Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
Organic Farmers Launch Effort For Add-On Label After Disappointing NOSB Actions
Organic Farmers Launch Effort For Add-On Label After Disappointing NOSB Actions
This article is powered by Food Chemical News
26 Feb 2018
Disappointed with the direction in which USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) has been heading and concerned that consumers may be losing faith in USDA’s Organic Seal, a new group of organic farmers and advocates is launching an effort to create a new, “add-on” organic label.
The label will be reserved for products that already carry USDA’s organic certification, but to earn it, products also would have to meet other “critical additional requirements” related to animal welfare and growing practices, says the group behind the effort, which calls itself the Real Organic Project (ROP).
Specifically, the new label will show an organic product was grown without the use of hydroponics and that production did not involve a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), explained Dave Chapman, a Vermont farmer and one of the founders of the group.
And at least in the beginning, the new label will signify that a product originated in the United States, Chapman told IEG Policy on Friday.
“The basic intent is to create a label that will stand for traditional organic farming,” said Chapman, who like at least four other ROP members is also a former member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
“We are not trying to destroy the organic label,” he added. “We are just trying to create transparency.”
However, it may be awhile before organic producers can try to add the label to their products, as the Real Organic Project is just beginning to draw plans on how the project would work.
Created by farmers who feel that their voice is no longer represented in the NOP, the ROP has established a 15-member standards board, which will meet March 27-28 to set the first standards for the new label.
Though the group has modeled its standards board after the NOSB, the ROP stresses that its board has a much greater representation from the organic community. The board includes nine organic farmers in addition to representatives from non-government organizations, stores, consumers, scientists, and certifiers.
Once the board sets the standards for the new label, it will continue to meet once a year to ensure that the standards are being updated and reviewed on regular basis.
After the standard board’s first meeting in March, Chapman said the group will have a better idea of what the new label might look like, when it may be put into use and how the program could evolve in the long term.
For now, however, the group hopes to establish the label as a pilot program, with only a small number of farms testing the label and the certification process over the first year.
“Our intention was to start it fairly regionally, but the response we have received has been overwhelming,” Chapman said.
ROP wants to return to traditional organic values
The new add-on organic label will be the flagship project of ROP, which started recently after several meetings with organic farmers in Vermont who felt that the USDA organic label was no longer something that represents their values for organic farming.
But the local group has quickly gained support from farmers in all parts of the nation who share the same sentiment. The group now includes organic farmers from Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Maine and other states, as well as two members from Australia, Chapman said.
“We also have people who advise us from as far away as Holland,” he said.
The roster of board members for the group now includes a number of highly respected organic farming advocates and leaders, Chapman said.
They include Jim Gerritsen, co-founder of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, Jay Feldman co-founder and executive director of Beyond Pesticides, as well as Michael Sligh, director of the Just Foods Program for Rural Advancement Foundation International, who was also the founding chair of the NOSB.
According to Chapman, group members were all brought together by a common concern that USDA might no longer be able, or willing to protect the integrity of its organic seal.
“The organic community has always worked very hard … hoping that this arranged marriage with USDA will work out. But it’s not working out,” Chapman said. “We tried very hard to reform the NOP and we failed. In the last six years, it didn’t get better, it got worse.”
And in the current political climate, the organic farmers behind ROB have felt USDA's position on what “organic” means has become increasingly more aligned with big businesses than their own.
While such concerns have bothered ROP’s advocates of traditional organic farming for awhile, it all came to a head last year after a contentious meeting of the NOSB in November, when the board voted 8-7 to reject a proposal to take away the ability of hydroponic and aquaponic farms to earn organic certification.
In the months leading to the vote, organic farmers who oppose the idea of allowing hydroponic and aquaponic products to carry the organic certification held 15 rallies around the country with signs reading, “Real Farmers Do It in the Dirt” and “Don’t Water Down Organics With Hydroponics.”
Though hydroponic, aeroponic and aquaponic crop systems have been eligible to earn organic certification since the NOP was created, an outspoken segment of the organic community objects to the idea, arguing that the use of healthy soil for growing lays in the very foundation of organic farming.
The ROP also takes issue with USDA’s decision to clear Aurora Organic Dairy’s High Plains operation in Colorado of any wrongdoing, after the Washington Post in May published a report suggesting that dairy cows at the operation had not been allowed sufficient grazing time. Organic dairies are required to allow a certain amount of grazing time for cows throughout the growing season, and after observing the Aurora facility managing over 20,000 cows (milking about 15,000) for eight days last year, using drone imagery as proof, the Post said “at no point was any more than 10% of the herd out.”
The Post’s investigation into the Aurora CAFO – which supplies the house brands of Walmart, Costco, and other major retailers – also found anomalies in acid levels in the operation's milk suggesting cows had not spent an adequate amount of time grazing outdoors.
Following the report, the Cornucopia Institute – a farm policy research group based in Wisconsin - filed legal complaints against Aurora Dairy and the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and even asked the Trump administration to remove USDA’s lead organic regulator.
“People want to buy healthy food. They want to buy food that is good for their families and good for their children. The bad news is that large companies have learned how to take advantage of [the organic program].” - Dave Chapman, ROP founder
Despite those complaints, however, the NOP said in September that Aurora’s livestock and pasture management practices comply with existing USDA organic regulations and policies and noted that the newspaper's photographs and observations did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations that Aurora had violated the organic regulations.
“This dairy operation was described in detail in one WaPo article, along with compelling test results to prove the cattle weren’t on pasture,” the ROP says in an open letter on their website. “The government approval set the stage for Aurora to build several new CAFOs that will dwarf the current 15,000-cow operation.”
The USDA also abandoned the animal welfare reforms that had been approved under the Obama administration – yet another decision that bothers members of ROP. The controversial Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) final rule, which would have added new provisions for regulating livestock handling, transport for slaughter and avian living conditions for organic products, was delayed several times before USDA ultimately proposed to withdraw it in December. The rule would have expanded and clarified existing requirements covering livestock care and production practices, a move that prompted the Organic Trade Association (OTA) to file a lawsuit against the agency.
Animal producers, such as the National Pork Producers Council, support the USDA decision, as they believed federal regulators overstepped their authority by issuing animal welfare requirements under the National Organic Program (NOP).
“This rejection by the USDA was the result of intense lobbying from such groups as the Coalition For Sustainable Organics (in their Senate testimony), American Farm Bureau, and the National Pork Producers Council,” the group said in its open letter. “They were championed by the ranking members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, protecting enormous 'organic' egg CAFOs in their home states. The USDA thus cleared the way for CAFOs to continue receiving 'organic' certification.”
And the group is also concerned about other Washington Post reports of shipments of “organic” corn and soybeans from Turkey, which were sold as organic in the United States, even though the products had been grown conventionally. An audit from USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) also found weaknesses in USDA’s oversight of imported organic products, which led Cornucopia to ask USDA to address the “documented influx of fraudulent organic grain imports” into the country.
The ROP now hopes to restore the integrity and transparency of organic certification and is planning other projects and initiatives besides the effort surrounding the new label.
As part of the group’s new Just Ask campaign, the group will encourage consumers to inquire at stores about whether their certified organic products were raised with the use of hydroponics or CAFOs, Chapman said. And the group also wants to launch a public education campaign designed to help the general public understand why it is important to let cattle involved in organic production graze, and why growing vegetables in soil matters for organic farming, he said.
“People want to buy healthy food,” Chapman said. “They want to buy food that is good for their families and good for their children. The bad news is that large companies have learned how to take advantage of [the organic program].”
Organic Certification For Hydroponic Systems
Organic Certification For Hydroponic Systems
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic products remain eligible for organic certification.
By Lydia Noyes | Spring 2018
The National Organic Standards Board has ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic products will continue to be eligible for organic certification.
Photo by Getty Images/LouisHiemstra
As hydroponic and aquaponic farms have flourished across the country in recent years, debates about their suitability for organic certification have reached a fever pitch. This past November, the National Organic Standards Board came to a decision on one of the most divisive topics in sustainable farming: Should plants qualify for organic certification if they’re grown without soil? Through a series of close votes, the board — an advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic products will continue to be eligible for organic certification.
To be clear, this vote doesn’t change the standards in place. Hydroponic and aquaponic systems already qualified for certification, but their increasing prevalence has made this standard controversial among many traditional organic farmers, who argue that the lack of soil used with these growing techniques means they don’t meet the USDA’s definition of organic. (Hydroponic systems grow plants in water-based nutrients, while aquaponic systems combine hydroponics and fish farming. Both techniques often grow produce indoors.)
The subject of organic certification is quite contentious. Conceptualized in the mid-20th century, the organic movement originally idealized a “closed-loop” farm system, or a property that produced almost everything it needed on-site. Based on the notion that a well-managed farm would rely foremost on natural processes, organic farming was fundamentally about maintaining and improving soil health.
Today, organic certification has drifted away from this original premise. The requirements for certification focus less on a natural farming philosophy and more on what isn’t allowed — namely, synthetic chemical inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. This creates a considerable gray area for farming practices that technically follow organic certification requirements but ethically and/or technologically may fall short of their original intent. While hydroponics don’t pollute the soil with toxic chemicals, they also don’t improve it, mainly because no soil is involved. This leads to the crucial question: How do you categorize a farm operation that uses sustainable techniques, but doesn’t benefit the land it’s on?
Beyond the philosophical tensions, organic farmers are worried about the financial impacts of making certification more inclusive. Organic food sales reached $43 billion in the United States in 2016. Because large-scale greenhouses are cheaper to operate than soil-based farms, hydroponically-grown organic tomatoes can undercut soil-grown ones and drive down prices. Moreover, because hydroponic operations don’t need to undergo a three-year “transition period,” as field-based farms do before putting certified products on the market, they can benefit from a faster return on their investments.
While the controversy over organic certification ostensibly pits farmers with similar goals against each other, the stakes are high. The recent decision may have awarded hydroponics more credibility in the sustainable-growing sphere, but it hardly signals the end of the debate.
What 'Organic' On Your Food Label Really Means
What 'Organic' On Your Food Label Really Means
- CERISE OBERMAN and TIM HARTNETT In the Know
February 25, 2018
Let’s be clear from the start: Grocery store labels are confusing.
