[Editor’s note:ย Henry Miller is a physician and molecular biologist, and a Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Publicย Policyย atย Stanford Universityโs Hoover Institution.ย He was the founding director of the FDAโs Office of Biotechnology. Julie Kelly is a food writer and National Review Online contributor.]
The House Committee on Appropriations [met July 12] to consider the full committee markup of the FY2018 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.ย We hope it will reflect a guiding principle articulated in a recentย Wall Street Journalย editorial: โif youโre going to propose cutting a program, you might as well try to eliminate it. The political pain is as great and if you succeed the payoff is greater.โ
The budget proposed by the president would, in fact, zero out several programs at the Department of Agriculture, and we would suggest adding one more: the National Organic Program, which is rent-seeking pure and simple.
Subsidized to the tune of $160 million annually, it has more in common with Whole Foodsโ marketing department than sound government. For example, the NOP is charged with โprotecting the integrity of the USDA organic seal, from farm to market, around the world.โ When it was established in 1990, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman emphasized the fundamental meaninglessness of the organic designation: โLet me be clear about one thing, the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is โorganicโ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.โ
Share this article
That is pretty clear, and worth repeating: The organic label is no more than a marketing tool.ย But it is a tool has been grossly abused.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:ย “Federal Subsidies To Organic Agriculture Should Be Plowed Under”
