consumers and end confusion when it came to organic products in grocery stores. The USDA organic seal on food was supposed to assure consumers that they were eating quality food, free of pesticides and chemicals. However, this is not the case at the national or international level. USDA agents who audit the production process and test products for residues regulate foreign countries, but these agents are unable to see many components of the production process that may violate the rules, and many producers themselves themselves are downright dishonest. relevant issues in foreign countries like China, including land tenure, pollution and the regulatory environment, which are well beyond the reach of certifying agents", making the USDA seal affixed to these articles (Liu). Dishonesty in the foreign organic industry occurs because producers want their food to look and taste the best, so consumers will buy more and more. Illegal chemicals are used to make this happen, and producers hope it will slip through the cracks, and it often does. “Indeed, it is well known that Chinese food manufacturers employ the most unthinkable means to adulterate food for economic gain” (Liu). In order to continue to receive imports from China and other foreign countries with the privilege of the USDA Organic label, a policy change must be made to ensure that these products are what they claim to be.MethodIn order to determine the he overall effect of the USDA Organic label on products in grocery stores, labels, and consumers needs to be examined. We hypothesize that overall, consumers place a high degree of trust in the USDA Organic label and are unaware of many policies that have been shown to be ineffective regarding the organic foods they purchase. Organic labels include the following layers: 100% organic, organic and made from organic products. “A product sold as “100% organic” must contain (by weight or volume of liquid, excluding water and salt) 100% organic ingredients” (Liu). This type of product may have the USDA seal on the front of the package as well as the logo of the agent who certified it organic. A product marketed as “organic” “must contain (by weight or liquid volume, excluding water and salt) at least 95% organically produced raw or processed agricultural products” (Liu). This type of product may also have the seal and logo on the front of the package. “A product sold as “made from organic products”, specifying which,.

Essay / How Organic Farming Has Benefited the Food Industry in the United States America's food industry, it is important that steps are taken to ensure that consumers get what they pay for and that they can trust the purchasing process. In ancient times, organic farming was the only way to practice agriculture, but in the recent past, conventional methods have taken over, destroying the fertility of American soils and employing harmful pesticides. When organic farming came back into the spotlight in the 1950s, rules and regulations were put in place to ensure quality, certified organic foods were placed on shelves. Regulations, however, are difficult to enforce in foreign countries like China, which exports so-called organic products to the United States. We developed a method to test the extent to which consumers trust the USDA organic seal placed on so-called organic foods, and we hypothesized that a large number of consumers who purchase foods organic are unaware of the lack of control over these foods before they are authorized. on grocery store shelves. Determining the percentage of consumers who trust this food based on the seal alone will help generate evidence for policy change. In an industry that lacks the ethics to achieve financial gain, many producers will stop at nothing to do so, but when the health of humanity is in question, things can get very dangerous. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayResearch Organic food sales in the United States reached $35.1 billion in 2013, making the United States the largest organic market in the world. This means that 5% of food sales in the United States come from organic products (Mosier). Due to the significant impact of organic products on the market and consumers, this is an industry that should be heavily regulated. “However, the organic food market is in a unique position because its supply chain is interdependent on organic certification policies that are managed by state and federal policymakers” (Mosier). These certification policies have proven unsatisfactory in the past, causing products to slip through the cracks that are not truly organic. Throughout this essay, a scientific article on organic products, the processes by which they are certified, and the problems related to the organic certification systems of the United States and China will be critically analyzed and a new research method on this subject will be presented. When it comes to something as important as food, regulations are necessary, but some industries will go to dangerous lengths to make extra money regardless of the health consequences, resulting in misleading labels on products at your local grocery store. The movement in the United States is called Jerome Rodale. “In 1942, Rodale published Organic Farming magazine, which provided a platform for spreading his belief in organic food and his distaste for chemically induced agriculture” (Liu). Rodale analyzed howmodern agriculture destroyed soil fertility and produced unhealthy products. “Organic agriculture can be broadly defined as a “holistic production management system that promotes and improves the health of agro-ecosystems, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity” (Mosier ). Rodale “likened chemical fertilizers to a horse's whip, accelerating growth but accelerating fatigue” (Liu). Rodale's efforts toward biological processes in the United States bore fruit as the government began to understand the consequences of infertile soil due to continued conventional agriculture. Soon after, organic methods began to become standardized in the United States, and consumers were willing to pay higher prices for fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides. organic products, because conventional production costs were lower. Organic methods are more expensive because "organic producers may face shortages of organic seeds, pesticides and other inputs or may face higher prices for these inputs and because of relatively intense use labor, specialized equipment and other substitutes for synthetic chemicals” (Veldstra). . By the 1970s, local and state governments knew they needed to take action against this fraudulent activity in order to regulate the market. Most states created regulations, but over time they noticed that each state had different standards. This caused disruptions in the market that the federal government became aware of. “The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) was passed by Congress as Title XXI of the Farm Bill of 1990” (Mosier). This law introduced national regulations on what could and could not be labeled "organic." The aim was to help consumers choose what they wanted to eat and ensure they would get value for money. The Farm Bill also gave rise to the National Organic Program (NOP) and the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which were administered by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. “The NOP is responsible for setting standards for organic production, handling and processing. Additionally, the NOP oversees organic certification to ensure compliance with established standards. Another key part of the legislation, the NOSB is an advisory committee charged with establishing the standards by which the NOP operates” (Mosier). Certification was now required to display the USDA Organic seal on products in stores. Many farmers wanted to be certified, but the process was not easy, so some farmers, even those producing organic produce, chose not to obtain certification and simply relied on their close relationships with consumers premises to manage their activity. “There were many obstacles to organic certification, including the three-year transition period, the financial and time cost of certification, and the paperwork” (Veldstra). Farmers were left to debate whether the higher income generated by organic produce was worth certification. Many factors influenced this decision by farmers. While market forces have determined the dispersal and policy of organic products, "less direct financial support for the transition, the perceived cost of certification, and other commercialization opportunities that do not requirecertification have led to an interesting dynamic in determining what producers choose to certify” (Mosier). In order to obtain organic certification, farmers had to ensure their produce was grown organically three years before receiving certification. Even though they were unable to obtain certification before the three-year waiting period expired, some farmers were able to increase their prices by marketing their products as “transitional.” Some farmers did not obtain certification because they did not believe the benefits of organic certification would outweigh the costs, and some simply did not have access to consumers willing to pay a premium for organic products. . Since the market determines American policy regarding organic products. , “there is some financial support for organic certification; U.S. growers are eligible for reimbursement of up to 75% of organic certification costs, but not to exceed $750 per year (Veldstra). The situation differs in Europe, where the European Common Agricultural Policy guarantees organic farmers significant subsidies, which make it easier for them to obtain certification. Some producers in the United States do not obtain certification because they believe that certifiers are not sufficiently trained for their task. “The same producers who strongly agree that the certification process is confusing also say that interacting with the certifier is a significant barrier. This suggests that some certifiers may increase confusion” (Veldstra). One solution to this problem would be to train certifiers in a way that allows them to be more useful in conveying information to producers on how the process works and training them to carry out the process quickly and efficiently. In research by Michael D. Veldstra, small farms were more likely to produce organic crops "motivated primarily by their philosophical beliefs, compared to none who farm more than 50 acres." While philosophical beliefs are strong on some farms, others are more concerned with financial gain, leading some of them to hide under the term “local”. In places like farmers' markets, where consumers have a direct relationship with farmers, farmers are able to charge more for their products by appealing to consumers with the term "local," which many consumers say means “organic”. Additionally, this lack of consumer awareness may allow producers to “choose” which organic practices to follow, while still marketing their products as organic” (Veldstra). This is a problem because it is deceptive marketing and the consumer is not getting what they paid for. While this may seem unacceptable, in China even greater measures are being taken to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing organic products, even to the point that some measures are deadly. In 2008, the organic industry in the United States grew into a $21.1 billion industry and, like many other products, producers were unable to meet demand and therefore began to rely on imports to satiate hungry consumers. “Up to 40% of organic foods consumed in the United States are imported from more than 100 countries” (Liu). USDA agents were tasked with traveling to these foreign countries, such as China, throughexample, and to certify producers to grow organic food and allow them to use the USDA organic label and import into the United States (Liu). With demand for organic produce so high, these agents knew they had to return home after accrediting a large number of farmers. “In 2007, USDA accredited agents certified 27,000 organic growers and handlers worldwide, including 11,000 outside the United States. » (Liu). The goal was to hold these international producers to the same standards as American organic farmers, meaning that they were banned from using pesticides three years before the products were sold in stores. Although these rules seem effective, behind all the regulations is the truth that OFPA allows the use of certain pesticides on organic produce. This means that when consumers go to the store to buy organic products under the pretense that no pesticides were used in the production of those products, they are deceived by the USDA Organic label. “As Mr. William J. Friedman, former Vice Chairman of the United States National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), explained: “Organic labels are not statements regarding wholesomeness, nutritional value, or overall safety. of consumption of such products” (Liu Because China is so out of reach of regular visits to NOP (National Organic Program) sites, it is easy for Chinese products to be considered organic in the United States, even though this is not the case of surprise visits by NOP agents crucial to preserving the honesty of farmers, but in one case, "the inspector general discovered that the NOP office had not carried out initial assessments on. room for five foreign certifying agents for a period of seven years after the bureau had conditionally accredited the agents” (Liu) This, however, left plenty of room for error and a full seven years of deception within the organic industry foreign. Agents occasionally travel to China to monitor production processes and test products for residues to ensure farmers were compliant. these visits were rare. This is due to budget and limited number of agents, and is simply not enough to ensure that organic imports are regulated and meet high enough standards. “In the most egregious cases, the USDA granted foreign certifying agents conditional accreditations based solely on paper applications and did not follow up to verify their compliance for seven years” (Liu). Dishonest producers not only negatively impact consumers, but they also cause compliant producers to leave stores due to their low prices. Some specific cases of deception involving organic products in large supermarkets in the United States have been