Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
Coalition For Sustainable Organics Continues Efforts To Ensure Containers And Hydroponics In The National Organic Program
Coalition For Sustainable Organics Continues Efforts To Ensure Containers And Hydroponics In The National Organic Program
May 8, 2018
Led by executive director Lee Frankel, the Coalition for Sustainable Organics (CSO), continued its advocacy efforts at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Spring meeting to ensure the National Organic Program remains open to producers using containers and hydroponic cultivation methods.
Frankel testified, “Comprised of growers big and small, we [the CSO] advocate for the continued allowance of containerized growing methods under the National Organic Program while enabling growers to select the most appropriate production system for their specific site and commodity needs.”
“In addition, the CSO was pleased to receive confirmation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that of the legal basis for these methods via Sections 6503 and 6512 of the Organic Foods Production Act,” stated Lee Frankel. “CSO has long argued that OFPA and the accompanying regulations do not prohibit containers and hydroponics from the organic program.”
“Thanks to USDA’s strong statement, producers can continue to meet the rising demand for fresh organic produce using a wide variety of environmentally sound and sustainable farming methods such as containers and hydroponics,” continued Frankel.
Following a presentation by Undersecretary Ibach on USDA efforts to increase organic integrity, members of the CSO as well as Frankel testified today in Tucson, Arizona at the meeting of the National Organic Standards Board to show continued support for efforts to further strengthen and clarify the USDA organic regulations and ensure integrity in the USDA Organic Seal.
More Organic Than Thou? Rebel Farmers Create New Food Label
More Organic Than Thou? Rebel Farmers Create New Food Label
By LISA RATHKE
| ASSOCIATED PRESS |
April 13, 2018
Was your tomato grown in dirt or water? Organic shoppers might notice additional labels this summer that will give them the answer — and tell them whether their choices align with what a rebellious group of farmers and scientists deem the true spirit of the organic movement.
About 15 farmers and scientists from around the country met in Vermont late last month to create the standards for an additional organic certification program, which they plan to roll out nationally to between 20 to 60 farms as a pilot this summer.
Under the current U.S. Department of Agriculture program, the organic label means that your tomato has been produced without synthetic substances — with some exceptions — and without certain methods, like genetic engineering. The additional label, which does not yet have a name or wording, would indicate that a tomato, for example, has been grown in soil, and that meat and dairy products came from farms that pasture their animals.
An inspector would certify that the farm has complied with the new standards, and the farms — not distributors — would add the label.
The move comes five months after the National Organic Standard Board, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture, voted against a proposal to exclude from the USDA's organic certification program hydroponics — raising plants with water but no soil — and aquaponics, in which plants and aquatic animals, such as fish, are grown within one system.
"I think that a lot of farmers, especially young farmers, feel that the organic label no longer describes the way they farm, and we're trying to recapture that," said Linley Dixon, a vegetable farmer in Durango, Colorado, and senior scientist for Cornucopia Institute, who is also on the standards board of the Real Organic Project.
The group creating the new label, which calls itself the Real Organic Project, said it has not abandoned the National Organic Program, which is the federal standard, and is not attacking organic farmers.
"Some of the cornerstones of what organic means are being taken away, and we're concerned about how creaky that makes the whole thing," said Dave Chapman, a member of the executive and standards board of the Real Organic Project and owner of an organic tomato farm in Thetford. He believes the cornerstone of being organic is growing in soil and improving its fertility.
To Dixon, "organic" means a very diversified operation, rotating animals and crops and planting cover crops to control erosion, increase organic matter in the soil and manage weeds, among other things.
The new label would exclude from certification hydroponic farming and large livestock farms that don't pasture their animals, known as contained animal feeding operations or CAFOs.
The hydroponic industry argues another label would mislead and confuse consumers and is a way for the traditional organic farmers to try to get a competitive edge.
"It's a competition because field farmers can't produce the volume that hydroponics can," said Dan Lubkeman, president of the Hydroponic Society of America.
While shopping at Hunger Mountain food cooperative in Montpelier, Jessica Manchester, of Worcester, agreed labeling is getting confusing for the average consumer but in the long run thinks it's good to know where food comes from. She said she prefers produce grown in soil.
"I'm just in favor of plants growing in their natural way and being in connection with the microbes in the soil and the interactions those microbes have with the plant roots," Manchester said.
But fellow shopper Laurie Griggs, of Calais, said she doesn't buy totally organic and doesn't mind if vegetables or berries are raised hydroponically.
"I just think we need new ways to grow things," she said. "We've got a lot of people and farming's really hard on the land, and if we can find ways to lighten our impact on the land and grow healthy food for people, I have no problem with it."
The farmers involved want a more transparent label and will not see an economic benefit at first, Chapman said. The program is now being funded by contributions. Farmers would pay a fee to be certified, but he doubts that would cover the cost of the program.
"I hope the day will come where there will be an economic benefit because I know that there are millions of people in the country who actually do care about whether food is grown in the soil and whether the animals have access to the pasture," he said.
Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Whole Foods Local Producer Program Helps Microgreens Producer
Whole Foods Market will award an $80,000 loan to Greenbelt Microgreens as part of the grocer's Local Producer Loan Program, which grants low-interest loans to growing local artisans, farmers, and producers.
Whole Foods Local Producer Program Helps Microgreens Producer
APRIL 05, 2018
Whole Foods Market will award an $80,000 loan to Greenbelt Microgreens as part of the grocer's Local Producer Loan Program, which grants low-interest loans to growing local artisans, farmers, and producers.
Greenbelt Microgreens, a certified organic greenhouse grower of soil-based microgreens, grows year-round locally in British Columbia, Ontario and New York state, and plans to utilize the loan to expand its packing and cold storage space at its greenhouse in Maple Ridge, BC.
The organic microgreens, which include arugula, pea shoots, sunflowers, broccoli, and radishes, are early-stage vegetables that have a delicious flavor profile and a very high nutrient density because of their young age (10-14 days).
“Our commitment to local farms and artisan producers drives our ability to offer new and interesting products to our customers that are local to their region,” said Denise Breyley, local forager for the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. “These relationships give us the opportunity to seek out the best products, while also giving local farmers and food artisans the tools and guidance to help them grow their business.”
Whole Foods Market North Vancouver, opening on April 26, will also feature a strong selection of local and regional products.
Whole Foods Market is committed to the concept of fresh, healthy, local foods, and supporting both local products and the people who supply them. Loan recipients must meet Whole Foods Market’s quality standards, use the funds for expansion and have a viable business plan. Typical loans range from $1,000 to $100,000 and have fixed low-interest rates.