What does it mean, for example, when a product is labeled organic or natural or cage-free? The claims are endless and often meaningless. For instance, there are no established standards for claiming a food product is “natural,” “pesticide-free” or “vegetarian-fed.” There are, of course, resources that can help us decipher this alphabet soup of labels. These include websites from both governmental and non-governmental agencies.
Let’s start with the label “organic,” which is actually regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP). Established in 2002, this program implemented the first federal standards to define “organic.” Food producers must be certified by the National Organic Program before using a label of “organic” on any food, feed or fiber product.
The range of components regulated by these standards includes the quality of the soil, the use of pest and weed control, the use of antibiotics and the humane treatment of livestock. (More on this last category later.) Additionally, certified organic products cannot contain any genetically modified organisms. For a picture of the full scope of the NOP program, specific details and additional resources, visit the USDA National Organic Program web pages.
Oh, if that this was all we needed to simplify our decision making in the grocery. Because guess what? Under the umbrella term of “organic,” there are several different standards that can be used.
Let’s see how this translates to food products by taking a stroll down a supermarket aisle. Let’s start with one of the most basic commodities — bread. Breads on the shelves may carry a USDA organic seal, but they are not all the same. One loaf of bread is labeled: “100% organic.” This is a USDA regulated label that can only be used if all ingredients in the bread are USDA certified organic ingredients (with the exceptions of water and salt). A second loaf of bread is labeled simply “organic." This too is a regulated label but it requires only 95 percent of the ingredients to be certified by the USDA as being organically produced. A third loaf of bread states, “Made with organic (name ingredients).” This is also a regulated label, but it only requires that 70 percent of the ingredients be certified organic.
A final loaf of labeled bread says it is “natural.” This label is neither defined nor regulated and thus there is no guarantee that this item contains any organic ingredients. Conversely, it could be 100 percent organic but not certified by USDA and therefore, unable to promote its contents as organic. To read more in-depth about these distinctions, visit the USDA pages titled, “Organic 101: Understanding the ‘Made with Organic’ Label.”
The labeling puzzle only becomes more confusing as you move from the bread aisle to the egg aisle. A glance at the number of labels on egg cartons is dizzying: “Vegetarian-fed,” “Natural,” “Farm Fresh,” “Cage-free” and “Free-range,” just to name a few. It is important to know that when it comes to eggs the USDA National Organic Program only regulates the term “certified organic.”
An egg carton that carries a “certified organic” label means the laying hens were fed organic feed free of pesticides and antibiotics. Additionally, they have to be “cage-free,“ a government standard that does not necessarily mean that the hens have not been raised in a crowded industrial setting. Since the variety of other egg labels on egg cartons are not regulated, it is impossible to know exactly what they mean, beyond trying to make us feel better about the eggs we purchase.
There is an organization, however, The Cornucopia Institute (CI), whose mission is “Promoting Economic Justice for Family Scale Farming,” and whose website can help us sort through the egg confusion. CI publishes an “Organic Score Card” for eggs. While all the eggs it evaluates are organic, the difference is in the treatment of the hens in terms of their living environment. From “Top Rated,” defined as farms that go “beyond organic” in the treatment of hens to “Poor,” connoting industrial standards, this website deciphers the confusing world of eggs simply and directly. Check it out to see what it says about the eggs you are buying: www.cornucopia.org/scorecard/eggs.
With the growth of local farms and farmer markets, “organic standards” can be challenging to determine. Some local farmers may be certified as part of the USDA National Organic Program while others may be certified by even stricter animal standard organizations like Animal Welfare Approved (www.animalwelfareapproved.us) or Certified Humane (https://certifiedhumane.org).
Other local farmers may be using organic farming methods and meeting humane animal raising standards, but are not certified for a variety of reasons including time and money. Talk to your favorite local farmer about their farming standards if what you eat is of utmost importance to you.
And as for beef, pork, poultry, and lamb ... well, that will need to wait for a future column.
Cerise Oberman, SUNY Distinguished Librarian Emeritus, retired as dean of Library & Information Services at SUNY Plattsburgh. She can be reached at cerise.oberman@plattsburgh.edu. Tim Hartnett is an associate librarian at SUNY Plattsburgh, Reach him at tim.hartnett@plattsburgh.edu.
Tags
Transforming Germany’s Cities Into Organic Food Gardens
Transforming Germany’s Cities Into Organic Food Gardens
2/22/201 | FreshPlaza
With ever more people living in urban centers, food security and quality is becoming a pressing issue. In Germany, cities are increasingly taking the production of organic products to a hyperlocal level.
As part of Biostädte (‘organic cities’), now Nuremberg joins a network of municipalities across Germany -including Munich, Bremen and Karlsruhe- working to make food production healthier and more sustainable.
In other cities like Berlin, Cologne and Kiel, urban and community-supported agriculture is introduced, which includes the greening of new buildings and the transformation of uncontaminated industrial land into community gardens. Their plans also foresee car-free, solar-powered districts where edible plants grow on and around buildings.
Citizens are being encouraged to cultivate useful crops, using public green areas in their neighborhoods to plant rows of potato plants or fruit trees. In doing so, they alleviate the municipal taxes, as this costs less than designing and maintaining the public green spaces.
According to an article by dw.com, these urban agricultural spaces are intended to become focal points where food is produced, processed and traded.
USDA Accused of Disseminating “Corporate Propaganda” Backing Agribusiness Switch of Organics to (Soil-less) Hydroponic Production
USDA Accused of Disseminating “Corporate Propaganda” Backing Agribusiness Switch of Organics to (Soil-less) Hydroponic Production
February 15th, 2018
[Read Cornucopia’s formal request to the USDA’s Office of Inspector General to investigate whether the agency willfully attempted to misinform the public.]
Regulators Bypass Expert Panel, Endorse Organic Practices Banned Worldwide
FOIA Documents, Witnesses Indicate Collusion, USDA Organic Program in Turmoil: Formal Complaint Filed with Office of Inspector General
Hydroponic operations, like this one,
need only change the fertilizer solution to become certified organic
Image source: Horticulture Group
In an affront to the farming pioneers who launched the organic movement, today a $50 billion industry, the USDA announced late last month that the “Certification of hydroponic, aquaponic, and aeroponic operations is allowed under the USDA organic regulations, and has been since the National Organic Program (NOP) began.”
Much of the hydroponic production entering the organic market takes place in large, industrial-scale greenhouses using liquid fertilizers, mostly produced from conventional, hydrolyzed soybeans. Hydroponic produce under the organic label is rapidly displacing fruit and vegetables grown in soil, which is carefully nurtured to improve fertility, by diversified farms. The founders within the organic farming community contend that hydroponics’ cheaper production techniques, employed by huge growers in Mexico, Canada, and Europe, where hydroponics cannot be legally labeled as “organic,” is crushing legitimate soil-based farmers in the U.S.
There is no legal requirement for conventional or organic produce to be labeled as grown hydroponically, so consumers are likely unaware that the production methods, and corresponding nutrient levels, used in the fruits and vegetables they are purchasing have radically changed.
The USDA’s statement was made regardless of the fact that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the governing body that the USDA Secretary is required by Congress to consult on all organic rulemaking, has never voted to legalize soil-less production.
The present federal organic regulations and their enabling legislation, the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), both require careful stewardship of soil fertility as a prerequisite for organic certification.
Despite the USDA’s claim that hydroponics has always been approved as part of organics, The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group based in Wisconsin, has obtained numerous internal and external emails exchanged between NOP staff and certifiers expressing their understanding that soil-based production is required. These documents were procured through a Freedom of Information Act request and are dated as recently as 2016.
“The NOP has unilaterally, and in secret, allowed for the certification of soil-less systems without standards, public notice, or opportunity for public comment,” said The Cornucopia Institute’s senior scientist, Linley Dixon, PhD.
Since the seemingly erroneous official statement was released last month, there has been an outpouring of opposition from the organic farming community. Dr. Dixon said Cornucopia has received a flurry of inquiries from organic farmers surrounding the NOP’s statement, some of which called it an “outright lie,” while others referred to it as “a rewriting of history.” The current USDA standards went into effect in 2002.
The nonprofit farm policy research group sent a formal request to the USDA’s Office of Inspector General asking them to investigate whether officials within the agency willfully attempted to misinform the public.
Since 2005, a few organic accredited certifying agents (ACAs), catering to corporate agribusiness, have quietly certified hydroponic production systems based on the USDA’s public silence on the issue. The largest certifier in the country, CCOF in California, is the predominant certifier of hydroponic operations.
Miles McEvoy
Source: USDA
Earlier this month, Miles McEvoy, the official who stealthily approved hydroponic production while running the NOP during the Obama administration, resurfaced as an official representative of CCOF at a national meeting of organic certifiers. McEvoy resigned from his position with the NOP in September 2017 under an ethical cloud, and has since been a speaker at prominent industry conferences focusing on large-scale organic production, including hydroponics.
Meanwhile, the divide in the organic industry has other ACAs choosing not to certify soil-less production systems, based on their straightforward interpretation of current regulatory requirements. To date, the NOSB has never formally made recommendations for how these soil-less systems might operate within the law, as Congress required.
There are several prominent ACAs that have never allowed the certification of soil-less systems and have a reputation for their high organic integrity in other regards, as well. These include OneCert, Vermont Organic Farmers, Maine Organic Farming and Gardening Association, Organic Crop Improvement Association, and Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association.
Sam Welsch, the president of the USDA-accredited certifier OneCert, responded to NOP’s notice stating, “There are two parts to the NOP’s lie. The first is that hydroponic operations are allowed by the regulations. The second is when that was allowed. The certification of hydroponics was not even considered an option until September 2006 when the NOP sent certifiers a survey on the topic.”
FOIA documents indicate that, as of 2016, 41 ACAs had responded to a survey stating that they do not certify hydroponics, while only 18 ACAs said that they do.
Dixon referred to the NOP’s statement as “revisionist history” and said that The Cornucopia Institute currently has their legal team researching the filing of a federal lawsuit challenging the agency. The farmer outcry in response to NOP’s position signals that many certified organic growers do not believe that soil-less systems meet the organic standards.
