If you were playing a word-association game and were asked the first thing "Michelle Obama" brings to mind you'd be forgiven if you blurted out, "organic garden."

White House assistant chef Sam Kass explained to members of the North American Agricultural Journalists touring Michelle Obama's White House garden that the point of the garden is to educate children about healthy eating. (DTN photo by Chris Clayton)

Last year, at the first lady's behest, 55 types of fruit and vegetables were planted on 1,100 square feet of White House back yard. The yield was 1,008 pounds of cauliflower, carrots, collard greens, rhubarb and other food, most of which the first family and their guests consumed (a third went to a soup kitchen). The garden, which will expand to 1,500 square feet this year, uses natural fertilizers and pesticides, is weeded by hand and has been described in countless news stories as "organic."

So when members of the North American Agricultural Journalists toured the garden recently with White House assistant chef Sam Kass, we were surprised to learn that organic certification isn't in prospect.

Kass said the first lady is proud of the garden -- it's what everyone wants to talk with her about when she travels the world -- but the point isn't how the garden is grown. Rather, it's what it produces: not just food, but a "platform" for a national conversation about the importance of eating fruits and vegetables.

As part of the first lady's "Let's Move" campaign to encourage healthy eating and physical fitness, she not only talks about the garden but invites schoolchildren to tour it. Some of them, Kass said, have never seen a broccoli stalk or a pea. "What's really powerful about this garden is it shows kids where food comes from."

Put this way, with the emphasis on educating children rather than promoting politically correct agricultural techniques, the garden sounds less threatening to farmers who don't farm organically. Teaching kids to eat their veggies, showing them the link between food and farm -- these are objectives everyone can support.

So why, then, does a Bing search on the terms "Michelle Obama" and "organic garden" produce 40,300 entries?

Journalistic sloppiness, says the blogger who follows first-family food issues most closely. Eddie Gehman Kohan authors the fascinating and much-watched Obama Foodarama (http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com), which she punningly subtitles "White House Food Initiatives...and Other Bipartisan Bytes of Food Politics." According to Kohan, the White House has never said the garden is certified organic. Journalists jumped to a bum conclusion.

I believe Kohan. I have followed her blog and had a chance to talk with her after she spoke at our North American Agricultural Journalists' meeting. She strikes me as careful about facts. If she says the White House has never said the garden is organic, the White House never said it.

But judging from the 40,300 references, I'd guess the White House hasn't gone out of its way to correct the misimpression, either.

Why should it? Politically, the White House has the best of both worlds. Organic fans believe the White House is with them (and, indeed, the methodology is organic even if the certification isn't) while non-organic farmers receive assurances that the planet's most powerful family isn't pushing organic at their expense.

"To come out and say (organic) is the one and only way, which is how this would be interpreted, doesn't make any sense," Kass told us. "This is not about getting into all that. This is about kids."

Although the garden doesn't use synthetics, "We work with the sun, the soil and the weather," Kass said. "That's what all farmers do, right?"

Does it matter that the White House is trying to please everybody? That's what all politicians do, right?

Problem is, the divide between alternative agriculture and conventional agriculture has turned political. Conventional aggies are lambasting USDA for its "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" program, which they see as pro-organic and anti-them -- a perception USDA says is inaccurate. Conventional aggies also pan agricultural secretary Tom Vilsack's emphasis on rural development, which they fear will vie for funding with farm payment programs.

This zero-sum view is understandable, but it isn't how I see the issue. I believe alternative and conventional agriculture can and should peacefully coexist. Vilsack apparently does, too. He supports organic and local, yes, but also biofuels and transgenic crops. He isn't choosing sides; he's for both.

But for partisans, it's "You're either with me or against me," and that attitude seems especially common among alternative-ag types. Many of them view the local, organic approach as akin to a religion, whereas many conventional aggies regard agriculture as a business. A business struggles to compete with a religion on the playing field of public opinion, which is why alternative ag enjoys such a favorable press and why conventional ag feels so besieged. When alternative ag starts to draw support from the government, as it has in this administration, conventional ag feels even more besieged.

So there's a real danger for the White House that its organic-garden straddle will prove too slick by half and contribute to the needless politicization of the issue. The smarter course for this administration -- better policy as well as better politics -- would be to stop telling each side what it wants to hear and instead make clear to both that the government supports and nourishes all of American agriculture.