Previous recipients have used their loans for purchasing more livestock, investing in new equipment, expanding production facilities, adapting to more sustainable practices or converting to organic production. The Greenbelt Microgreens loan will be the sixth for small business owners in British Columbia, for a total of over $400,000. Overall, more than $2 million has been distributed to recipients in the Pacific Northwest.
Singapore Stakes Claim On First Organic Standard For Produce Grown by Urban And Indoor Farming
Singapore Stakes Claim On First Organic Standard For Produce Grown by Urban And Indoor Farming
12-Apr-2018 By Lester Wan
Singapore has launched its first organic standard, and officials believe it to possibly be the world’s first organic standard for produce grown in urban and indoor conditions.
European Parliament Sets Stronger Organic Regulations than U.S., Rejects Labeling Hydroponic as Organic
(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2018) After more than five years of intensive negotiations, European Members of Parliament (MEP) overwhelmingly passed the long-anticipated, new organic certification and labeling regulations, with 466 voting in favor, 124 against and 50 abstentions. While the European Union (EU) Council of Ministers, must formally adopt the regulations, their easy passage is expected. Regulations will take effect in January 2021. The new organic regulations are purported to provide more clarity to organic producers and consumers and to harmonize organic regulation across the EU. But, they also are likely to fuel disharmony with the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP) by failing to act swiftly to curtail fraudulent organic exports and by prohibiting hydroponics systems of production in organic, which the US currently allows.
“The development of organic production is a political objective of the EU,” According to the EP’s background document on the regulations. As a strategy for increasing organic agriculture, which now encompasses 6.7% of EU agricultural land, MEPs intend for the new regulations to encourage more farmers to go organic, enhance consumer trust in the EU organic logo, and improve the quality of organic food. According to the European Parliament’s press release, “Strict, risk-based checks will take place along the supply chain” to facilitate product traceability and boost consumer confidence in the authenticity of the organic foods they buy.
Similar to the situation in the U.S. where organic fraud is on the rise, the EU acknowledges the problem by requiring stricter fraud precautions to be taken. Equivalency rules that currently allow non-EU countries to comply with comparable but not exact standards will be phased-out, within the extended timeframe of five years. New regulatory language encourages operators who produce, prepare, import or use organic products to report suspicious imports to the appropriate authorities. Member states are also authorized to take their own enforcement action to avoid fraudulent imports and to notify other member states of their action.
It remains to be seen if these measures prove sufficient for U.S, organic consumers and producers to feel confident that the EU is affording adequate fraud protections for the organic food that passes through its borders. In the US, where at least half of the organic products sold are imported, a recent Inspector General Audit of USDA concluded that it was “unable to provide reasonable assurances” that imported commodities labeled organic were indeed coming from certified organic farms. The situation of rampant fraudulent imports has created substantial economic hardship for US organic grain and soy farmers, where per bushel prices and market share have plummeted since 2015. Executive Director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing, Inc., John Bobbe, estimates that between 60 and 70 percent of organic imports may be fraudulent. “Some come through Turkey, where fraud is rampant, and some from India, where standards are not checked thoroughly for sanitation issues. He thinks Turkish organized crime is involved, with colleagues in Russia and Ukraine.”
The other important point of contention between the EU’s and U.S,’ organic standards is the EU’s explicit prohibition of hydroponic systems of organic food production to be certified organic. In reaffirming that organic systems of production depend upon thriving soil ecosystems, the EU regulation states that “plants should be produced on and in living soil in connection with the subsoil and bedrock. Consequently, hydroponic production should not be allowed nor growing plants in containers, bags or beds where the roots are not in contact with living soil.”
This provision flies in the face of the 2017 decision of the U.S. National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to allow soilless, hydroponically-produced organic food without requiring labeling. The NOSB overturned a previous 2010 Board decision to prohibit the practice despite widespread public opposition and demands to “keep organic in the soil.” In response, this spring U.S. farmers have created the Real Organic Project, which rejects hydroponic as an organic method and establishes other standards that the U.S. Department of Agriculture refused to implement, despite explicit recommendations from the NOSB. The Real Organic Project is establishing an add-on label to the USDA certified organic label that will let consumers know which commodities meet the standards of the organic law and consumer expectations. While hydroponic food production is already forbidden in the EU, the new regulations clarify instances where non-soil based, organic production is allowed such as in the production of ornamental plants, sprouted seeds, and herbs in pots. These allowances are justified in order to facilitate early growing stages of plants and in instances for which “no risk exists that the consumer is misled regarding the production method.”
Some EU countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland, have been allowing the use of “demarcated beds in greenhouses” as organic, but in the agreement struck with Parliament, those countries will be given 10 years phase-out the practice. An interim report is required to be produced on the status of those greenhouses within 5 years. Similar to the situation in the Nordic countries, some US organic certification agencies have been acting independently in the absence of regulations, certifying hydroponic operations and creating their own rules with respect to the organic soil requirement. While some certifiers allow crops to be grown in an undefined “biodegradable substrate,” others do not. This has created confusion in the marketplace and angered many farmers and consumers who note that the text in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) specifically states that farmers shall “foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” It makes clear that soil health management is central to organic systems of production as evidenced by the detailed expectations of organic farmers in their annual organic crop and animal production system plan.
Other organic management practices strengthened by the new EU regulations include increasing data collection on organic seed and organic animal availability. The allowed use of conventional seeds and animals in organic production is scheduled to terminate by 2035, but that date could change depending upon the progress made. Mixed organic and conventional production by the same farmer will still be allowed, provided that the two systems of production are clearly delineated. To make it easier for small farmers to enter into organic farming, a group certification will be allowed. This issue has been raised on several occasions in the U.S. but has been rejected to date.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 27th, 2018 at 1:31 am and is filed under Agriculture, Alternatives/Organics, Hydroponics, National Organic Standards Board/National Organic Program, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Coalition for Sustainable Organics Continues Efforts to Ensure Participation of Containers and Hydroponics in the National Organic Program
Coalition for Sustainable Organics Continues Efforts to Ensure Participation of Containers and Hydroponics in the National Organic Program
TUCSON, ARIZONA - April 25, 2018 - Led by executive director Lee Frankel, the Coalition for Sustainable Organics (CSO), continued its advocacy efforts at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Spring meeting to ensure the National Organic Program remains open to producers using containers and hydroponic cultivation methods.
Frankel testified, “Comprised of growers big and small, we [the CSO] advocate for the continued allowance of containerized growing methods under the National Organic Program while enabling growers to select the most appropriate production system for their specific site and commodity needs.”
“In addition, the CSO was pleased to receive confirmation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that of the legal basis for these methods via Sections 6503 and 6512 of the Organic Foods Production Act,” stated Lee Frankel. “CSO has long argued that OFPA and the accompanying regulations do not prohibit containers and hydroponics from the organic program.”