“The USDA’s crude rewriting of history is in keeping with the Trump administration’s attitude towards reality. They seem to believe that if they say something loud enough, we will all believe it,” said Dave Chapman, a 40-year organic farming veteran who has been working to raise awareness around the corporate-hydroponic takeover of organics.
Chapman continued, “The clumsiness of this fake news reveals the current NOP’s disconnect from the organic community. They seem intent on pushing away the very people they were created to serve.”
The Perdue/Trump administration at the USDA has also recently come under fire for scuttling new benchmarks that would have made it easier to enforce animal welfare standards in organic livestock production. That, too, was viewed as an affront to organic stakeholders, as tens of thousands of farmers and consumers formally commented in support of the rulemaking after the NOSB voted unanimously for its adoption. The rules were set aside after heavy lobbying from a few giant, predominantly conventional, egg and poultry producers defending confinement practices.
Whether producing meat, milk, eggs, or produce, many certified organic farmers are becoming aware of the fact that the certifiers they employ are ultimately hurting their bottom line when they certify operations that skirt organic standards, regardless of what the NOP permits.
“More and more growers are recognizing that they are being placed at a competitive disadvantage by the very certifiers who we have been paying thousands of dollars to over decades, assuming they were defending the integrity of organic production,” said Tom Beddard of Lady Moon Farms, the largest organic grower east of the Mississippi with farms in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Florida.
The USDA’s announcement comes on the heels of a year of controversy surrounding the regulatory agency’s oversight of the organic industry. A series of damaging investigative stories in The Washington Post highlighted allegedly illegal “factory farms” producing organic eggs and dairy products and the failure of the NOP to investigate and control illegal and fraudulent grain imports.
“It’s now more important than ever for organic consumers to do their homework, making sure they receive the safest, nutrient-dense food for their families while simultaneously rewarding the true heroes in the organic movement,” Dixon added.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains scorecards rating organic brands based on their legal/ethical approach to organic production.
MORE:
According to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents obtained by The Cornucopia Institute, NOP staff and some certifiers were still uncertain, as recently as 2013, that hydroponic operations were legally certifiable as organic even while other certifiers, including the nation’s largest, CCOF, were profiting by certifying many large operations.
NOP staff member Renee Mann was asked to respond to a question from a certifier and another NOP staff member seeking clarity on whether or not hydroponic operations could be certified as organic. In a 2013 email, Mann stated, “I don’t know … I seem to remember a time when the NOP said that hydroponic operations could not be certified because they could not meet the requirements for 205.203 (a‐c) to maintain or improve physical, chemical & biological aspects of soil.”
Another certifier contacted the NOP that same year, complaining that they were losing business because it was their understanding, from information provided to them previously by USDA regulators, that hydroponic operations were not eligible for certification. As a result, the hydroponic operators found other certifiers that were willing to deem their operations organic. The certifier called the situation “unfair” and requested additional information.
In addition to asking the OIG to investigate the intent to mislead the public on the legality of hydroponics and the history of the controversy at the NOP, Cornucopia has asked the independent agency watchdog to also look into the chronology of the former top organic regulator, Miles McEvoy, and his waltz through the proverbial revolving door to his current position with CCOF, the nation’s largest organic certifier. McEvoy previously was charged with directly overseeing all certifiers, including CCOF. It should also be noted that CCOF certifies, by far, more hydroponic operations than any other single accredited certifying agent and has profited handsomely from the decision McEvoy made to sidestep NOSB deliberation on the issue and, in a stealthy manner, allow certification of soil-less operations.
Recent high-profile scandals at the National Organic Program, including a series of critical investigative reports in The Washington Post profiling alleged illegal factory dairy and egg operations and fraudulent imports, along with a damning audit by the OIG, immediately preceded McEvoy’s “retirement.”
Furthermore, reports illustrate that during the last years of his tenure, the NOP was a program in crisis, with attrition reducing the staff from approximately 45 down to the current 35.
That staff reduction took place in a program that was already thought to be seriously understaffed, given the magnitude of supervising a $50 billion global industry. “Exacerbating the problem was the unwillingness of Mr. McEvoy to make NOP enforcement documents public and legally fighting their release when receiving requests under the Freedom of Information Act. He had previously stated that over 10% of the diminished staff (four staff members) were strictly involved in reviewing and releasing FOIA documents,” said Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst.
Many industry observers and certifiers claim organic certification of hydroponic production systems violates several sections of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), especially §6513(b)(1):
“An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.”
The final NOP rule, adopted under OFPA, and effective in late 2002, mentions soil over fifty times, affirming the central role of soil in cycling organic matter, a practice that is fundamental to organic agriculture.
“The operative legal question is, ‘How can you foster soil fertility without soil?’” stated Cornucopia’s Kastel.
The Cornucopia Institute brought up one final concern in their communication with the Office of Inspector General: the current vacancy on the National Organic Standards Board.
Dr. Francis Thicke, a past board leader who has aggressively challenged the legality of certifying hydroponic production, left the board when his five-year term expired at the end of January. The official posting in the Federal Register announcing nominations to fill the vacancy stated that the term of the new NOSB replacement would commence on January 24, 2018.
It is the contention of The Cornucopia Institute that Congress carefully designated certain seats on the NOSB to assure diversity in knowledge for decision-making by the board (the one held by Thicke was for a conservationist). The organic industry watchdog contends that, based on the clear Congressional intent for seats held by specific industry stakeholders, no official business can transpire without a full complement of members. It is hoped that this deficiency will be resolved before the NOSB’s next official meeting in Tucson, Arizona this April, forestalling potential legal action.
Stop the Presses: Hydroponics Certified Organic
While both sides still feel they’re in the right as to whether or not hydroponic produce should be certified as organic, that argument ended on November 1, 2017, with an industry decision that such certification was allowable.
Stop the Presses: Hydroponics Certified Organic
Lee Allen | February 15, 2018
Takeaway: Until November of 2017, growers debated the organic certification of hydroponics. Now, the verdict is in.
While both sides still feel they’re in the right as to whether or not hydroponic produce should be certified as organic, that argument ended on November 1, 2017, with an industry decision that such certification was allowable.
The highly emotional status declaration came down at the Fall 2017 NOSB meeting in Florida, where the advisory body to the USDA ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic farms could carry the organic label. They’ve been allowed to be called organic for a number of years, but now it will be official.
Still, the proverbial Hatfield and McCoy battle on the issue remains pretty heated. Both sides still believe they have the best idea.
The Coalition for Sustainable Organics put the approval in the win column for them, pleased that NOSB rejected a number of proposals that would revoke the certification of many hydroponic, aquaponic, and container growers. President Lee Frankel’s contention was that more, not less, the organic product was needed to feed a hungry world. “Everyone deserves organic, and this proposal would have made it harder for consumers to access organic produce as a meaningful solution to environmental challenges faced by growers (who) need to adapt to site-specific conditions,” he says.
Another supporter, the Recirculating Farms Coalition, was equally pleased with the vote. “NOSB made the right decision,” says executive director Marianne Cufone. “Many products already carry a USDA Organic label and to now withdraw that would be irresponsible and confusing for both farmers and consumers.”
Conversely, The Cornucopia Institute group had sought rejection of what they called a “watering down” of organic standards supported by “big money and powerful corporate lobbyists who want their piece of a growing organic pie.” They advised a “no” vote to “protect soil-based farmers who raise fruits and vegetables in a sustainable, healthy fashion.”
The NOSB ballot count wasn’t an overwhelming landslide but a squeaker win with an eight to seven final tally to reject proposals prohibiting hydroponic/aquatic production certification. By a much larger margin (14 to zero, with one abstention), however, aeroponics was denied the organic certification.
Biosystems engineer Dr. Stacy Tollefson of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center at the University of Arizona, a member of the Hydroponic and Aquaponic Taskforce, says she’s dumbfounded the NOSB didn’t support aeroponics. She asks, “If they support aquaponics and liquid systems, why not aeroponics?”
The NOSB recommendation is now in the hands of USDA. The federal agency and the staff of the National Organic Program will decide on the rules to modify existing organic standards. Once that is done, there will be a public comment period and a regulatory review before the new classifications become regulation.
Going forward, “This decision should promote more innovation in organic production,” Tollefson says. “There may be increasing pressure to be more transparent within the USDA Organic label, perhaps a push for mandatory labeling that differentiates ‘soil grown’ versus ‘container grown.
Transforming German Cities Into Organic Food Gardens
Transforming German Cities Into Organic Food Gardens
With ever more people living in urban centers, food security — and quality — is becoming a pressing issue. In Germany, cities are increasingly taking the task of producing organic products to a hyperlocal level.
In Nuremberg, every first-grader starts the year with a gift: a yellow plastic lunchbox filled with healthy food.
The gift, refilled daily, is part of a city initiative to increase the share of local, organic food in public institutions — not just daycare centers and schools, but also retirement homes, hospitals, correctional facilities and administrative centers.
As part of Biostädte, or organic cities, it joins a network of municipalities across Germany — including Munich, Bremen and Karlsruhe — working to make food production healthier and more sustainable.
Read more: How sustainably do Germans eat?
To mark their first day of school, first-graders in Nuremberg are given a flashy new lunch box — filled with organic food
Greening cities — also for food production
In other cities like Berlin, Cologne and Kiel, similar food councils are introducing urban and community-supported agriculture, which includes the greening of new buildings and the transformation of uncontaminated industrial land into community gardens.
Their plans also include projects for car-free, solar-powered districts where edible plants grow on and around buildings.
Read more: From gray to green: Urban farming around the world
Local citizens are being encouraged to cultivate useful crops, using public green areas in their neighborhoods to plant rows of potato plants or fruit trees. Doing so gives municipal coffers a break: it costs less than designing and maintaining public green spaces with ornamental plants.
Urban agriculture: Food grown in the city
These urban agricultural spaces are intended to become focal points where food is produced, processed and traded.
In Berlin — with its 3.6 million inhabitants and virtually no local agricultural land — the need for such initiatives focusing on high-quality, sustainable food is particularly high.
