A recent court decision ruled that only natural ingredients should be allowed in foods labeled as "organic." This ruling reinforces our current organic labeling law by keeping chemically-derived synthetic substances from being used in foods labeled as “organic.”

But industry groups are lobbying Congress to change the law so that artificial ingredients can be included in foods labeled “organic”! Specifically, food producers such as the Organic Trade Association, Kraft Foods and others seek to amend the Organic Foods Production Act (passed in 1990) so that synthetic substances can be used in food products labeled as "organic." They claim that consumers do not care about their use in "organic" food and are trying to slip this change into the law without any public input. From redjellyfish.com

Well I thought something like that would fall under 'false advertising' (a term I am used to as I work for an outsourcing company).

Does anyone care? I hope so...

Why not take the label organic off it and just call it crap food..

One of the more absurd ideas I've heard I prefer organic food it tastes better and is on the whole better for you. As a former chemist/biochemist/haematologist I hate chemicals in general never mind added to my food.

I hope it doesn't make it through congress

I always thought that the term "organic" meant different things depending on what food item it is being applied to.

In the case of vegetables, I thought it meant that there were no pesticides or non-natural fertilizers used on the plants.

For meat products, I thought it meant that the animals were not fed hormones and steroids to increase muscle mass.

Ini the case of a packaged food (which is pretty much all Kraft makes), I don't see how the term "organic" even applies.

It also depends on what they mean by "synthetic" too. If the synthetic substance is, for example, food coloring, to make the appearance of the food more appealing, I don't see why that would be a problem. We've used food coloring for years (Easter eggs anyone?), and it has proven to be safe for human consumption. (OK, maybe the Easter egg example was a poor one, as you don't eat the shells.)

My point is, that they would have to delineate what synthetic substances they want to be able to use. If it is all synthetic substances, then the term "organic" becomes meaningless, as everything has to be either organic or synthetic, so if you're allow to use any synthetic substance you want and still be able to label the food as "organic", then everything can be labelled organic.

Safe for human consumption?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742423.stm

and er... Sudan 1. I'm sure there was another one banned when I was a kid. Sunset yellow? or is that opne that survived.

Though I agree, I don't see how anything synthetic can be described as organic.

I should have said "most" food coloring. I think the other one you may be thinking about was "Red 40". That, as the name impies, is a red dye, that was banned back in the 70s. It's also the principle reason that M&Ms stopped producing red M&Ms for a period of several years. Although they were not using that particular food coloring, they thought that many would assume they were, so there were no red M&Ms for a period of many years.

I really hate the way that people have used organic to mean the definitions as described by Aldeth. Organic means that it is from a living organism thus any plant/animal/fungus etc. would be organic - so unless you are talking about eating rocks or sand you are pretty much guaranteed that your food is organic.

As the son of a trained physical, organic and inorganic chemist, I always had a different view of what "organic" meant as well. Dad still laughs whenever he sees some product promoted as "organic" when it physically can't be. My personal favourite is "organic water".

Back on-topic... what about naturally-occurring substances mass-produced synthetically (for instance, by mimicking the natural production or by different chemical processes)? Not being a chemist myself, I guess there may be subtle differences between the two, but how could law-makers reasonably differentiate or discriminate between two substances which had identical properties and could be generated naturally or artificially?

I've always taken the position that "organic", in this sense, means food items grown with a minimum of chemical use (some is almost always necessary) and without the use of genetic modification technologies. Thankfully, I live within walking distance of Melbourne's biggest open-air market and can get fresh produce all the time; the whole "organic" thing doesn't really mean much to me.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a good approach to have to food (limiting pesticide usage or hormonal manipulation, meaning you eat better quality food), but one which has been hijacked somewhat for marketing purposes.

Lighten up, many words have multiple meanings (e.g., "rose"), and many others taken on additional or altered meanings as a result of cultural usage (e.g., "gay"). Why should "organic" be linguistically sacrosanct?

I, too, would have a hard time accepting artificial ingredients as acceptable in organic foods. Fortunately, there are state-level agencies with stricter guidelines that are actually setting the standard for what can or cannot bear the term "organic". As long as those organizations don't give in to the lobbyists, the real result should be small.

The easy way out, of course, is to spend your grocery dollars on whole foods or ingredients and do your own cooking. It's hard to sneak anything to an apple.

what about naturally-occurring substances mass-produced synthetically (for instance, by mimicking the natural production or by different chemical processes)? Not being a chemist myself, I guess there may be subtle differences between the two, but how could law-makers reasonably differentiate or discriminate between two substances which had identical properties and could be generated naturally or artificially? Well, I am a chemist and CAN answer this question. If it is synthetically produced to have the same exact chemical structure as the original, there will be no differences - even subtle between the two substances. Furthermore, even using technologies much as mass spectroscopy to give you a blueprint of the molecular structure won't do you much good either, as they would be identical in every way. On the other hand, if the synthetically produced item is not identical to the original, but only very similar, then yes, there will be subtle differences. Even if these differences are not directly observable by the human senses, we have instruments that could differentiate between the two.