From the Editor's Desk Organics: Try to tell the truth If you tell your customers you’re selling certified organic seafood, you’re probably not telling the truth. More likely, the distributor who sold the seafood to you in the first place wasn’t telling the truth. Certified organic seafood? There’s no such thing. In the U.S., the Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Standards Board sets certification guidelines for many terrestrial forms of agriculture. But, for seafood, the board has demurred. It wasn’t for the lack of trying on the part of fish farmers. But, last spring, the appropriately named “Livestock Committee” of the standards board declined to establish criteria for seafood certification. It was the right move. Here’s the problem: In the minds of most consumers, “organic” symbolizes natural, wholesome food, grown using practices gentle on the environment. In other words, the terrestrial equivalent to wild-caught seafood. But, by its very definition, wild seafood cannot be proven “organic.” Organic standards are, quite sensibly, processes-driven. An organic-potato farmer, say, must prove he has used only natural inputs on his farm and has, in general, touched the land gently. A farmer can do so. A fisherman cannot. Take salmon: A salmon farmer can easily prove what his fish ate and can show inspectors exactly where and when his livestock ate it. So, based upon the process followed by all other animal agriculturalists, they insist their product is organic, right? Except for that pesky notion of naturalness. A salmon farm is no more natural than an industrial feed lot and, in fact, is much the same: Its charges are packed together like … well, not sardines, but you get the picture. Farmed salmon, at least in the Pacific, are an alien species – potential foreign inoculants in an environment unprepared for them. This aquatic livestock is fed kibble made of marine organisms hauled from far, far away, often the waters near Antarctica. Floating net pens crammed with fish act as a disease and pest bank for any natural creature swimming by. Yet, fish farmers argue that their product – just like potatoes – can be “organic.” Far more galling, at least to me, is this: While farmed fish can be “organic,” wild, natural fish certainly cannot. Again, speaking of the Pacific, wild salmon smolt tumble down cold mountain streams and then venture deep into the dark heart of the Pacific, disappearing for years. They live the way salmon are supposed to live, eat what salmon are supposed to eat – all without the help of an organic-standards accountant keeping track of the various “inputs.” So, when the salmon next near land – firm, plump, and, in my mind, courageous – they have no paper trail proving their organic-ness. Hence, they are not. Shrimp grown in Illinois has a better claim, irrespective of their stunningly inappropriate environment. Other shrimp grown in Ecuador, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China also would seem to have a chance, regardless of an environmental record equaling that of a bulldozer. Yet, wild American shrimp? Not a chance that they will be “organic.” Not all aquaculture is bad. We believe environmentally sound seafood farming is necessary to feed the world. But the legal fact remains, in the U.S., no seafood can be officially certified as “organic.” If your supplier says that his product was certified in another country, or by the grower itself, remember that Enron’s accountants certified the company’s books weren’t cooked. As for a product being “natural” or “all-natural,” well, so is arsenic. Right now, you’re probably saying something like this: “But I need organics to sell to some of my customers.” Take a look at Page 12 to see what an academic study says about “organic” vs. “wild” and how the concepts play out in the minds of paying customers. A former newspaperman and commercial fisherman, Don McManman edits Wild Catch magazine