By Nancy Christy and Neil Heinen
Madison Magazine
Special To Channel 3000

The announcement that Wal-Mart plans to significantly increase the amount of organic products it offers in its mega-stores does not make Wal-Mart the genuine article. Far from it. It does, however, mark what is likely a pivotal point in the history of our evolving, global conversation about healthy foods, sustainable agriculture and resources, and may very well end up changing the way we think about what we eat and where we buy it.

We've probably been bucking up to this tipping point for some time now, encountering one new challenge to healthier consumption after another. The list of challenges would include the availability and cost of organic food, a more precise definition of what constitutes organic and natural products, the growth in the number and size of organic producers, and now, the influx of organic products by conventional companies and in conventional, bigboxretail outlets. Lay it all end to end, and what you have is a new popculture phenomenon fueled by the irresistible selling points of personal and environmental health. The problem is that using health benefits only to sell products obscures their legitimacy, and worse, impacts negatively on local growers, sellers, workers, economies and land.

There has been a growing body of thought in the sustainable agriculture movement that some concepts and terms need to be better defined, even re-defined. Pragmatically, the food industry needs to establish scientifically accurate and legally clear guidelines for organic growers because there are, and continue to be, abuses. Some are based on legitimate confusion. Some are not. Philosophically, leading activists have raised the issue of the relative benefits of organically grown products versus locally grown ones. The goal should be both, but in the current environment, it's not that simple. While some organic growers are becoming certified, others are in transition, or choosing not to seek certification. Meanwhile, questionable labeling of organic products has led a growing number of restaurateurs, sellers, chefs and health advocates to opt for local over organic -- the berry from the farmer a thirty-minute drive from town as opposed to the organic one from two time zones away.

The global Slow Food movement is already adding a great deal of context to this conversation. From coffee to cattle and sugar to salmon, Slow Food advocates are working to help the local growers -- families, community co-ops and small farms that have hired neighbors for generations -- to get the resources they need to compete with the corporate food producers. At risk are small producers as well as heritage products and heirloom varieties that preserve our food traditions and protect our land. While Slow Food has been gearing up for the fight, it's going to take a great deal more consumer awareness than what's been generated to this point.

The initial appeal of the Wal-Mart decision will be the feel-good prospect of buying organic Frosted Mini Wheats, to use one published example. Health advocates will have a field day with that one. But more importantly, Wal-Mart will look for the biggest, most efficient and costeffective (read: cheapest) manufacturers, which puts unmanageable pressures on the mega-growers to cut corners and creates unneeded and unreasonable competition for the small, local producers. In the big picture, it affects every one of us by further separating us from how and where our food is grown, who is growing it and how these people, the food and the land intersect with our lives. Wal-Mart's offering of massive quantities of low-priced, corporately produced organics is a major step closer to "don't worry your silly little heads about what it all means, just come buy it and feel good." And that is a very real danger to all the genuine articles in our lives.

To continue reading, visit MadisonMagazine.com.