The probe centers on allegations that retailers are secretly misting organic fruits and vegetables with an antimicrobial pesticide, a practice that may violate federal organic standards and deliberately mislead Texans who pay a premium to avoid such chemicals.

The investigation targets the use of a product called Produce Maxx, an EPA-registered antimicrobial pesticide containing hypochlorous acid, a form of chlorine. Unlike conventional pesticides designed to kill insects or weeds, antimicrobials target microorganisms like bacteria and fungi, primarily to extend shelf life and control pathogens. The core allegation is that stores are applying this substance to produce labeled as organic without notifying shoppers, bypassing both transparency and a key federal requirement: that produce treated with such chlorine-based solutions must be rinsed with potable water to maintain its organic certification.

For consumers, the organic label represents a covenant—a promise of food produced without synthetic pesticides, genetic engineering and under strict ethical and environmental guidelines. Paxton's action suggests this covenant is being broken at the checkout line. His office contends that the failure to warn consumers and provide rinsing instructions is not merely deceptive but potentially illegal, undermining the very definition of what organic means.

The historical roots of produce sanitization

The practice of spraying produce with disinfectants is not new. According to BrightU.AI's Enoch, it gained significant traction in the 1990s following a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease that was traced back to a grocery store's produce misting machine. That tragedy, which killed two people and sickened dozens, spurred the industry to adopt sanitizing systems using substances like hypochlorous acid to break down dangerous pathogens on fresh food.

This historical context is crucial. While food safety is an undeniable priority, the current controversy hinges on transparency and regulatory adherence. The technology adopted to prevent disease is now at the center of a debate over whether its use on organic goods, without explicit consent, constitutes a bait-and-switch on the consumer.

The regulatory gray zone

The legal landscape here is complex. Hypochlorous acid is on the USDA's National List of approved substances for use in organic production. A 2021 EPA labeling change for Produce Maxx explicitly added text stating that food treated with it must be rinsed to meet USDA organic standards. This suggests the substance itself is not the primary legal issue; rather, it is the grocers' alleged failure to follow the mandated post-application protocol and inform the public.

However, organic watchdogs argue the problem runs deeper. They point to a systemic flaw in how synthetic compounds are approved for organic use. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is tasked by law with rigorously scrutinizing all synthetic materials used in organic production. Critics, like Mark Kastel of OrganicEye, contend that the NOSB has granted blanket approval to large groups of "inert ingredients" in products like Produce Maxx, deeming them "of minimal concern" without the required, individual in-depth review for human health and environmental impacts.

This practice, they argue, betrays the intent of the Organic Foods Production Act, which was passed by a Congress skeptical of the EPA's coziness with agribusiness. Some of these unexamined inert compounds, which can make up over 99% of a product's volume, are suspected of being endocrine disruptors or potentially more toxic than the approved active ingredients themselves.