British Columbians have embraced the organic food message in a big way.
But questions are increasingly being raised over Canada's regulation of the industry. Across the country, shoppers in B.C. are most likely to head to the organics section of their local grocery store. According to a 2013 Canada Organic Trade Association (COTA) report, 66% of British Columbians buy organic groceries every week, more than in any other province.
That's good news for B.C.'s organic food processors and growers, who are grabbing a share of Canada's $3.5 billion organic industry. "Our revenue has increased 15% to 30% for the last number of years," Arjan Stephens, executive vice-president of sales and marketing at Nature's Path Organic, told Business in Vancouver.
But in order to protect consumers and ensure that Canada's food exports continue to be trusted, Canada's organic food regulations need to be brought in line with more stringent American rules, according to Robert Blair, professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia's department of land and food systems.
Blair said new revelations that nearly half of organic food tested by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) contained pesticide residues have shone a spotlight on the problem.
"At present, the organic designation for foods is based on documented certification," wrote Blair in an email. "No test can be applied to confirm that the food in question is organic, especially when pesticide residues can be detected in the food."
Documents obtained by the CBC through a freedom of information request showed that 45% of organic food sampled by the CFIA tested positive for pesticide residue; another 8% contained enough pesticide to indicate pesticide had been used on purpose.
Stephens and others in B.C.'s organics industry say Canada's current organic certification system, which the CFIA oversees, is a rigorous standard consumers can trust.
Farmers who want to be certified in Canada pay a yearly registration fee, agree to be inspected once a year and must keep paper records of their farming practices.
Inspectors look for signs that chemicals may have been used – such as a "completely weed-free" farm – and may require soil testing "if anything has been red-flagged," said Stephanie Wells, senior policy adviser with COTA.
The industry has been formally regulated since 2009, when the CFIA took over regulation oversight and created a national standard.
"I think organic is the only choice [concerned consumers] can make," Wells said. "That certification mark means that there was a third-party audit and that the organic standards were followed."
But Blair said those paper records don't provide adequate proof that food is organic.
"I do not believe it wise to continue to rely on trust as a way of ensuring the quality and safety of organic foods," Blair wrote.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules currently go further than Canada's.
The USDA mandates that organic food can contain only 5% of the pesticide residue that non-organic food is allowed to have. A 2010 study found that 96% of the organic food tested came in under that threshold.
In 2012, the agency committed to randomly test 5% of all organic products it certifies – the first time it has set a minimum amount of testing. Blair is also concerned that the current system leaves a big hole when it comes to organic food imported to Canada from outside of North America. He pointed out that at certain times of the year, much of the organic produce sold in Canada comes from countries like Mexico.
Just as it does for organic certification of Canadian growers, the CFIA depends on visual inspections and documentation gathered by certification organizations to certify organic food grown outside of Canada.
"How is it possible to ensure that these foods have really been produced according to Canadian organic standards?" he questioned.
Health halo effect: the power of organic label
Consumers are highly influenced by the organic label, said Robert Blair, professor emeritus at University of British Columbia's department of land and food systems, in an email.
Blair referred to a Danish study that asked participants to rate several samples of pork, which had been labelled organic, free-range or conventional or had no label. Participants gave higher ratings on appearance to the pork labelled organic.
"The consumers were obviously greatly influenced by the information on the label, confirming other findings that the perceived quality of organic meat is largely governed by expectation," said Blair. "However, the organic pork received consistently lower ratings than conventional pork when tasted, regardless of label information."
In another study by Cornell University, researchers asked shoppers to rate two samples each of cookies, chips and yogurt. The participants thought the samples labelled "organic" had fewer calories and less fat and tasted better (both samples were actually organic).
However, people who said they regularly bought organic or read nutritional labels were less likely to be fooled.
Researchers call this powerful effect of the label the "health halo."