“Thanks to USDA’s strong statement, producers can continue to meet the rising demand for fresh organic produce using a wide variety of environmentally sound and sustainable farming methods such as containers and hydroponics,” continued Frankel.
Following a presentation by Undersecretary Ibach on USDA efforts to increase organic integrity, members of the CSO as well as Frankel testified today in Tucson, Arizona at the meeting of the National Organic Standards Board to show continued support for efforts to further strengthen and clarify the USDA organic regulations and ensure integrity in the USDA Organic Seal.
#######
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Lee Frankel, Executive Director
The Coalition for Sustainable Organics
info@coalitionforsustainableorganics.org
619-587-4341
Organic Food – What You Need To Know
Organic Food – What You Need To Know
By Dr. Nirmala M. Pieris
The very word, ‘Organic’ has taken over our food market by storm! We see it in supermarket shelves, grocery stores, restaurant menus and there are even entire restaurants dedicated to organic food. The demand is skyrocketing worldwide with what was once a niche market now shooting its way to a hugely revenue- based industry.
What is organic food?
Organic food is food that is grown or processed with a farming system that avoids the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Such foods also do not contain any artificial ingredients or preservatives. If foods are labeled as 100% organic they cannot be irradiated or contain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Organic meat, eggs, and poultry products come from animals that are given no antibiotics, growth regulators or livestock feed additives. All artificial colorings and sweeteners are also banned in organic food.
Why does organic food cost more than conventional food?
Yes, why the high cost? This is because, organic food production is generally more labor intensive with organic farmers using organic approved fertilizers and repellents and practical methods such as crop rotation, intercropping, cover crops etc. to control disease, pests, and weeds. These incur far more costs than chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are generally manufactured in automated large manufacturing plants. There is also the case that post-harvest handling, marketing, and distribution of relatively small quantities of organic produce results in higher costs due to mandatory segregation of organic and conventional produce.
Does organic food contain more nutrients?
The word ‘organic’ in the food you buy does not automatically mean it is more nutritious than conventional food. Of course, there are some research indicators with respect to specific components and products. One suggestion is that organic food generally contains more nutritionally desirable antioxidants with a specific instance being organically grown tomatoes that have a higher level of the well-known antioxidant lycopene.
With respect to organic meat and milk, research has proven that they can be more nutritious as they contain about 50% more omega-3 fatty acids which are unsaturated healthy fats than conventionally produced products, the difference being attributed to the way organic livestock is raised with a grass-fed diet and more time spent outdoors.
Are organic products healthier?
Yes, they can be termed healthier as consuming fruits, vegetables, grains, greens and other organic plant products have the all-important fact of reduced exposure to pesticide residues and heavy metals that can slowly accumulate in the body over time. When the body’s natural detoxification pathways cannot eliminate them they can reach toxic levels. Similarly, the main advantage of organic meat and dairy food is less exposure to antibiotic and hormone residues where overexposure contributes to antibiotic resistance while synthetic hormone excesses have been linked to increased risk of cancer.
How will you know that a product is organic?
This is the ‘Golden question’. With so many labels claiming a product is organic, with entire sections in supermarkets demarcated for organic food, with several marketplaces selling organic produce, how will you know? You will have factual confirmation that a product is ‘organic’ when it has organic certification. Organic standards require that organic foods are approved by an organic certification body where inspectors visit the farms on a regular basis, inspect all the farming practices and ensure that the food meets strict regulations relating to production, storage, processing, handling and marketing.
Individual certification bodies have their own service marks so in addition to the word ‘organic’, check if the product has the logo and/or name of the certifying body. If organic produce is being exported it is mandatory that the certification body is accredited by an internationally recognized organization. This can be expensive and can vary based on the certifying agency, size of the farm and other factors such as administrative and inspector fees.
Organic quality guarantee system
As organic certification in most instances is beyond the reach of small-scale farmers, there is in operation a Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) that is specially adapted to local markets and short supply chains focused on local quality assurance systems. In this system, products are guaranteed based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust. PGS can be advantageous as a preparatory step to obtain certification at a later date.
Buying organic food
Even though buying organic food is the safest option for everybody it may not be affordable as you will typically pay two to ten times or even more depending on the certification category. So make good decisions, when going for ‘organic’. Vulnerable groups such as young children, pregnant women, the elderly and those suffering from allergies may benefit the most from organically produced foods.
But if purchasing ‘organic’ is beyond your budget, thoroughly washing the produce in cold running water will remove some of the pesticide residues that are on the surface of the food. Another even better option is to wash with a dilute salt water solution.
Organic and Natural
When you browse through the supermarket shelves containing organic food, you will notice some labeled as ‘natural’. Organic and natural do not mean the same thing. While ‘organic’ is a heavily regulated food system, ‘natural’ foods come with no guarantees. Even though natural foods are assumed to be minimally processed, and do not contain any hormones, antibiotics, preservatives or artificial flavors, there is no guarantee that this is so as there are no rules and regulations for products labeled as ‘natural’.
When you opt for organic food, other than in specific instances do not bank too much on the nutrition factor. However, focus on the health aspect, maybe the taste and of course your genuine concern for the environment. Organic food grown and produced without pesticides and chemicals keeps the earth’s soil water and air cleaner and healthier.
Grow your own organic food
You can grow organic fruits, vegetables and greens in your garden using organic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic fertilizers include compost, animal manure such as cow dung and green leaf manure like gliricidia. Compost is an excellent source of organic matter and can be made at home from leftover food scraps and garden sweepings. Then there are the soil enhancers that include banana peels, waste aquarium water, coffee grounds, used tea leaves, egg shells and cooled cooking water.Some well-known organic pesticide ingredients include neem (kohomba) oil, tobacco leaves and fresh cow dung.Also, plant Marigolds in your garden–they are well known for pest control. Coffee grounds and egg shells are good to deter slugs and snails while orange peels will keep small insects away.
Vermont Tomato Farmer Leads Defense of Organic Principles
Vermont Tomato Farmer Leads Defense of Organic Principles
SARAH PRIESTAP Dave Chapman
The weather forecast in East Thetford on a recent Friday called for snow flurries, but stepping into a greenhouse on Dave Chapman's Long Wind Farm evoked a very different season.
The air was warm and moist, and, as far as the eye could see, robust tomato plants climbed 11-foot guidelines toward the light. Their thick stalks dripped with crimson fruit that exploded summer-sweet and juicy in the mouth.
These are the sort of tomatoes that Vermonters expect to find on a farmers market stand in late July: fully ripe, with delicate skins that break easily to reveal richly hued flesh and rounded flavor. They're nothing like the big, pale, rubber ball-textured slicing tomatoes, or the pints of sweet but characterless grape tomatoes that are shipped these days thousands of miles to supermarkets year-round.