To meet these goals, Berlin has recently created the House of Food foundation, to help the city make the transition to organic products — without a budget increase, and if possible, without subsidies.
The city is following a model first created by Copenhagen, where in 2007 the Danish capital brought together cooks, food experts, teachers and designers to offer advice and cooking courses.
Today, roughly 70 percent of the food in Copenhagen's city-run kitchens is organic; in smaller institutions, like kindergartens, that figure is as high as 90 percent.
Taking the lead in Germany
In Nuremberg, the city wanted to lead by example: every February, Biofach, which according to organizers is the world's largest trade fair for organic products, takes place in the northern Bavarian city.
At this year's Biofach, increasing public demand for organic products is in the spotlight: The organic food market has grown by about 6 percent in Germany over the past year, making up about 5 percent of the total food market there.
Since 2003, certified organic caterers have been providing meals to daycare centers and schools in Nuremberg, and leading cooking workshops for students, teachers and caretakers.
"The proportion of organic ingredients has continuously increased — and usually without any increase in price," said Werner Ebert, head of the environment and health department at BioMetropole Nürnberg, an organization that works on the initiative with the city.
In the meantime, some of the facilities have begun cooking meals themselves, he added. "This fresh food has more nutrients, and is cheaper than having meals delivered."
By sticking to seasonal products and reducing the amount of meat on offer, the city is able to keep costs low.
Organic food catching on in India
"Back in 2003, organic initiatives were a fringe topic — but today we're seeing plenty of support for our work," Ebert told DW.
Those interested in the organic movement have the chance to visit farms in the region twice a year, though the "Bio on Tour" initiative, while organized trips abroad allow citizens to see how other regions in Europe are introducing sustainability into their lives.
Even Nuremberg's world-famous Christmas market has made the move to sustainability, with many stands offering products with quality organic labels — some coming directly from the producer.
As Ebert points out, organic efforts don't end at the city limits. For example, the city provides financial support for a traditional apple orchard project in the nearby Hersbruck Mountains, which produces bottles of Pom200, an organic apple juice.
Read more: Can Germany's heirloom apple varieties be saved?
'Nutritional change begins in the city'
"Civic space plays an important role in the societal debate on nutrition," said Philipp Stierand, an expert on nutrition and cities. "It's all about regionality and food origins."
Urbanization, he points out, takes a serious toll on the environment: arable land surrounding cities is built up and resources are depleted, while conventional industrial agriculture can deplete the soil, damage ecosystems and contribute to climate change with air pollution produced by long shipping routes.
Locally grown foods often have a much smaller carbon footprint
Conventional agriculture, believes Stierand, is not sustainable in the long run — water quality, biodiversity and climate change must be made a priority.
At the same time, society is faced with the task of ensuring food security, both in terms of quantity and quality. Cities are increasingly addressing food-related issues like obesity and allergies, and citizens are demanding that they have a say in where their food comes from.
Though the majority of the global food supply is still organized at a national and global scale, Stierand believes the regional share — be it local markets, corner stores or home delivery of organic products — will steadily increase, with the local food supply becoming more diverse.
"Nutritional change begins in the city," said Stierand. "These nutrition councils, being set up all over Germany, are a clear signal that consumers are looking for — and organizing — local alternatives to supermarkets and discount stores."
Organic Industry Debates Certification of Aeroponic Systems
Organic Industry Debates Certification of Aeroponic Systems
At its fall public meeting, the National Organic Standards Board heard testimony about hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponic operations.
Feb 05, 2018
On Jan. 25, 2018, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service released an update on the status of organic hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics.
At its fall public meeting, the National Organic Standards Board heard testimony about hydroponics, aquaponics and aeroponic operations.
What is the status of hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponic operations?
Certification of hydroponic, aquaponic, and aeroponic operations is allowed under the USDA organic regulations and has been since the National Organic Program began. For these products to be labeled as organic, the operation must be certified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent, and maintain compliance with the USDA organic regulations.
The NOSB has recommended prohibiting aeroponic systems in organic production. USDA will consider this recommendation; aeroponics remains allowed during this review.
What is the Organic Farmers Association saying about this certification?
The Organic Farmers Association is raising concern with USDA’s recent statement that “Certification of hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic operations is allowed under the USDA organic regulations, and has been since the National Organic Program began,” labeling this action as revisionist history, and an incorrect interpretation of the organic law.
“The USDA has several times in the past sought guidance from the National Organic Standards Board on the advisability of allowing hydroponic production to be certified organic,” said Francis Thicke, OFA policy committee chair, and outgoing NOSB member. “This issue is far from settled.”
The association pointed out that in 2010 the NOSB, in a 14 to 1 vote, recommended that hydroponic production not be allowed to be certified organic, stating “systems of crop production that eliminate soil from the system, such as hydroponics or aeroponics cannot be considered as example of acceptable organic farming practices…due to their exclusion of the soil-plant ecology intrinsic to organic farming systems and USDA/NOP regulations governing them.”
The USDA National Organic Program did not follow through on that NOSB recommendation. However, most USDA-accredited certifying agencies have avoided certifying hydroponic operations because of the long-standing requirement—rooted in the Organic Foods Production Act —that organic production must be in the soil.
“There are no federal standards for certifying hydroponic production as organic,” said Jim Riddle, OFA steering committee chair and former NOSB member.
Organic Farmers Association said OFPA—the enabling legislation that created the National Organic Program—indicates that organic production must be soil-based. Quoting the Act, “An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.”
Further, Organic Farmers Association asserts that no legal justification accompanied USDA’s recent position of unconditional allowance for organic certification of hydroponic production.
New Regenerative Organic Certification Champions Healthy Soil And Healthy Farmers
New Regenerative Organic Certification Champions Healthy Soil And Healthy Farmers
The Rodale Institute’s new label goes beyond USDA organic.
PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF RODALE INSTITUTE
There’s a new organic label in town, and it’s definitely one you’ll want to pay attention to.
The Regenerative Organic Certified Label (seen above) builds on the standards set by the USDA organic label by putting a strong emphasis on soil quality and, most notably, setting social fairness benchmarks that focus on the health and safety of farm workers.
As we’ve reported previously, many of us believe the USDA label regulates more than it actually does. For example, the USDA rules focus on mitigating environmental damage through the use of synthetic pesticides, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering. All of that is a good start, but many feel it doesn’t go far enough when it comes to ensuring healthy soil, biodiversity, and high animal welfare standards.
The Rodale Institute, which is spearheading the Regenerative Organic Certification label along with a coalition of farmers, scientists, nonprofits, and sustainably-minded companies, aims to plug the gaps in the USDA standards and address some of these long-held consumer concerns. The Regenerative Organic Certification consists of three pillars: soil health, social fairness, and animal welfare.
The first pillar, soil health, is one of the founding principles of the Rodale Institute and has been the basis for much of their research over the past 70 years. They believe that organic agriculture should do more than just strive to mitigate damage to soil; instead, it should—and can—improve soil quality over time by adding nutrients and building up organic matter. In fact, research conducted by the Institute in 2014 estimated that if all current farmland and pasture shifted to regenerative organic practices, 100% of annual carbon dioxide emissions could be sequestered in the soil. The Regenerative Organic Certification moves towards making this a reality by promoting the use of cover crops, no or low tillage, and rotational grazing. (This small farm used regenerative practices to save farmland damaged by conventional practices, including pesticides and over tilling.)
The social fairness pillar of the new label is entirely missing from the USDA organic standards. It draws on international Fair Trade standards that protect growers in developing countries who are often exploited with harsh working conditions and meager compensation by big corporations. The Fair For Life label, which also serves as inspiration, extends Fair Trade standards to all countries, though it is not as widely recognized. However, the Regenerative Organic Certification is unique in considering human welfare a part of organic agriculture, making it as important as soil and animal welfare. Notably, the certification requires that living wages be paid to all farm workers and sets fair pricing standards.
In terms of animal welfare, the Regenerative Organic Certification looks for grass-fed and pasture raised animals, which goes further than the USDA organic rules, which only say animals must have access to the outdoors and that rudiments, like cows and sheep, must have access to pasture land during the grazing season, a minimum of 120 days a year. The new label would also prohibit concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are massive industrialized feedlots that cram upwards of 1000 cattle into crowded, concrete quarters. In addition, it would adhere to the five freedoms of animal welfare, and seek to minimize transport distances for animals that can lead to excess suffering.
The label, which is being administered by NSF International, is currently undergoing a public review period that lasts until October 12, 2017. You are encouraged read the certification details here and send feedback.
(Whether you're starting your first garden or switching to organic, Rodale’s Basic Organic Gardening has all the answers and advice you need—get your copy today!)
World Vegetable Map 2018: More Than Just a Local Affair by Rabobank
World Vegetable Map 2018: More Than Just a Local Affair by Rabobank
FEBRUARY 1, 2018 URBAN AG NEWS
The 2018 World Vegetable Map shows essential vegetable trade flows and highlights some key global trends in the sector, such as the growing importance of production in greenhouses and vertical farms, as well as the popularity of organic vegetables.
Download
> Click here to download the World Vegetable Map
Poster versions of the World Floriculture Map are exclusively available to Rabobank clients. To receive one, please contact your relationship manager.
Map summary: more than just a local affair
The global vegetable market is still predominantly a local market. Only 5% of the vegetables grown are traded internationally. But that share is increasing. Easy market access is vital for export-focused vegetable-producing countries like Mexico, Spain, and the Netherlands. Over the last decade, Mexico has further expanded its prominent position on the North American market, and internal EU trade has continued to grow.
Market for fresh (prepared) vegetables up, demand for canned vegetables down
An estimated 70% of all vegetables grown in the world are sold as whole fresh vegetables. This market is still on the increase, mainly outside of the US and the EU. Processing of vegetables (freezing, preserving, and drying) is a good way to prevent wastage, but global consumption of preserved (canned) vegetables has decreased over the last decade. At the same time, demand for frozen vegetables has increased by an average of 1% per year. Demand trends seem most favourable for vegetables that are convenient to eat and prepare and/or do well on (social) media because of considered health effects or their visual appeal. Examples are all kinds of (prepared) salads as well as sweet potatoes. EU imports of sweet potatoes (mainly from the US) have tripled in just four years’ time.
Organic vegetables most popular in wealthy nations
Organic foods are gaining market share around the world. The share of organic fruit & vegetable sales (in total fresh fruit & vegetable sales) has already passed 10% in wealthy countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark (see Figure 1). In the US, this share is 9% and quickly growing. Income is not the only determinant for organic vegetable consumption. In the Netherlands, where the average income per capita is similar to that of Sweden and Austria, the market share of organic vegetables is only 5%. The reasons behind this are not clear, but it is likely related to supermarkets’ decisions on the category, price, availability, and quality of conventional vegetables, as well as cultural factors.
Sources: UN-Comtrade, Eurostat 2017
Figure 1: Share of organic fresh fruit and vegetable sales vs. income, 2016
Free trade agreements vital
As most fresh vegetables are highly perishable, easy market access is essential. In Latin America and Africa, vegetables are mainly sold regionally. Growing circumstances (climate, water availability), production costs, exchange rates, and trade agreements can trigger vegetable trade flows. Distortions in NAFTA or EU trade agreements (such as Brexit) will negatively affect vegetable trade. In the last decade, Mexico has further extended its very prominent position as North America’s vegetable garden. Spain and the Netherlands are key vegetable exporters within the EU (see Figure 2). Morocco has emerged as an up-and-coming vegetable supplier for the European market.
Figure 2: Intra-EU trade
Source: UN-Comtrade, Eurostat 2017
Up-and-coming import markets
A significant change in the world of vegetables is the rise of new vegetable-importing nations. Vegetable imports used to be concentrated in North America, western Europe and Japan. But gradually, countries like India, China, and the United Arab Emirates have upped their vegetable imports. Russia has also shown an increase in trade, despite the 2014 import sanctions for vegetables from the EU, the US, and a number of other countries. Currently, Belarus, Morocco, China, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are important vegetable suppliers to Russia.
The rise of controlled production in greenhouses and vertical farms
Globally there is a growing need for vegetables that are available year-round, produced in a safe and resource-efficient manner, and are of a consistently high quality. Consequently, vegetable production in greenhouses and vertical farms is rising. The area of greenhouses is estimated at 500,000 hectares, including roughly 40,000 hectares of glasshouses. Recently, we have seen vertical farms popping up in various places around the world, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere close to large consumer concentrations.
Vertical farming entails growing crops (often leafy vegetables) in a controlled environment using artificial lighting. As investments and electricity costs are relatively high, it is (still) challenging to run an economically viable vertical farming business. That said, discerning customers are willing to pay a premium for locally grown vegetables grown in a contained environment.
For more: https://research.rabobank.com/far/en/sectors/regional-food-agri/world_vegetable_map_2018.html
In Columbia South Carolina, Small and Organic Farmers Talk Farm Bill with US Ag Secretary
In Columbia South Carolina, Small and Organic Farmers Talk Farm Bill with US Ag Secretary
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, City Roots Farm Manager Eric McClam and S.C. Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers discuss amaranth seedlings that City Roots sells as microgreens. Perdue visited City Roots Jan. 27, 2018.
Eva Moore
- By Eva Moore
-
- Jan 27, 2018
President Donald Trump's agriculture secretary visited a small urban farm in Columbia today, a stop that highlighted the sometimes conflicting political interests that face farmers.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue toured City Roots, a Rosewood farm that grows microgreens prized by local chefs. The farm also grows flowers and mushrooms, hosts events, teaches classes, gives school tours and acts as a sort of incubator for farm talent.
This year, Congress will take up a new Farm Bill, something it does roughly every five years. Perdue was in the Capital City to ask farmers what they want to see in it.
The answer from the small crowd, several of them younger farmers from small-scale, organic or sustainable farms: 1, keep programs alive that help launch and boost farms like theirs, and 2, change regulations that are designed with large farms in mind.
Perdue held City Roots Farm Manager Eric McClam up as an example of someone who has "mined the USDA very successfully," making use of its many grants and programs for small farms.
Added S.C. Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers, who was also in attendance, "City Roots is a good advertisement for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I tell you what."
At a few points, Perdue tried to draw connections between the small farmers' requests and key Republican values.
For example, Roland McReynolds, executive director of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, asked for Perdue's help in addressing the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act. It's an FDA program, not a USDA program, but it sets standards for food handling that could end up costing small farms a lot of money.
"It is going to be a burden for small-scale farms such as [City Roots] to come into compliance," McReynolds said, noting that farmers have an in obvious interest in food safety but face regulatory burdens. "Farmers want to do the right thing. They don't want to kill their customers."
Perdue took the opportunity to knock some other federal regulations that he said have "unintended consequences," such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
Meanwhile, City Roots Farm Manager Eric McClam asked for help eliminating a $20,000 annual cap on payments that organic farms can receive for certain conservation practices under the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program. A large part of the program's funding is set aside for livestock operations instead.
Perdue, who started the job last April, said he hadn't been aware of the cap. But he noted that any changes to the USDA and the Farm Bill will be "evolutionary, not revolutionary."
And at several points, Perdue was sure to emphasize — in subtle terms — that he's not looking to favor the kind of farming City Roots is doing at the expense of bigger commodity crop operations.
Ben DuBard, organic farm manager for massive Walter P. Rawl Farms in Lexington County, as well as a board member of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, asked for some consideration in the Farm Bill of what are called "specialty crops" — a category that covers most non-commodity crops, from fruit to spinach, as opposed to commodities like cotton and soybeans. Specialty crops have a more direct connection between eater and farmer, DuBard suggested.
"People who grow specialty crops grow food that people eat," DuBard told Perdue. "I just want to make sure that specialty crops remain a very strong part of the Farm Bill. I feel like specialty crops are the rock stars of farming because the consumer can directly identify with it."
But Perdue pushed back a bit.
"I think you'll see more interest [in specialty crops] because of the movement and how the organic community has been in creating the demand, but we don't need to do that at the expense of any other part of agriculture," Perdue said. "It's all important and we're all in this together. So we don't need to say we're better than they. Everyone can be successful."
DuBard also made a common request for larger farms like WP Rawl, which employs some 800 people: keep immigrant labor coming.
"At our scale it is very difficult for us to find Americans who really want to do the work," DuBard said. "The immigrants who come in from Latin America do a really great job for us and they're getting harder and harder to get."
Perdue said, "The president's very mindful of the need for a legal farm workforce," and namechecked a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte to reform the guestworker program.
The visit put a national spotlight on City Roots, which was started in 2010 by McClam's father, Robbie McClam, though Eric quickly took on the top job.
Perdue noted that the 32-year-old McClam is part of the "millennial resurgence" in farming.
"We see a resurgence in interest in the therapeutic nature of running your hands through the ground," he said at one point.
Debate Continues Over Organic Hydroponics
Debate Continues Over Organic Hydroponics
- Deborah Jeanne Sergeant, New York Correspondent
-
- January 5, 2018
Hydroponic and aquaponic growers use nonsoil media and water instead of soil. And that’s what makes Liana Hoodes, policy adviser at Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, suspicious of these operations being classified as organic.
“The foundation of organic farming is the soil,” Hoodes said. “It’s about the life of the soil, not just the crops on the soil. Organic systems should be based on managing organic systems.”
The National Organic Standards Board, an advisory board to the USDA, voted in November to allow hydroponic and aquaponic operations to be certified organic via a new organic standard for nonsoil farming, which did not exist previously.
NOFA-NY, however, will not certify any hydroponic operations, at least not yet.
“The organic certification law specifically refers to soil fertility,” Hoodes said. “There’s lots of places in regulations that speak to managing and improving soils, and soils as the basis of what organic is about.”
Hoodes thinks the USDA “failed organic farmers” by not evaluating the complexity and nuances of the systems “before they allowed big businesses to have huge factories of hydroponics and to have it labeled as ‘organic.’”
Hoodes said she is bothered by the lack of a legal definition of hydroponics and aquaponics, though the closed system of aquaponics does represent the ecological biodiversity supported by a soil-based organic grower.
“You might be able to define an aquaponic system that is ecologically sound,” she said. “Animal welfare may be an issue as essentially they’re not abiding by the natural behavior of the animal. Fish aren’t meant to be held in a glass cage.”
Hoodes thinks hydroponic systems can diminish the ecological environment. And while she likes the fact that these systems usually use less energy, she thinks the systems don’t meet the high bar of organic agriculture.
“Organic is a high bar, the gold standard, but it isn’t the only thing out there,” she said. “Hydroponics are not part of organic. You have to be increasing the health of the soil all the time. You can’t destroy the soil base. We have to take all sorts of steps to build the soil. There are other systems that may do a lot for us.”
The Organic Trade Association, based in Washington, D.C., does not support soil-less agriculture.
“Organic is a voluntary standard and it is critical to achieve industry consensus pre-rulemaking when USDA updates standards,” said Maggie McNeil, director of media relations for the association. “We’re looking to support good policies that reflect organic principles and we want to see a recommendation that reflects consensus and give NOP something they can work with.”
But hydroponics growers disagree, claiming what they do falls in line with what other organic farmers are doing.
Linda Eldred, owner of Strawberry Fields Hydroponic Farm in Auburn, grows 15,000 strawberry and vegetable plants outdoors on a quarter acre using hydroponic methods.
She doesn’t use pesticides and uses only organic inputs, such as organic fertilizer, but isn’t certified organic.
While she said she respects NOFA-NY’s viewpoint, she contends her plants provide healthful produce because “they get exactly what they need. The weeds aren’t robbing the nutrients. That can hurt your yield. A lot of organically grown crops have that problem because they don’t spray and they can’t take care of the weeds. You may not have as good of a crop. With hydroponics, you can constantly monitor the plants’ nutrition.”
Eldred said she uses a medium of half perlite and verniculipe, coarsely ground rocks that give the roots something to hold onto and to help retain the water.
Matt Roman, co-owner of M&M Hydroponic Garden & Supply in Utica, sells a variety of organic fertilizer suitable for hydroponic growing.
He thinks organizations that don’t want to certify hydroponic operations as organic “don’t have enough knowledge to go by. There is a ton of organic fertilizer.
“It’s a thin line, but if you use 100-percent organic, you can call it organic,” Roman said.
Tinia Pina owns Re-nuble, a Brooklyn-based supplier of organic-based liquid soil and hydroponic nutrients created from organic certified produce waste.
She said that medium- to large-sized hydroponic and aquaponic growers haven’t adopted organic inputs as readily as smaller growers because the automatic equipment doesn’t have the ability to sense nutrients in organic fertilizer, in comparison to chemical-based fertilizers.
“There are ways to do it hydroponically and aquaponically that represent the same synergies in the soil, the degradation of nutrients by microbes and bacteria, that can be replicated, and technology is developing to prove it can be done in a closed environment,” Pina said.
Pina thinks hydroponic and aquaponic operations use much fewer nutrients than soil-based farms because they allow plants direct access to what they need. They also use less water since it’s not applied to plants from the top down in a closed environment.
“I think organic certification shouldn’t be limited,” she said. “Farms should have the option to get certified. I hope that more people looking to get into agriculture have the larger interest of society in mind and not make it a financially driven motive.
“Grow the largest supply of organic food as possible and don’t be so concerned about the type of growing process,” she said.
Hoodes said that while she isn’t against hydroponics and aquaponics, she thinks marketing and labeling products not grown in soil as organic provides a sub-par product to consumers at the same cost as soil-grown organic produce.
Deborah Jeanne Sergeant is a freelance writer in central New York. She can be reached at deb@skilledquill.net.
US: Sales of Organic Agricultural Products Continue To Increase
US: Sales of Organic Agricultural Products Continue To Increase
According to the Organic Trade Association, approximately 82 percent of U.S. households purchase organic food. In fact, the increase in sales from 2014 to 2015 was the largest on record at $4.2 billion. While organic acreage is less than 1 percent of total U.S. cropland, organic sales are nearly 5 percent of all food sales and continue to increase at a steady rate.
According to the USDA (2017), over 75 percent of the certified organic operations are concentrated in the West, Northeast, and Upper Midwest.
In terms of food purchased in the U.S., 8 percent of all dairy products and nearly 14 percent of all fruits and vegetables are organic and demand continues to increase. The 2017 Outlook for Organic Agriculture Forum forecasted growth for organic confectionery, sweet and savory snacks, ice cream and frozen desserts, baby food, soups and sauces, dressing and condiments.
At this point you may be wondering, “what defines an organic agricultural product”? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines organic agriculture as “an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.” While there are many different takes on organic production, in order to use the USDA Organic label, producers must comply with the national standards set by the National Organic Program.
Source: MSU Extension (Rob Sirrine)
Aggressively Organic To Send Hydroponic Systems to Puerto Rico
Aggressively Organic To Send Hydroponic Systems to Puerto Rico
HYDROPONICS STARTUP RAISES FUNDS TO SEND FARMING TECHNOLOGY TO PUERTO RICO
Aggressively Organic aims to send 50,000 Micro Growth Systems™ to the U.S. Territory
Earlier this week we announced via social media that we’re raising funds via a rewards crowdfunding campaign on Humanity Project to ship 50,000 Aggressively Organic Micro Growth Systems™ to Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.
We’re setting out to raise $500,000 on Humanity Project to manufacture, create, and deliver our patent pending Aggressively Organic Micro Growth Systems™ to Puerto Rico so that individuals, agencies, and relief groups can use these self-contained personal hydroponic systems to start growing phytonutrient rich food immediately upon arrival. Vegetables and herbs grown in Aggressively Organic Micro Growth Systems™ would be available for harvest as soon as 30-60 days without building out any additional electrical, water, or other resources.
There’s an incentive for those who donate, too. When a donor purchases some systems for a family in Puerto Rico, we at Aggressively Organic will send the same amount of systems to the donor so they can grow their own food at home as well.
As soon as we receive $500,000 for 50,000 systems, we will will allocate all of our efforts, energy and capacity to fulfill on the promise of providing short, mid and long-term relief to Puerto Rico and the citizens there. We cannot currently fund this production, but can provide our revolutionary farming technology at $10.00 a system rather than their retail pricing of $20.00. All the end user would need to provide would be enough water (24- 32 oz) every 30-90 days and sunshine or lighting.
To learn more and support our mission to send our Micro Growth Systems™ to Puerto Rico visit: https://humanityproject.com/projects/aggressively-organic-relief-for-puerto-rico/
By Bridget O'Reilly | December 8th, 2017 | Food Insecurity
What the USDA Organic Board's Decision Means for Aquaponics and Hydroponics
Many USDA Organic soil-based growing should be about restoring the nation's soil, and therefore organic farming cannot happen in the water. Some of these activists, such as Dave Chapman, a soil organic tomato grower, have threatened to leave the USDA label, saying that it undermines the value of the program.farmers say that organic
What the USDA Organic Board's Decision Means for Aquaponics and Hydroponics
By Lexi Harder | 12.20.2017
As an aquaponics farmer, I know that the produce and fish I grow are organic. How could they not be? At Oko Farms, the NYC aquaponics farm where I work, we use pesticide-free forms of pest management, feed our fish non-GMO food and treat sick fish without the help of antibiotics. However, we do not sell our produce with an organic label, choosing instead to emphasize the sustainability of our growing practices. This is because Oko Farms is not USDA Organic certified, and farmers who sell produce with an organic label without being certified face steep fines.
USDA Organic is a certification process for farms, akin to a long checklist. The label is helpful for consumers to know that any USDA Organic produce they buy has met a minimum standard of organic growing. USDA Organic farms must follow federal guidelines dictating use and quality of pesticides, soil quality, additives, and animal raising practices, with the aim of reducing the impact on the environment. More importantly for farmers, having the USDA Organic label allows farmers to sell their goods at a higher price point than conventionally grown produce. Still, many small farms, like Oko Farms, choose not to certify because it is an expensive process. In addition to USDA Organic, other organic certifications exist, and consumers can also look for labels denoting local produce and humane treatment of livestock.
The "Battle" Over Hydroponics and Aquaponics
On November 1st of this year, an important "battle" over USDA Certification came to a head. Unlike in the European Union, USA hydroponic, aquaponic, and aeroponic farms have all been eligible for USDA Organic certification, and in the past decade or so more and more organic hydroponic produce has been appearing on grocery shelves. Proponents of soil organic farming have fought this allowance for over twenty years. This fall, after an opposite vote in April, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted that aquaponics and hydroponics should be allowed to continue to be certified organic, but voted no on aeroponics (a practice similar to hydroponics, but where plant roots are sprayed with instead of suspended in a nutrient solution). Currently, around 100 hydroponics farms are certified organic, only one aquaponics farm, and no aeroponics farms.
Many USDA Organic soil-based farmers say that organic growing should be about restoring the nation's soil, and therefore organic farming cannot happen in the water. Some of these activists, such as Dave Chapman, a soil organic tomato grower, have threatened to leave the USDA label, saying that it undermines the value of the program. In actuality, there is no legal provision that organic growers must benefit the soil. But in many ways, this anger is due to the fact that increasing amounts of organic produce in big grocery stores are now hydroponically grown by huge agribusinesses, specifically from Driscoll and Wholesum Harvest. Hydroponic greenhouses can produce, for example, organic tomatoes at a lower cost than soil grown tomatoes. This worries soil organic farmers who fear being edged out of the $40 billion organic market.
Still, for small hydroponics and aquaponics farmers (like me), the NOSB's ruling is a good thing. As Marianne Cufone has testified, hydroponics and aquaponics farms do use organic practices, so they shouldn't be excluded from the economic benefit of the USDA Organic label. The board's decision is an economic boon to young aquaponics and hydroponics entrepreneurs, many of whom want to start operations in urban areas where there is low access to fresh greens. While it is unlikely that every small operation will decide to follow the USDA Organic certification route, it brings a level of legitimacy to a form of farming that the general public still views with a heavy level of skepticism. In my opinion, a situation that benefits many and diverse types of sustainable farming can only be a good thing.
Introducing the Regenerative Organic Certification
Introducing the Regenerative Organic Certification
Rodale Institute has pioneered regenerative organic agriculture since our founder, J.I. Rodale, wrote "Healthy Soil=Healthy Food=Healthy People" on a chalkboard back in 1942. His son, Robert Rodale, coined the term 'regenerative organic agriculture' to distinguish a kind of farming that goes beyond simply 'sustainable.' To us, that always meant agriculture improving the resources it uses, rather than destroying or depleting them. It is a holistic systems approach to farming that encourages continual innovation for environmental, social, and economic well-being.
Today, we're proud to announce the new Regenerative Organic Certification, a cooperative effort among a coalition of farmers, ranchers, nonprofits, scientists, and brands, led by Rodale Institute, to establish a new, high-bar standard for regenerative organic agriculture. Owned by this coalition, the standard will be administered by NSF International and is open to many certification partners. The standard encompasses guidelines for soil health and land management, animal welfare, and farmer and worker fairness. Regenerative Organic Certification builds upon the near 100-year legacy of organic movement visionaries like J.I. Rodale and Dr. Rudolf Steiner, and provides stepwise guidance for farming and ranching operations, transportation, slaughter, and processing facilities that produce food, cosmetics, and fiber.
The goals of Regenerative Organic Certification are to increase soil organic matter over time, improve animal welfare, provide economic stability and fairness for farmers, ranchers, and workers, and create resilient regional ecosystems and communities.
The environmental outcomes of a systemic shift to regenerative organic agricultural practices could be profound. In 2014, research by Rodale Institute estimated that if current crop acreage and pastureland shifted to regenerative organic practices, 100% of annual global CO2 emissions could be sequestered in the soil.
Regenerative Organic Certification does not aim to supplant current organic standards. Instead, this certification aims to support these standards while at the same time facilitate widespread adoption of holistic, regenerative practices throughout agriculture. It builds upon the standards set forth by USDA Organic and similar programs internationally, particularly in the areas of animal welfare and farmer and worker fairness.
If you are interested in reviewing and commenting on the new Regenerative Organic Certification requirements, please click here to review and contact Jessica Evans, Director of Standards Development at NSF. After the public comment period is complete, brands, farmers, and ranchers are encouraged to embrace these practices, incorporate them into their supply chains, and create a market for Regenerative Organic Certified products.
Want to learn more? Join Rodale Institute and Patagonia at Dr. Bronner's booth (2419) event at Expo East this Friday, September 15 at 4:30 PM to share this exciting news. Thank you for your participation in this vital process.
Jeff Moyer
Rodale Institute
Click here to review & comment on the full Regenerative Organic Certification requirements
Regenerative Organic Certificate Goals:
- Increase soil organic matter over time, and sequester carbon in the soil
- Improve animal welfare
- Provide economic stability and fairness for farmers, ranchers, and workers
- Create resilient regional ecosystems and communities
Three Pillars:
Soil Health*
- No/low Tillage
- Cover Crops
- Crop Rotations
- Rotational Grazing
- No Synthetic Inputs
- No GMOs or Gene Editing
- Promotes Biodiversity
- Builds Soil Organic Matter
- No Soilless Systems
* Leverages USDA Organic,
Biodynamic, etc.
Social Fairness*
- Living Wages
- No Child Labor
- No Forced Labor
- Maximum Working Hours
- Fair Pricing for Buyers/Farmers
- Long-Term Commitments
* Leverages AJP, Fair Trade, FFL, SPP, etc.
Animal Welfare*
Animal Welfare
- Five Freedoms
- Grass-Fed / Pasture-Raised
- No CAFOs
- Suitable Shelter
- Minimize Transport Dista
Leverages GAP 4+, AWA, Cert. Humane, etc.
Abridged list of contributors to the creation of Regenerative Organic Certification:
A New Food Label Is Coming Soon and It Goes 'Beyond Organic'
Conscious consumers won't have to wait much longer for clear guidance on how to buy food and other products that are not only certified organic, but also certified regenerative. Organic Consumers Association Rodale Institute
Sep. 14, 2017
A New Food Label Is Coming Soon and It Goes 'Beyond Organic'
Conscious consumers won't have to wait much longer for clear guidance on how to buy food and other products that are not only certified organic, but also certified regenerative.
On Wednesday, the Rodale Institute unveiled draft standards for a new Regenerative Organic Certification, developed by Rodale and a coalition of farmers, ranchers, nonprofits, scientists and brands.
When finalized, the certification will go "beyond organic" by establishing higher standards for soil health and land management, animal welfare and farmer and worker fairness.
Organic Consumer Association and our Regeneration International project, fully embrace this new venture to make organic more climate friendly, humane, just and environmentally positive. As we've said before, when it comes to food and farming—and as we veer toward climate catastrophe—"sustainable" doesn't cut it anymore. And certified USDA organic, though far better than GMO, chemical and energy-intensive agriculture, doesn't go quite far enough.
The standard will be administered by NSF International, an Ann Arbor, Michigan based product testing, inspection and certification organization, and will be open to multiple certification partners, according to Rodale.
When companies like Monsanto and Bayer claim to be "sustainable" and "climate-smart," those terms lose all meaning. When companies like Ben & Jerry's, which relies on an industrial dairy system fueled by GMO crops, claim to be "sustainable," we know that word has been co-opted—and corrupted.
Glyphosate in Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream + 'Monsanto Papers' = Very Interesting Times https://t.co/SbucvfmGLZ @NonGMOProject @GMOTruth
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) 1501881312.0
We've always supported USDA organic certification—even though the standards are sometimes flawed and sometimes exploited by a few bad actors—because we believe them to be the best way for consumers to avoid pesticides and synthetic ingredients. We'll continue to fight for stronger, better organic standards, and we'll hold fast against allowing corporations to weaken or exploit them.
But we also believe it's time to do better. It's time to acknowledge the role organic regenerative agriculture plays reversing global warming, by restoring the soil's capacity to draw down and sequester excess CO2 from the atmosphere. It's time to acknowledge that organic, regenerative agriculture increases crop resiliency by restoring soil health and biodiversity.
It's time to recognize that regeneration is the next stage of organic food and farming—and civilization.
This new Organic Regenerative Certification will help consumers identify those products that not only nourish their bodies, but also heal the planet.
Controversial Ruling Says Organic Crops Don’t Have to Grow in Soil
Is soil an essential element of organic farming? Or can a crop grown in a soil-free container still be considered organic?
PHOTO BY MUSTAFAGULL/ISTOCK
Controversial Ruling Says Organic Crops Don’t Have to Grow in Soil
Some organic growers say hydroponics shouldn’t be certified organic
BY KATIE O'REILLY | NOV 13 2017
Is soil an essential element of organic farming? Or can a crop grown in a soil-free container still be considered organic?
Since the launch of the National Organic Program in 2000, hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic crop systems have been eligible to use the coveted USDA Organic seal on their products, so long as their operations comply with all other USDA organic regulations. But some organic farmers say healthy soil is the non-negotiable foundation of organic methods, and for years they have objected to the inclusion of hydroponics in organic certification. In recent months, the discussion over organic hydroponics has become more intense than ever and, to their great disappointment, organic pioneers have lost the latest round of the debate.
On November 1, members of the government-appointed National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which functions as an advisory board to the USDA, voted eight-to-seven to reject a proposal that would disallow hydroponic and aquaponic farms from being certified organic. In the months leading to the vote, organic farmers organized 15 rallies around the country with signs reading, “Real Farmers Do it in the Dirt” and “Don’t Water Down Organics with Hydroponics.” In a last-ditch effort to speak out in support of what they see as preservation of the integrity of organic certification, dozens of them packed the NOSB’s two-day-long meeting earlier this month in Jacksonville, Florida.
The NOSB did vote against continuing to allow aeroponically grown crops, which typically have to be sprayed with nutrients, to use the organic-certified label. But hydroponics and aquaponics are still fair game—and organic traditionalists say this decision likely came down to market considerations. “The National Organic Program’s mission seems to be changing from serving the organic community to serving corporate agriculture,” says Dave Chapman, a longtime Vermont-based organic tomato farmer. Chapman points out that in 2010, the NOSB voted 14-1 to exclude soil-less forms of growing; the USDA, however, opted not to take the recommendation, prompting the past seven years’ debate on the subject. “What changed between now and then? A multi-million-dollar hydroponic industry with powerful lobbyists is what’s changed,” Chapman says.
Dave Chapman speaks at a "Protect Organic" rally in Jacksonville, Florida. | Photo courtesy of Dave Chapman
He’s referring to global hydroponic market, which is projected to hit $490.50 million by 2023. In the United States, approximately 100 hydroponic operations are already certified organic. Investors tend to see agri-technologies—such as those that allow crops to grow in artificially lit, vertical indoor stacks, or in water-filled containers with farmed fish or other aquatic animals whose waste supplies plants with nutrients—as profitable ventures, given their potential for high yields.
Some organic farming pioneers, now mourning what they see as the devaluation of the organic brand they fought for decades to establish, see the ruling as a way to allow corporate agriculture to continue to infringe on their $47 billion industry. So in a sense, the dirt debate invokes the age-old Davis vs. Goliath question of whether this marks another triumph care of capitalism. (Case in point: one of the biggest container producers presently enjoying the bona fides of the USDA Organic seal is Driscoll’s—a berry giant worth nearly $3 billion whose organic supply comes from both certified in-ground and containerized production, and a company that lobbied the NOSB for continued hydroponic certification.) But at its heart, it’s a battle over food production methods and, to an extent, over the values we place on various styles of production.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Organic
Proponents of hydroponics and aquaponics say their methods of production offer an environmentally conscious solution for feeding a growing population in our rapidly changing and resource-challenged climate. “Sure, having more farmers produce food bearing the USDA Organic label creates more competition in the marketplace, but the reality is, we don’t have enough food in the U.S. to feed people, and so we import a lot of food,” says Marianne Cufone, an aquaponic farmer, environmental lawyer, and the executive director of a food security-focused nonprofit, theRecirculating Farms Coalition. “Organic food has long been cost-prohibitive, and maybe this ruling will allow urban farmers and others who don’t have access to soil to invest in organic production, create some healthy market competition, and make good food a little more affordable.”
But traditional organic advocates—many of whom Chapman says shed tears when the November 1 decision was handed down—believe that truly healthy food can only be grown in truly healthy soil. “It’s not possible to grow food with optimal nutrition in a system that doesn’t necessarily photosynthesize the sun, and carelessly ignores the soil,” he says.
But Cufone, who rejects what she describes as the stereotype of the sterile, indoor hydroponic farm (her own aquaponic operations, pictured to the right, are outdoors), insists that hydroponics and aquaponics could lead to more resilient community food systems. “Expanding production cuts down on the fossil fuels needed to import food and could really help mitigate climate change,” she says. “The NOSB is sending a critical message that sustainability and innovation are valuable in U.S. agriculture. This could spur growth of urban and rural farms alike—inclusiveness is important in our food system.”
Often, container farmers use less water than traditional farmers. The fact that controlled-environment farms can be constructed near cities carries the potential to slash transportation emissions. But critics of controlled agriculture systems point out that indoor farms often consume huge amounts of energy, negating hypothetical climate benefits. Dirt-firsters’ main argument, however, centers around the fact that “organic” is about much more than a lack of synthetic pesticides and herbicides.
Chapman points to Sir Albert Howard, the British botanist who planted the seeds of the organic movement in the 1940s. “Howard’s research showed that ‘organic’ was about building sustainable systems that are based on the looping of nutrients and resources in the soil,” says Chapman, adding that true organic farming calls for “intensive composting, obsessive marshalling of organic matter, and precise cover-cropping and rotation systems.” He says modern soil science supports Howard’s findings. “Maintaining and improving the organic matter in the soil without fail leads to an increase in plant health and fertility,” Chapman says, adding that all this is optimized when plants photosynthesize energy from the sun, outdoors. “None of these interactions are happening with hydroponics or aquaponics.”
What’s more, recent studies have proven what many organic farmers and environmentalists have long suspected: soil with high amounts of organic matter is better at sequestering carbon—and thus mitigating climate change—than other soil. As Chapman sees it, those who cash in on the lucrative organic seal have a responsibility to contribute to the planet’s “carbon sponge,” by developing and nurturing healthy, diverse soil systems. “If we change how we farm on a big scale, we can literally start to cool the planet. [Traditional organic farming] can repair broken water cycles, and desertification and drought are results of broken agriculture,” Chapman says. He says he’s worried that the organic movement could lose soil farmers to more novel tech-assisted farming methods—and that this could result in “a real loss for global society.” He adds, “And now we have to have a confusing conversation about whether certified organic food is actually organic, or if it’s fauxganic—grown without soil?”
At this month's NOSB meeting, there was talk of compromise in the form a food label that would indicate whether a food item was grown in natural soils. Think: “USDA Organic In Ground”, “USDA Organic Hydroponic,” and “USDA Organic Aquaponic.” Cufone, for one, is fine with that, saying, “All farmers are very proud of their process and product, so more transparency is comfortable for most people.” Chapman concedes that such a system would be “better than what we have now.” However, he says he can’t support it as a solution. “It implies that organic-certified hydroponic-grown food is organic. So on some level, I’d need to accept that, but I just don’t—it’s a complete reinvention of the word [organic].”
Chapman says that among his fellow soil-loyalist compatriots, there’s early but earnest talk about jumping ship altogether and creating a new organic label. “That sounds huge, but you know, when I started doing this 35 years ago we were an alternative label, and the USDA hated us. It’s gonna be a lot of work, but we want integrity in a label, with no confusion.” As Chapman sees it, last week’s NOSB ruling amounted to a death knell for the National Organic Program. “They’re killing it,” he says. By this he doesn’t mean to imply the organic industry will be dead and gone. “It’s just going to be like a zombie having lost its soul,” he explains, “and those of us who started the movement aren’t going to stand for it, and be part of the walking dead.”
Murphy: Down and Dirty
Murphy: Down and Dirty
NOVEMBER 9, 2017 09:30 AM
World Variety Produce launched organic vegetable kits in pouch bags last December, says Robert Schueller, director of marketing.
© World Variety Produce
By AgWeb Guest Editor
AgWeb.com
At first glance, the decision of the National Organic Standards Board last week to allow hydroponic and aquaponic production methods to be marketed as Certified USDA Organic might seem logical. If no chemicals or synthetic fertilizers are used, why wouldn’t the resulting hydroponic produce, for example, be considered organically grown?
But the board’s decision was vociferously opposed by a coalition of organic farmers and producers, who lobbied intensely, according to news reports, urging USDA to restrict certification to soil-based systems of farming.
“[The decision] was sad, because the rally speeches and all the testimonies of the farmers were so moving,” Dr. Linley Dixon, lead scientist at the Cornucopia Institute, an industry watchdog organization supporting the ban, was quoted on the Organic Authority website. “Everyone did such a good job explaining the situation, [but] it didn’t matter. It was very sad. There were a lot of tears.”
The 15-person board voted eight to seven to reject the proposal that would have restricted organic certification to “traditional” farmers, according to news reports. There are approximately 100 certified organic hydroponic operations in the U.S.
So why the controversy? What’s the difference if crops are grown organically in soil or in a water-based medium? Isn’t that merely a matter of a different medium?
Soilless is Soulless
Not at all, many organic farmers argued. Indeed, this issue has been debated within the organic industry for many years. Those against the continued certification of soilless systems argue that such techniques violate the basic principles of organic, which, as Abby Youngblood, executive director of the National Organic Coalition, explained to National Public Radio, “are really about soil health, regenerating the soil.”
Dixon agreed, noting that hydroponic systems do not cycle nutrients back into the soil to build soil health, an important tenet of organic agriculture. Indeed, most marketing and advertising for organic foods depict pastoral scenes of farmsteads with amber waves of grain, contented cows grazing on green forage and tidy orchards bursting with ripe apples or cherries.
The family farm, old-school image of hardworking growers toiling to deliver healthier foods, while simultaneously healing the land, is key to the organic movement’s positioning.
The argument in favor of organic hydroponics, of course, centers on efficiency, and in fact, those systems can be energy-efficient and sustainably operated. Hydroponic systems also do not normally require the addition of pesticides, even those permitted by organic rules, due to the fact that such crops are grown under controlled conditions indoors.
As far back as 2010, organic farmer coalitions were badgering USDA to institute a moratorium on the organic certification of all new hydroponic and aquaponic operations. In a letter to then-USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, they argued that, “We believe it is incumbent upon USDA to accept the NOSB’s 2010 recommendations to prohibit soilless hydroponic vegetable production as certified organic. The recommendation specifically states that hydroponic and aeroponic ‘cannot be certified as organic growing methods…’ ”
Part of the dispute is related to the fact that farmers seeking organic certification must undergo rigorous soil testing in order to be certified organic. Hydroponic and aquaponic systems are getting a free pass around those criteria, the farmers said, claiming that it confuses consumers when there is no distinction between the farming methods and their importance to the health of the larger food system.
Leaving aside the issue of whether soil itself is essential for foods to be identified as organically grown, the organic farm coalitions may have a point, albeit not on the dirt vs. no-dirt issue.
Along with the environmental impact of organic methods of crop and livestock production, the other important element is the opportunity to maintain agricultural diversity and support access to the business for family and small-scale growers. Because organic produce, meat and dairy command premiums in the marketplace, it’s possible for small farms to be profitable at a scale that would be near-impossible if production revolved around hybrid corn and GMO soybeans.
Hydroponic operations, on the other hand, tend to require sufficient capitalization that if such production methods are to be scaled up, they’re more than likely to be sustainable only by well-funded corporate interests. Leaving aside the optics of food grown with miles of plastic piping inside what amounts to a translucent airplane hanger, the last thing that organic agriculture needs is to continue on the path of corporate domination of the market, which is already well underway.
Certainly, population growth alone, not to mention the ongoing loss of prime farmland to development, argues for the expansion of hydroponics as a supplement to conventional food production. Forget exports for a moment; by mid-century, the U.S. is going to have to ramp up its domestic ag output just to keep pace with the growth in the American population, and hydroponics need to play a role in that effort.
In the end, it seems to me the solution is for organic farmers opposed to indoor agriculture to make their case the old-fashioned way: One customer at a time.
If soil health is so critical to environmental protection and food sustainability — and it is — that ought to be an easy argument to make.
And win.
Editor’s Note: The opinions in this commentary are those of Dan Murphy, a veteran journalist, and commentator.
Pioneers of Organic Farming Are Threatening to Leave The Program
Pioneers of Organic Farming Are Threatening to Leave The Program
BY CAITLIN DEWEY | THE WASHINGTON POST | Nov. 3, 2017
Early leaders argued hydroponics should be banned from the label
Certified organic produce is on sale at a Kroger grocery store in Louisville, Kentucky. (Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg) 6843059
The pioneers of the sustainable farming movement are mourning what they call the downfall of the organic program, following a Wednesday night vote by a group of government farming advisers that could determine the future of the $50 billion organic industry.
At issue was whether a booming generation of hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic farms — which grow plants in nutrients without using soil, frequently indoors — could continue to sell their produce under the “organic” label.
In a series of narrow votes, an advisory board to the U.S. Department of Agriculture voted to allow the majority of these operators to remain a part of the organic program, dealing a blow to the movement’s early leaders.
Organic pioneers have argued that including hydroponic produce under the label has undermined the integrity of the program they fought decades to establish, and at a time when it is under intense scrutiny. Some have said they will consider leaving the USDA-regulated program entirely.
“This was the Hail Mary pass to save the National Organic Program, and they didn’t catch it,” said Dave Chapman, a longtime organic tomato farmer who lobbied to have hydroponics banned from the organics label. “They did incalculable damage to the seal tonight. It’s just going to take them a while to realize it.”
The recommendation, issued by the National Organic Standards Board, came in four parts.
The board voted to keep out aeroponic farming, which grows plants — typically herbs and leafy greens — suspended in the air with their roots exposed. But it voted to allow hydroponics, which grow plants in water-based nutrient solutions, and aquaponics, which combine hydroponic systems with farmed fish operations.
The board declined to tighten its restrictions on container growing, a variation on hydroponics that involves raising plants in containers filled with a mixture of organic matter, water and nutrients. That system has been adopted by a number of major organic berry growers, such as Driscoll’s and Wholesum Harvest.
Since 2000, the National Organic Program has strictly regulated which foods can be called organic, and how organic foods are grown and raised. Those standards are typically based on the recommendations of the NOSB, an advisory body comprised of farmers, environmentalists and representatives from the organic industry.
In a 2010 vote, the board recommended a ban on virtually all types of soilless growing. But in an unusual departure, the USDA continued to certify hydroponic and aquaponic farms, claiming that NOSB had not adequately considered the breadth of the industry.
Now that the board and the department are in agreement, the future of hydroponics in the organic program is much more certain, said Marianne Cufone, the executive director of the Recirculating Farms Coalition, which represents hydroponic and aquaponic growers.
“I think this sends a powerful message that they’re embracing change in agriculture,” Cufone said. “That the (organic program) wants to be inclusive, not exclusive.”
This approach has pained old-school organic farmers, who have spent the past seven years arguing that soilless systems undermine the main principles of that program. When that movement emerged in the first half of the twentieth century, they argue, it promised a version of agriculture that not only reduced the use of certain fertilizers and pesticides — but that contributed to the health of the soil and the rest of the environment.
During testimony on Tuesday, several organic farmers protested the certification of hydroponic farms, wearing T-shirts that said “Save the Organic Label.” At rallies this month in Hanover, New Hampshire, and Burlington, Vermont, protesters held signs with slogans such as “keep the soil in organic.”
“This notion that organic farmers are stuck in the past, or that they’re a bunch of Luddites hanging on to the way things used to be — that’s a misnomer,” said Cameron Harsh, the senior manager for organic and animal policy at the Center for Food Safety. “Soilless systems are just incompatible with the organic program and its regulations.”
“Don’t get me wrong — I love going to the farmers market,” said Matt Barnard, the chief executive of the indoor farming start-up Plenty, which grows organically certified greens and herbs.
“It’s just that the farmers’ market supplies something like half of 1 percent of the fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S.”
“What we are doing,” Barnard added, “is just as organic as anyone else.”