The Healthy Food Penalty

By Cliff Walsh


Eating healthily comes with the obvious pros, but cons as well. Healthy foods, such as those produced organically, are more costly for a variety of reasons. First, organic produce requires more hands-on labor, pricey inspections and certifications, larger volumes of natural fertilizers, as well as other farming techniques. These disadvantages can be significant for a small farm especially when comparing their cost structures to multi-billion dollar food enterprises that offer low prices because they pump cheap chemicals and fillers into their foods.

All of these reasons carry merit, but I find the most disturbing is the indirect tax that is placed on organic food producers by having to go through inspections and certifications in order to carry the USDA organic label. A company bringing a new chemical formulation to the food supply does not have any such approval process. This penalizes healthy food producers and consumers. The FDA's certification process is so porous that a company can approve its own food additive by labeling it "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS, basing it off of its own private research.

This is where it gets dicey. The government is easily circumvented because a food producer is able to fund private research to support its new product claim. If the additive comes up safe in the company's own checks, it is automatically ready for use in the food supply. The FDA has no oversight. The company isn't even required to make the government aware of the product's approval. It is a voluntary system. It is not difficult to understand that companies can bring dangerous chemicals to market in very little time (and no research on long-term risks) with little cost. This self-approval process has flooded the grocery store aisles with loads of untested chemicals, ranging from artificial flavors, food coloring, and sugar substitutes.

In contrast, the organic farmer or food preparer is required to go through a certification process by third parties authorized by the government's oversight bodies. This is at the cost of the producer. It is up to the petitioner to prove its products are organic, which is perfectly understandable. My concern lies with the drastically different approval processes. Why should organic farmers be put at a disadvantage in bringing their products to market when the food additive executives do not? It is ludicrous to think that the food industry is allowed to approve its own products for use, particularly when you consider we are ingesting these products, often without our knowledge. The dangers to our health are unquantifiable yet the food manufacturers continue to get paid.

Many people believe legislative action should be the strategy. While that is a possibility, we are in this mess because the government's ineptitude and susceptibility to outside influence (think lots of money and consulting jobs from the food industry). I believe the highest probability of success lies with making better food choices.

With legislation, you are relying on dubious politicians to do the right thing. I like to focus on action that has a direct impact on what I'm trying to accomplish. By purchasing healthier foods, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy as I'm helping to grow the organic industry, lowering their costs and my future prices. This profit also comes out of the hands of the chemical food producers, hurting their businesses, something I believe will sink in very quickly. It is up to us to shift gears and head in a new direction, one where we take responsibility for our own health and force our food suppliers to adhere to our needs and long-term health concerns.




About the Author:



No comments:

Post a Comment