Long Wind Farm sells pints of multicolored, jewel-toned cherry tomatoes whose quirky, artist-designed labels describe them as grown in Vermont and certified organic. A grinning tomato raises its fists proudly over the slogan "Real tomatoes ... with real attitude!"
What the label doesn't currently specify is that Long Wind grows its tomatoes in soil. To Chapman and many organic farmers, that's a given. It's a foundational and non-negotiable principle of organic farming, they believe, that producing healthy food both requires and contributes to a healthy environment achieved by carefully managing the soil.
This is why Chapman believes that produce grown hydroponically — not in soil but in water — should be excluded from organic certification. And he's spent countless hours over the past few years trying to remedy what he and many other organic farmers see as egregious misinterpretation of USDA Organicseal standards. Right now, consumers might find that seal on tomatoes that sit beside Long Wind's in the organic produce section with no disclosure of their hydroponic cultivation.
For farms large and small, the right to use the label "organic" is crucial. In fact, the stakes could not be higher, economically and environmentally.
According to the North American membership-based Organic Trade Association, organic food sales in the United States reached $43 billion in 2016 and claimed more than 5 percent of total food sales. This reflects an 8.4 percent, or $3.3 billion, increase over the previous year, a rate that greatly surpassed the 0.6 percent growth rate in overall food sales.
Whether hydroponics are allowed to carry the organic seal affects the entire market, because they are generally less expensive to produce than their soil-grown equivalents. With organic certification, they are likely to undercut produce like Chapman's on price, leaving consumers with two apparently comparable options at different price points.
The hydroponic issue is at the center of a high-profile debate that has expanded into a full-out battle over the integrity of the National Organic Program, the federal regulatory body that oversees certification standards and their enforcement. Chapman has become a leader in the movement to uphold what he sees as the original intention of organic standards — even if that means creating a new add-on label to help consumers understand what they're buying.
Before organic-certified hydroponics came to his attention, "I wasn't very political," Chapman admitted. As he dug "deeper and deeper," he said, "I realized it was the tip of the iceberg."
It all comes down to consumer transparency, he believes.
In a December 21 Washington Post article headlined "Organic food fraud leads Congress to weigh bill doubling USDA oversight," Chapman was quoted as saying, "There are systemic problems ... This is not just a few bad eggs. Unfortunately, consumers have no idea what they're getting with 'USDA Organic' anymore."
"What they're growing is not more affordable organic," he told Seven Days, referring to hydroponic producers. "It's fraud."
Starting With Soil
Soil at Long Wind Farm SARAH PRIESTAP
Chapman, 65, has been an organic farmer for almost 40 years. He started out with a "classic Vermont mixed vegetable farm," as he described it. Then, in 1990, seeking a viable agricultural business that allowed for more family time, he decided to specialize in soil-grown, organic greenhouse tomatoes.
In one of his East Thetford greenhouses, a bumblebee buzzed through the verdant canopy as he knelt to gather a handful of moist, rich soil. "There are a lot of good things happening here," he said, pointing out wriggling worms, sow bugs and a fine tangle of white roots. "We're trying to feed the life in the soil. The basic principle of organic farming is to feed the soil, not the plant."
Long Wind now produces close to one million pounds of tomatoes annually in two and a half acres of state-of-the-art, soil-floored greenhouse structures. Over the years, Chapman has added more varieties — he's now up to about 10 — and has gradually extended the season longer into winter's dark and cold. This is the first winter he and his 25 employees have produced and sold tomatoes without interruption to restaurants and retailers throughout the Northeast and Pennsylvania.
Chapman is aware that not everyone thinks he should be growing tomatoes year-round in Vermont. He has had his doubts, too, he said, and almost scrapped it all at one point to grow spinach, which requires less energy. But he has worked hard to reduce the operation's environmental footprint, including transitioning to carbon-neutral energy sources. The farmer's current priority is replacing the propane he still uses with air-source heat pumps.
"We would have been a lot further along," he said ruefully, "without all this distraction."
Accidental Activist
The mild-mannered farmer and tai chi instructor seems almost surprised to find himself in the national spotlight.
Chapman cofounded the Keep the Soil in Organic movement in 2013 with fellow organic farmer David Miskell of Charlotte, when it became clear that the USDA was allowing organic certification of hydroponics.
They saw that leniency as a direct contradiction of the text of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which was championed by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and legislated the establishment of the National Organic Program and the USDA Organic seal. That act specifies that "an organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility."
In 2012, Chapman recalled, he began to notice "a lot of cheap, pretty tomatoes from Mexico in the stores." He learned from research that they were being raised hydroponically: grown in water or, in some cases, in other non-nutritive material such as coconut husk fiber, and receiving all necessary nutrients through a prepared solution. Such produce did not have to be labeled hydroponic, according to U.S. regulations.
Chapman doesn't deny that hydroponic tomatoes have hurt his business in the past — although, he noted, it has since rebounded. He is also careful to state that he is not against hydroponic agriculture in general. "Whether you like hydro or not, it's here," he said. But he believes that, if produce isn't grown in the earth, "it's just not organic. They should come up with their own label for it."
For organic farmers who believe in the broader benefits of a soil-based food system to humans and the Earth, the lower cost of hydroponic produce poses a risk they cannot ignore.
"The worst-case scenario is, we are silent and all of the tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, lettuce, basil and berries will be hydroponic and nobody knows," Chapman said. "In that process, we will lose all the real organic producers, just like what is happening with smaller organic dairies trying to compete with the huge CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations]."
And, Chapman concluded, in the end, "Eaters will lose, because they won't have a choice to buy real soil-grown organic."
Starting with a simple petition five years ago, Chapman propelled hundreds of organic farmers, environmentalists and other organic food and agriculture supporters into action. He helped draw demonstrators to rallies in Vermont, California and even Costa Rica, and he led the charge to gather more than 100,000 signatures urging the USDA to "keep the soil in organic."
But the movement suffered a crushing defeat last November in Jacksonville, Fla., at a meeting of the National Organic Standards Board. The 15-member citizen advisory board includes organic farmers, processors, environmentalists and consumer advocates appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to make recommendations to the USDA National Organic Program.
In an eight-to-seven vote, the board declined to make a recommendation to prohibit hydroponic organic certification, effectively supporting the continued certification of both hydroponic and aquaponic farming operations that, according to Chapman and others, had sneaked in under the radar over the years.
Changing Standards
Long Wind Farm tomatoes
SARAH PRIESTAP
Proponents of hydroponics — or, as they prefer to call it, "containerized growing" — hailed the NOSB vote as a victory for increased availability of organic food grown using diverse methods. They point out that hydroponics are grown with only organic inputs, such as pesticides and fertilizers approved by the National Organic Program, sometimes in settings where soil growing might not be an option.
But many in the organic farming community, such as Chapman and his mentor, Eliot Coleman, say this practice misses the point completely. To embrace hydroponics is to define "organic" solely as the absence of synthetic inputs, rather than recognizing the positive contributions that soil-based organic agriculture can make to overall environmental health.
"Fertile soil is the cornerstone of organic farming," declared Coleman, a Maine farmer, writer and organic leader. "It's just ridiculous to say it isn't necessary."
Coleman also pointed out that good soil management has always been specified in the USDA's organic standards. "The thing that has caused all of this is not the USDA standards," he said. "It's that the USDA has decided not to enforce them."
The National Organic Program is not legally bound to act on the recommendations of the NOSB, except for those related to the national list of allowable ingredients in organic food. (Even that requirement was recently thrown into question by a precedent-setting USDA decision to permit carrageenan in organic processed foods despite a previous NOSB vote against it.) Still, for those fighting against organic hydroponic certification, the November vote was devastating.
The bigger picture is troubling, too. A series of Washington Post investigative articles last year made credible allegations regarding noncompliance with certification standards by specific large organic dairy and egg operations. The stories also revealed that some of the organic imports flowing in increasing volume from as far away as China were receiving fraudulent certifications from USDA-accredited bodies.
On top of those broader organic certification enforcement issues, the USDA announced in March that it would withdraw the strengthened organic animal-welfare standards that passed during the Obama administration but had yet to be enforced. The USDA press release on the decision cites the growth of the industry under existing organic livestock and poultry regulations, an "approach that balances consumer expectations with the needs of organic producers and handlers."
One thing many consumers expect is low prices. And hydroponic agriculture can deliver them.
What's Wrong With Hydroponic?
From the perspective of some, nothing. Just ask Dave Hartshorn, who has worked on both sides. For the last 25 years, the Waitsfield farmer has raised vegetables and berries organically on 20 acres at his Hartshorn Organic Farm. He's also in his sixth year as a partner in a half-acre hydroponic farm.
The labels of Green Mountain Harvest Hydroponic's lettuce, basil and other greens clearly state they are grown hydroponically. (The watercress, Hartshorn noted, grows naturally in water.) Hartshorn said he uses many of the same organic-approved production inputs and methods on his hydroponic crops that he does on his soil-based outdoor acreage, but he and his partners have no plans to seek organic certification for the hydroponic products.
"It hasn't been our fight, and we don't want it to be our fight," he said.
Hartshorn's goal as a farmer has always been "to produce a crop people want in the safest possible way." It's getting harder and harder, he said, to farm sustainably outdoors with climate extremes such as more frequent flooding and severe hail, as well as new pests. Last year was his worst year ever farming outdoors, he said, and tighter food-safety and water quality-protection regulations "make it even harder."
"We're hedging our bets," Hartshorn said. He believes hydroponic has real potential, affording protection from climate fluctuation and pests, and promising year-round production that enables him to offer steady, better-paying jobs.
With solar-powered electricity and a biomass heating unit, the hydroponic operation produces 20 times the revenue from one-half acre that his soil-grown organic crops do from 20 acres. Green Mountain Harvest Hydroponic currently supports 10 full-time, year-round employees. Hartshorn and his business partners looked into greenhouse growing in soil, he said, but it just didn't produce the numbers. "We need to make a living farming," he added.
Both ways of farming "have their own merit," Hartshorn said. "I'm proud of my organic produce, and I'm proud of my partnership that produces hydroponics."
As for the organic farmers who would ban hydroponics from organic certification, "I respect those guys. I know how it is," he said. "I hate to see a fight between farmers. We're all trying to do the best we can here in Vermont."
A New Label
Long Wind Farm tomatoes SARAH PRIESTAP
At the end of March, Chapman chaired a two-day meeting at Lake Morey Resort in Fairlee with nearly two dozen organic farmers and others involved in organic agriculture. They had traveled from around the country to hash out standards for a new, independently managed add-on label to the existing USDA Organic certification.
The group has dubbed itself the Real Organic Project, but its label will have a different name, currently under development.
Like the USDA seal, it will be awarded to producers who pass an inspection by a program-accredited, independent certifying organization, such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, which is also currently one of about 80 USDA organic certifiers. To qualify, farmers must first be certified USDA Organic.
The additional label will go beyond the hydroponic issue to represent core organic principles that Real Organic Project members believe the federal program has abandoned or ignored. Those principles include committing to growing produce in the ground and giving animals real access to pasture, as well as prohibiting CAFOs.
Iowa crop and dairy farmer Francis Thicke is on the standards board for the new effort. He also recently completed a five-year term as one of the 15 appointed volunteers on the NOSB, where he voted against certifying hydroponics last November. Thicke has been an organic farmer for 30 years, holds a PhD in soil fertility and served as national program leader for soil science for the USDA Extension service.
"To be clear," Thicke told Seven Days, "the Real Organic Project is not about abandoning the National Organic Program. This is an add-on organic certification."
"Much of the NOP certification program is still sound and reliable," he said. "For example, the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances has been carefully vetted by the NOSB over many years."
The new label, Thicke explained, "will cover areas that the NOP has failed to set rigorous standards for, or where it has refused to adequately enforce existing NOP standards."
As a result, he continued, "Consumers have no easy way of knowing if organic tomatoes on the grocery store shelf are hydroponic, or if organic dairy products are from dairy CAFOs. [Our] label will give consumers the option of selecting organic food that has been produced in accord with real organic farming methods."
Chapman and others involved in the Real Organic Project are not without their critics, even within the old guard.
Among them is Grace Gershuny of Barnet, a longtime organic proponent who worked at the USDA on the original standards. Advocating for another set of standards, she said, "is like shooting yourself in the foot."
Gershuny argues that the overall goal should be to encourage production of as much organic food as possible, not to complain about one type of production that only applies to some crops, or worry about a few bad actors who aren't following the rules.
"What we're talking about is a subset of greenhouse production. Soil is important, and it will continue to be important for the vast majority of what is produced organically," Gershuny said, noting that the crops that cover the most acreage, such as wheat, corn and soy, are not suitable for hydroponic cultivation.
"The organic label can't fix all the problems in our food system," Gershuny said. What people really need to do is "fight like hell to change the way farm policy is structured."
Despite the growth in organic food sales, Gershuny pointed out, only about 1 percent of total global agricultural land is devoted to organics.
Part of the pushback is against "corporate large-scale versus righteous small-scale," she believes, "but that horse left the barn a long time ago. We need those [corporate] guys to be organic. We need to convert as many acres of land to organic production as soon as possible. Those farms are still doing better than conventional."
Shotgun Marriage
If organic advocates don't always agree with one another, the relationship between the organic farming movement and the USDA has always been uneasy, too.
Coleman of Maine was among many farmers who felt skeptical about allowing the federal government to define organic farming after passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
"A lot of people were just blown away that the great USDA was paying attention to organic," Coleman said. "But I knew back then that, the minute you define organic in the law, you open it up to people trying to undercut it."
It took more than a decade for the USDA to develop standards and set up a system for enforcing them. The USDA Organic seal set the first consistent national criteria for production and processing of domestic and imported organic foods. Prior to that, states had their own organic programs with different requirements.
The original legislation also called for the creation of the NOSB. Its founding chair was Michael Sligh, a farmer and now director of the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA's sustainable agriculture program, based in Pittsboro, N.C. "We knew we needed to balance authority and share power," he said. "It was a public-private partnership from the beginning, but it was always a shotgun marriage."
Over the years, many of the old organic guard noted that the smaller-scale organic farming voice on the NOSB declined with the growth of organic and the rise of larger producers and processors.
"There's a lot more politics and money involved — all these other forces influencing how people vote," said Enid Wonnacott, executive director of NOFA-VT, where she has worked for 31 years. "Many members have felt powerless. The system kind of lost honor."
In addition, Wonnacott and Sligh said, loss of funding and staff have weakened the National Organic Program itself. "There is definite lack of USDA leadership and oversight and credibility," Sligh said.
"This was happening before Trump," Wonnacott noted, "but it's gotten worse."
Both Sligh and Wonnacott are working with the Real Organic Project, but they each admit to concerns about the delicate navigation of launching a new add-on label.
"If this wasn't the fastest-growing market in agriculture, we wouldn't be here," said Sligh, referring to sales of organic foods. The question is, he added, "how do we grow the market while protecting the integrity?"
Through his rural development job, Sligh works with many farmers around the globe for whom the U.S. is their single largest market. "These coffee farmers and banana farmers, for the first time in their lives, have a good market," he said. "They are still benefiting from organic."
"In a perfect world, we would try to fix the USDA label and not add another label," Sligh said. "I don't want to abandon the vast majority of farmers for whom [the USDA Organic label] is working, or cause harm to the thousands of farmers who are out there following the letter of the law — or further confuse consumers who will just throw their hands up in the air."
Wonnacott agreed that the decision to create an add-on set of standards has not been an easy or simple one. It's been giving her flashbacks to the '90s, when she was involved in helping develop the federal organic standards. "It feels a bit like [the movie] Groundhog Day," she said.
"What we don't want to have happen is two classes of organic farmers," Wonnacott said. "It's hard to create a new label that's better than X without throwing X under the bus."
Standing for Consumers
Compromised as the federal organic label may be, it's still worth defending, in the view of Charlotte Vallaeys, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports. She appreciates that farmers are standing up for the transparent, meaningful organic program that she believes consumers deserve.
"The Real Organic Project came out of multiple serious problems with the USDA organic program," Vallaeys said. "Those problems shouldn't be ignored. The problem is with the USDA; it's with the big certifiers and producers who are ignoring the standards."
Vallaeys and her colleagues actively work to defend what they believe are strong consumer labels. While the USDA Organic label has "taken hits," Vallaeys conceded, "we as an organization feel that the organic label is still a meaningful label, a very strong one, and that its integrity is worth protecting."
Through its national surveys of consumer behavior, Consumers Union has gained insight into the reasons why people buy organic, Vallaeys said. Along with the main driver of protecting their own and their family's health, more than half of consumers who said they buy organic often or always think about how animals are treated. About half think about the environmental impacts of food production.
"It's a very good label because it has meant so many things," Vallaeys said. "It's not just 'no pesticides, no antibiotics.'"
One result is particularly relevant to the hydroponic debate. The Consumers Union 2018 food-label survey showed that a majority of those who buy organic regularly said they expect organic-labeled food to have been grown in well-managed soil by farmers who protected its health. "And that's because that's in the [organic] standards," Vallaeys said.
For labels to matter, she added, it's critical that they stay consistent over time. They can get stronger — as would have happened if the Obama-era animal-welfare standards had been implemented — but they should never get weaker.
Regarding the proposed add-on label, Vallaeys said it could be beneficial given the issues with the USDA Organic label. There are already many add-on labels such as "certified humane" and "fair trade," she pointed out.
"In an ideal world, you'd be able to say to consumers, 'The absolute gold standard, the one label to look for that just captures everything that's good about how we want food to be produced in this country, is USDA Organic,'" Vallaeys said. "That would be lovely, but that's not happening. So the next best thing is add-on labels."
More Choices
Dave Chapman SARAH PRIESTAP
The past month has been especially busy for Dave Chapman, who really would prefer to get back to growing tomatoes. He estimated that he has spent more than 50 hours a week working on the new standards for the add-on label, as well as talking with the media, sending out detailed updates to his mailing list of several thousand, and flying to Washington, D.C., for congressional meetings as a policy committee member for the Organic Farmers Association. That's a lobbying group sponsored by the Rodale Institute.
"I was up at 3:30 this morning thinking about it all," Chapman said with a weary smile. "But this will pass. We're going to hire an executive director."
The Rodale Institute is also working on its own add-on label, called the Regenerative Organic Certified label, built around standards of soil health, animal welfare and fairness regarding the health and safety of farm workers.
"They're beautiful. They're the North Star," Chapman said of the regenerative standards, "but almost no farmer I know qualifies."
The labor standards, he noted, are very tough to meet, as are tillage requirements for many vegetable farmers.
The standards that the Real Organic Project team is developing, he said, are what the USDA Organic label should be — with stronger animal-welfare requirements and explicit prohibition of hydroponic cultivation. That isn't to say farmers should not aim higher, but it sets a higher floor to start. With the current USDA label, he said, "The floor has dropped so low that it's become subterranean.
"We need a platform everyone can stand on," Chapman continued. "All we're going for is transparency. It's not going to change the world, but at least [our label] will give people the information to make choices."
The Scope of Growth In Organic Farming In India
Pooja Mehta Dwivedi
Pooja Mehta Dwivedi, Founder, and MD, The Bombay Natural Company
The Scope of Growth In Organic Farming In India
As per industry reports, India organic food market, which currently sized at 6000 crores is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of over 25% during 2016-2021.
27 March 2018 by Pooja Mehta Dwivedi
The last couple of years have seen a massive growth of demand in the organic food industry, especially in the urban and fast-growing markets of India. The organic food industry in India which is currently in its initial stages of evolution is growing at a rapid rate of 25% - 30% Y-o-Y. High disposable income and increased health awareness are the key factors which have resulted in this augmented demand.
With this scenario, the domestic organic food market is projected to touch $1.36 billion mark by 2020.
How different is organic farming from regular farming?
The differences between organic farming methods and conventional farming are the methods used during food production. Organic farming works towards increasing sustainability and biodiversity and needs good soil and air quality. This must then be maintained by using natural growing practices, avoiding harmful chemicals and continued the practice of crop rotation along with other natural farming methods.
Organic agriculture is typically more profitable – up to 35% more than conventional farming. It also provides more rural employment opportunities because organic management is more labour intensive than conventional practices. For workers, though, the biggest advantage is that organic decreases their exposure to toxic agrochemicals.
The demand vs supply analysis of organic food brands in India
The organic food market in India is still at a nascent stage wherein we are noticing an increasing demand from end buyers but due to limited availability the supply remains slow. The major problem faced currently is that organic products are priced at a high rate which makes market penetration challenging. The limited availability of organic foods coupled with the fact that majority of sales is concentrated in larger cities shows that supply chains of organic food from farms to domestic consumers are not very well established. There is a lack of knowledge about organic products leading to a low penetration amongst potential customers.
Role of accelerator programs like Agri-Udaan
Agri-Udaan is a brilliant initiative by the Government of India to attract youth from rural India and train them so that they can add value to farmers produce. This indirectly brings more land under organic cultivation. With the Indian Government committed to the goal of doubling farmers income by 2022, several Indian agri-tech start-ups and ecosystem enablers have come forward to help India regain its status of being the “Golden Bird” using technologies such as AI, BIG Data, ML and more.
Upcoming trends which make organic farming a viable business model
There are of technologies being developed like refrigeration system powered by farm waste, AI Based deep tech solution for crop inspection and agricultural products grading, supply chain optimisation platforms, tech platform for rural entrepreneurs for demand-led agriculture, a wearable plant phenomics device for pre-detection of pests diseases and deficiencies prior to any physical damage to plant. With such innovations, organic farmers can merge nature and human creation to improve efficiency and protect produce.
The trend of organic and healthy eating is catching up again where an increasing number of Indian citizens have chosen a complete chemical free lifestyle and have turned towards eating natural and organic. We are seeing newer organic brands coming up which have traditional processing techniques, and all this is made possible due to the awareness spread by a lot of change makers, NGOs and organic food marketing companies.
As per industry reports, India organic food market, which currently sized at 6000 crores is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of over 25% during 2016-2021. Rising popularity and awareness within the younger generation and millennials is the reason behind the growth. In a country having 1.25 billion citizens, there is immense scope and opportunity for new brands to enter and work mutually for the growth of the industry, thus making it a rewarding opportunity for the investors to enter this space.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house
Movement To Strengthen 'Organic' Label Pushes For New Standards At Vermont Meeting
A rally in Thetford back in 2016 criticized the USDA's move to allow vegetables raised hydroponically to be labeled as "organic." Now a movement has formed to strengthen the organic label | REBECCA SANANES / VPR FILE
For a group of farmers and consumers around the country, the term "organic" just doesn't go far enough. They say the U.S. Department of Agriculture has weakened standards for food that is supposed to be raised organically.
And so they’re meeting in Vermont this week to come up with a new label that they argue will show that the food has been produced in ways that protect the environment and animal welfare.
Thetford farmer David Chapman raises organic tomatoes on his Long Wind Farm. It’s what he’s done since 1984. But he spends a lot of time these days helping organize what he calls the "Real Organic” movement.
“I would say the national organic program is just failing miserably at the one thing that they were asked to do, which was to protect the integrity and the transparency of the food supply between the organic farmers and the people who want to buy organic food, organically grown food,” Chapman says.
Chapman’s activism kicked into full gear last year when the USDA allowed vegetables raised hydroponically – without soil – to be labeled organic.
"I would say the national organic program is just failing miserably at the one thing that they were asked to do, which was to protect the integrity and the transparency of the food supply between the organic farmers and the people who want to buy organic food, organically grown food." — David Chapman, Long Wind Farm
And then this month, the USDA rejected Obama-era animal welfare rules that would have required chickens in large-scale organic egg operations to have access to the outdoors. Chapman says farms are known as “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs, now dominate the organic egg market — and for one reason:
“The primary influencer on this process is money,” he says.
Both decisions from the USDA, Chapman says, came after heavy pressure from businesses hoping to capture the price premium organic food earns in the market.
“All told, between CAFOs and ‘hydros,’ we’re probably talking about $2 billion in annual sales of CAFO/hydro production that is being certified as organic,” he says.
Enter the “Real Organic” movement, which Chapman is helping organize. A group of farmers and consumers is meeting in Fairlee this week to come up with new standards that Chapman hopes will bring the organic label back to its roots.
“I go to the store, and I buy food — I buy vegetables, I buy milk, eggs,” he says. “Unless I know the farm, I certainly can’t count on the USDA label to let me know whether or not that was produced in the soil, in a soil-based system for the animals, or whether it was produced in a factory.”
From Vermont Edition: Organic Standards At A Crossroads [Nov. 21, 2017]
But the movement has its skeptics.
Grace Gershuny is a pioneer in organic agriculture. She helped develop Vermont’s first organic standards and then worked for the feds developing the national standards.
“I don’t think that the solution to their complaints lies in another label,” she says.
Gershuny would like to see organic food more available – and more affordable. She worries that “real” organic products would be expensive and would serve only an elite, privileged market.
“A lot of people can’t afford to buy organic food,” she says. “And a lot of people don't have access to local, you know, righteously grown 'real' organic, or however you want to label it.”
Gershuny instead wants better enforcement of organic standards.
“I think that the solution isn't to add on another layer of rules, but to help see that the rules that exist are enforced,” she says.
And a group representing Vermont's organic farmers also has some concerns. Noel Dehne is the certification director for the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont. In her ideal scenario, the "Real Organic" movement would push USDA to strengthen its national standards.
"We need to be really careful not to devalue the current organic label, because the majority of organic farmers are meeting the regulations." — Noel Dehne, NOFA-VT
“We need to be really careful not to devalue the current organic label,” Dehne says, “because the majority of organic farmers are meeting the regulations.”
Dehne also worries consumers could get confused by the profusion of new labels on food. But Chapman says consumers are already confused.
“It won’t be our label that’s creating the confusion,” Chapman says. “What’s creating the confusion is that the USDA is redefining organic to mean something very different.”
The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.
Chapman says the group meeting this week in Vermont hopes to come up with new standards — and a name for a new label — over the next two days.
