Those of us who want to support organic farming have been sounding the alarm with regard to American "big business'" attempts to get in on the "organic bandwagon" through essentially degrading "organic standards." For example, they want cloned animals, genetically-modified plants, and irradiated foods to be included under the "organic" umbrella--notions that outrage many of us.

What we want is an "organic standard" that fits everyone, for the protection of the average consumer--who is likely to just see the word "organic" slapped on the product label and just assume that it's somehow "healthier," without knowing that "organic" might have one definition for one type of food product and another definition for another type of food product.

So, it's been pretty-much agreed-upon that we consumers want one "organic standard" to apply equally to all farmers--that the "growing fields" should be a "level playing field," as it were.

Now we're saying that requiring third-world small farmers to adhere to these stringent standards is too-onorous a requirement for them, economically, and that maybe we should loosen the "organic standards" for them so that they will continue to provide us with organic coffee.

I understand, and appreciate, the motivation behind wanting to make coffee production economically-feasible for small, third-world growers, but standards are standards. What's sauce for Big Agribusiness is sauce for Juan Valdez--know what I mean?

There is one reasonable compromise that I can envision: Instead of labeling their coffees as being "organic," they can specify their growing practices on their labels. Other organic farmers have had to do this in those cases where the "organic standard" is not tight-enough--as is currently the case with "free range" poultry (the fact is that not-truly free-range, humanely-reared poultry CAN carry an "organic," "free range" label, so those manufacturers that raise their animals humanely and want the public to know about it are left only with the alternative of specifying their animal-rearing practices on the packages' labels). A small, third-world coffee grower could have package labels that read, "Grown without pesticides or artificial fertilizers," instead of the simpler-but-onerously-expensive label that reads, "organic."

Until the system's bugs are worked out, it seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.

Given the inherent vagaries of the term "organic," I for one won't necessarily miss it. In terms of ecological health, and social well-being, "FairTrade" is a lot better than "organic" anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't know if the average consumer understands the difference. Chances are, a small farmer takes better care of the land and has more sustainable practices, even if he uses some pesticide or fertilizer.

Good luck with the advertising campaign, FairTrade. Organic or not, you guys are creating a more environmentally friendly future.

Unfortunately, I don't know if the average consumer understands the difference.

-- eggster

It's just fucking coffee. Drink it or don't.

one has to wonder if the USDA's extreme response on this isn't meant to encourage large-scale farming and make things more difficult for the smaller farmers around the globe. God knows the USDA is committed to destroying the small farmer in this country. I wonder what effect this might have on American corporations like Dole.

People who care enough about coffee to want imported organic or shade-grown types will probably care enough to get the coffee they want regardless of what label is allowed to be stuck on it.

Personally, I import my own coffee a few pounds at a time each time I am out of the US, because I enjoy a good cup of of Dominican coffee, and the only coffees I can get in the local supermarkets taste like dishwater, and any coffee you get away from home in a restaurant or gas station is even worse.

All you will get from this legislation is big business producing organic coffee that tastes like crap, but costs the earth.

I'm with you, I think the stuff is vile myself.

Unfortunately, it's not "just coffee." It's also millions of hectacres and millions of livelihoods in the developing world. Coffee production has a huge impact on deforestation and rainforest species. What happens to coffee happens to the entire planet, which is why it's such a contentious issue.

With regard to protecting vulnerable tropical habitat and vulnerable Third World independent farmers, the critical things to look for in choosing coffee are that it be fair trade and shade grown. And unlike the "free trade" in the headline, the issue is "fair trade."

This is a critical issue facing wildlife as well as humans. Sun grown cultivars favored by large-scale growers are replacing huge swaths of rain forest with row crops.

I think it's fairly obvious this ruling could have a tremendously negative effect on grower's cooperatives, and these groups have already had a pretty tough time to begin with. It doesn't really matter if you drink coffee or not, or if you find it vile or not. What matters is that we (and the USDA) not dismiss these groups out of hand or quietly pass along rules that favor the leviathans.

If someone who is active in this field could post a web address or something, I'm sure many of us would be willing to send a letter or two to our congressmen, senators, to the USDA, etc, etc.

The growers and organic-coffee drinkers may well find a way round this, but if we can help un-stack the deck against them then we have moral obligation to do so.

Or we can just write them off, who the fuck cares right?

"Standards are standards"? You've got to be kidding. It sounds as if they were adhering to a sound and reasonable compromise as regards the standards.

Your axiom is rarely if ever true. What an incredibly quietest, defeatist attitude.

How is that the powerful get some average schmoe like yourself to defend them?

I'm amazed to see a Salon writer arguing against consumer protection. If I pay a premium for organic food, I'd like to know it's organic.

to: Personally

I'm with you, I think the stuff is vile myself.

Unfortunately, it's not "just coffee." It's also millions of hectacres and millions of livelihoods in the developing world. Coffee production has a huge impact on deforestation and rainforest species. What happens to coffee happens to the entire planet, which is why it's such a contentious issue.

-- eggster

That's why I no longer eat meat. It's a fairly simplr call. I want that, but to get that they destroy way too much, so I stop getting that and get something else a lot less harmful and most likely local.