reported. In one case, Whole Foods marketed one of its organic snacks with large letters saying "California" on the front of the package, but in very small print on the back it said "Imported from China" (Liu) . This Whole Foods marketing misleads consumers into believing the product comes from California, which is likely more tightly regulated than China when it comes to organic produce. “In its rebuttal to the 2008 ABC report discussed above, Whole Foods attempted to convince consumers that it was irrelevant whether their organic products came from Chinese or domestic producers, because both were subject to the same regulations and supervision. However, heIt turned out that certification agents working in China did not even understand the NOP regulations” (Liu). This misunderstanding stems from the lack of training of certifiers by the USDA, which in turn causes confusion among growers when untrained certifiers come in and share incorrect or inadequate information. “In 2006, Wal-Mart stores in China had to remove fresh organic produce from their shelves because a surprise inspection revealed that produce from a trusted Beijing-based farm was actually treated with pesticides.” (Liu). Many Chinese producers claimed to follow production rules while being deceptive and using conventional farming techniques to increase their income. This is harmful to consumers because they may have health problems related to pesticides and other chemicals used by conventional producers, and it is also harmful to their wallets because they spend more money on a product than they think they are held to higher standards, but that is not the case. Arguments for Policy Change When the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was introduced, there were high hopes for the regulation of organic products in the United States. Perhaps now consumers could be assured that the food they bought and ate was free of harmful pesticides. GMOs and chemicals. This law proposed a national list of chemicals and pesticides banned in organic production, and certifiers were sent to organic farms to ensure regulations were followed. “Currently, the national list allows the use of more than sixty synthetic substances in organic agricultural production” (Liu). In addition to national visits to organic producers, international visits should also be made. Throughout this section of the essay, the three ways in which internationally imported products can be sold on American grocery store shelves will be discussed as well as the flaws in this certification process and the means by which the policy This area should be improved in order to put an end to the problems of non-organic products slipping through the cracks. Consumers should not have to worry about whether or not their money is going to certifiable foods and whether they are consuming safe products. The first way for foreign producers to sell organic products in the United States is to be certified by a USDA agent. “Currently, there are ninety-four USDA-accredited agents, of which fifty-three are domestic agents and forty-one are foreign agents” (Liu). These agents are then supposed to perform routine checks on these sites to ensure that they continue to follow USDA regulations to produce honest imports for the United States. “In 2007, USDA-accredited certifying agents certified 27,000 growers and handlers to U.S. organic standards: “approximately 16,000 in the United States and 11,000 in more than 100 foreign countries” (Liu). The second way for foreign producers to access the US organic market is through a recognition agreement under State Organic Program (SOP) regulations. allows products to display the USDA seal when placed on shelves. “Currently, USDA has recognition agreements with Denmark, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom” (Liu). The third method, used by Canada, uses an agreementof equivalence which essentially relies on confidence that Canada's organic regulatory system is strong enough to allow its products into the United States without domestic testing, and vice versa. Chenglin Liu's research was published in the Stanford Journal. of international law entitled “Is USDA Organic a Seal of Deception?” The Pitfalls of USDA Certified Organic Produce Produced in the United States, China and Beyond” provided a ton of information used in this essay. Is Liu's article "USDA Organic" a hallmark of deception? The Pitfalls of USDA Certified Organic Products Produced in the United States, China and Beyond » “concludes that the current regulatory framework is not only inadequate to regulate domestic organic products, but also incapable of ensuring the integrity of imported organic products ". The OFPA of 1990 was passed to provide guidance to consumers and end confusion when it came to organic products in grocery stores. The USDA organic seal on food was supposed to assure consumers that they were eating quality food, free of pesticides and chemicals. However, this is not the case at the national or international level. USDA agents who audit the production process and test products for residues regulate foreign countries, but these agents are unable to see many components of the production process that may violate the rules, and many producers themselves themselves are downright dishonest. relevant issues in foreign countries like China, including land tenure, pollution and the regulatory environment, which are well beyond the reach of certifying agents", making the USDA seal affixed to these articles (Liu). Dishonesty in the foreign organic industry occurs because producers want their food to look and taste the best, so consumers will buy more and more. Illegal chemicals are used to make this happen, and producers hope it will slip through the cracks, and it often does. “Indeed, it is well known that Chinese food manufacturers employ the most unthinkable means to adulterate food for economic gain” (Liu). In order to continue to receive imports from China and other foreign countries with the privilege of the USDA Organic label, a policy change must be made to ensure that these products are what they claim to be.MethodIn order to determine the he overall effect of the USDA Organic label on products in grocery stores, labels, and consumers needs to be examined. We hypothesize that overall, consumers place a high degree of trust in the USDA Organic label and are unaware of many policies that have been shown to be ineffective regarding the organic foods they purchase. Organic labels include the following layers: 100% organic, organic and made from organic products. “A product sold as “100% organic” must contain (by weight or volume of liquid, excluding water and salt) 100% organic ingredients” (Liu). This type of product may have the USDA seal on the front of the package as well as the logo of the agent who certified it organic. A product marketed as “organic” “must contain (by weight or liquid volume, excluding water and salt) at least 95% organically produced raw or processed agricultural products” (Liu). This type of product may also have the seal and logo on the front of the package. “A product sold as “made from organic products”, specifying which,.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch