Organic definition
for fish flounders
Critics: USDA proposal for seafood labeling inconsistent
By Mike Hughlett | Tribune reporter
You would think seafood couldn't get more organic than a
thick filet of wild salmon fresh from the pristine waters of
Well, you'd be wrong. And if you're confused, then you'll
understand why the
Next week, a federal panel is slated to make a key decision
on the matter, but the definition it's considering has drawn fire from some
consumer and environmental groups who say it muddies the waters of what the
term "organic" means.
Under the proposed guidelines, wild fish will not make the
grade as organic because the whole notion of "wild" is at odds with
the government's rigorous criteria for classifying organic livestock
production. Wild, after all, can't be controlled.
But under the proposed standard, farm-raised fish would be
considered organic, even if what they eat includes fish meal, which is feed
spiked with ground up wild fish.
Welcome to the latest fray over food labeling, a battlefield
littered with arguments over competing and ill-defined claims of what's good
for you and what marketers think will sell. Above the babble, though, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's "organic" stamp of approval is widely
seen as a label that's helpful to consumers.
The overall image of the USDA's organic label would be hurt
by the fish standard because it's inconsistent with the rest of the program,
said Urvashi Rangan, senior
scientist at Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.
George Lockwood, head of a group of academics, aquaculture
industry types and others who helped draft the proposed standard, dismissed
such a notion. "We have a very rigorous standard that will be very
difficult for [fish] farmers to meet."
The organic food business is booming, and undergirding it are stringent rules for production. For
instance, organic meat can't come from animals treated with growth hormones or
antibiotics, and organic food growers can't use pesticides or herbicides.
The rules for poultry, pork and beef were implemented in
2002. On Wednesday, the National Organic Standards Board, an arm of the USDA,
is slated to vote on a rule for fish. Pending final agency approval, it's
unclear when the new rule would commence.
On Friday, Consumers Union bashed the new fish standard at a
press conference along with three other opponents of the proposal. Their
complaint partly has to do with "net cages" commonly used in ocean
salmon farming.
Critics say the cages allow waste and disease from fish
farms to surge directly into the ocean and hurt wild fish. Lockwood, however,
claims the organic standard has safeguards to prevent that from happening.
Then there's the fish food issue. The USDA requires that
feed for cows, chickens and the like be 100 percent
organic. But under the fish standard, non-organic feed initially would
constitute up to 25 percent of the diet of an organically raised fish.
"We could have fish out on the market that does not
meet the same standards as other organic foods," Rangan
said.
Feed made partly from wild fish is widely used in commercial
fish farms. But wild fish can carry toxins like PCBs. So grinding up wild fish
and putting them in feed for organic fish belies the notion of organic, Rangan said.
Lockwood said PCBs and other toxins in fish can be filtered
out in the production of fish meal.
Many fish—tilapia, for instance—can be raised on a
completely vegetarian, organic diet. But the diets of some fish, including the
ever-popular salmon, must include some of their watery brethren.
Thus, critics of the organic fish standard essentially say
the whole concept of organic salmon should be put on hold until researchers
develop sources of organic feed.
Lockwood said that's not necessary. Several countries allow
the unused portions of fish carcasses to be ground into meal for organically
raised fish, he said. "The principle is well-established around the globe
that wild fish can be used under certain circumstances."
chicagotribune.com