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy is credited with initiating the national organic program through legislation he sponsored in 1990. His staff has been following the "Real Organic" movement but did not say whether the senator supports the new label.
In a statement, Leahy said:
"I know the Vermonters who are leading this national effort and they care deeply and are working hard to protect organic agriculture. For my part, I will continue working to keep USDA Organic strong and to reverse some of the damage to the meaning of organic that has been done in recent years. That is why I fought to increase the funding for the National Organic Program by $3 million in the recent Omnibus spending package to provide USDA with sufficient funds for fraud detection and proper oversight."
Disclosure: NOFA-VT is a VPR underwriter.
US: Non-Hydroponic Organic Label In The Making
US: Non-Hydroponic Organic Label In The Making
With a new extra-organic label, a group of Vermont growers want to distinguish their organic production from the USDA certified organic production, i.e. hydroponically grown produce.
It was only last week that Olivier Brailly with French company Groupe MGD opted for a new label addition to close the gap between conventional and organic: pesticide-free. Now American growers opt for a fourth one: Real Organic. Most notable part of it is the importance of keeping the soil in organic. "We are creating a label we can trust", the initiators say.
The initiative follows the NOSB's recent decision to have hydroponic and aquaponic farms remain eligible for the USDA Organic Certification - allowing products from these farms to carry the USDA Organic label. According to a group of farmers and advocates united under the name 'Real Organic Project', the USDA certification 'loses the meaning of organic'. They fight for another label, excluding hydroponic farming and large livestock farms that don’t pasture their animals.
"It has not been a good year for the National Organic Program", Dave Chapman, organic tomato grower and partner of the project, writes on the website. "Since the November NOSB (National Organic Standards Board) meeting in Jacksonville failed to prohibit HYDRO, the organic community has gone through a period of questioning and searching. We are wrestling with the basic question, 'Can we trust the USDA to protect organic integrity?'"
The Real Organic Standards Board is formed by several farmers including several fruit and vegetable growers like Eric Sideman, Linley Dixon, Dave Chapman, and Paul Muller, Jennifer Taylor, Jim Gerritsen and other industry representatives, including Alan Lewis, with health food store chain Natural Grocers. "We feel that something must be done. We want to help clear up the confusion the NOP failures have created for people trying to support traditional organic farming", the explanation continues on their website.
"We are not trying to destroy the USDA label. Rather we are trying to save it. We have already worked for many years to build an organic label that people can trust. Without such transparency, we all lose."
In this video, uploaded last November by The Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, David Chapman explains why he believes the integrity of the USDA organic seal is at risk
Their work will involve a number of efforts, starting with the creation of a new “Add-On” label. "It will use USDA certification as a base, but it will have a small number of critical additional requirements. These will differentiate it from the CAFOs, HYDROs, and import cheaters that are currently USDA certified."
Read more about the Real Organic Project here.
Publication date: 4/13/2018
Organic Farming Must Be Promoted Akin To Green Revolution, States Singh
Organic Farming Must Be Promoted Akin To Green Revolution, States Singh
27 March 2018
Our Bureau, New Delhi
Organic farming should be promoted with the same spirit as the Green Revolution, as India is the country with the most organic producers. This was stated by Radha Mohan Singh, minister of agriculture and farmers’ welfare, Government of India, during his address at the Conference on Organic World: Advantage India, which was organised by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM) and took place in New Delhi recently.
He added that the country should progress to be an organic and chemical-free nation. The prime minister also urged farmers to cut the use of heavily-used fertilisers like urea by half to improve soil health.
Organic farming is a way of farming, which excludes the use of chemical fertilisers, insecticides, etc. It is primarily based on the principles of use of natural organic inputs and biological plant protection measures.
In the last six years, India has been increasingly supporting the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) for its national market, developing a unique example of large-scale government-facilitated PGS programme, coordinated by its National Centre for Organic Farming, under the agriculture ministry.
The government cannot promote organic farming alone. There are many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and organisations that have a crucial role to play. The data needs to be systematically collected through scientific methods, certification should be improved.
A joint study by ASSOCHAM and EY, which was titled The Indian Organic Market: A New Paradigm in Agriculture and released during the conference, revealed that the market size for Indian organic packaged food is expected to cross Rs 871 million by 2021 from Rs 533 million in 2016, growing at a rate of 17 per cent.
“The substantial growth of this sector is attributed to an expanding urban population base, rising health concerns, growing consumer spending on food products and deterioration of food quality,” it noted.
“Organic packaged food and beverages is an emerging niche market in India and its primary consumers are high-income urbanites. As demand for organic food in the metro cities increase, the companies in this sector are witnessing notable growth with the entry of several new players in the organic food market such as Conscious Foods, Sresta, Eco Farms, Organic India, Navdanya and Morarka Organic Foods,” said the study.
India-based Sresta Natural Bioproducts Pvt Ltd has emerged as the market leader, with a 37 per cent value share of the packaged organic food market and a 7.8 per cent share of the packaged organic beverage market.
“It has increased its share in the organic food market in recent years, while smaller niche players have taken a significant share away from it in the organic beverage market,” the study stated.
“In addition to the growing domestic market, India is the second largest exporter of organic products in Asia, after China. The increasing export market, coupled with the government’s support, has made organic cultivation in India highly successful”, said Amit Vatsyayan, partner, EY.
Indian organic food exports were estimated at $299 million in 2015-16, with a total volume of 2,63,688 metric tonne (MT).
“The major export destinations were the US, the European Union (EU), Canada and New Zealand. It is assumed that most of the remaining quantity is sold in local markets. Oilseeds comprised half of India’s overall organic food export, followed by processed food products at 25 per cent,” the study stated.
It added that India currently holds the ninth position among 178 countries that actively practice organic agriculture. At present, the country is home to over 8,35,000 organic producers, 699 processors, 669 exporters and 1.49 million hectare (ha) area under organic cultivation.
However, with only a meagre 0.4 per cent of the total agricultural land area designated for organic cultivation, the industry presents an extensive scope for expansion.
India has a remarkable potential to produce all varieties of organic products, owing to the existence of various agroclimatic zones within its borders. The total area under organic certification was 5.71 million ha in 2015-16. This included 26 per cent cultivable area with 1.49 million ha and 74 per cent (4.22 million ha) forest and wild area for collection of minor forest produce.
Among the states, Madhya Pradesh has the largest area under organic certification (4.62 lakh ha), followed by Maharashtra (1.98 lakh ha), Rajasthan (1.55 lakh ha), Telangana (1.04 lakh ha), Odisha (0.96 lakh ha), Karnataka (0.94 lakh ha), Gujarat (0.77 lakh ha) and Sikkim (0.76 lakh ha).
“These states had a combined share of 90 per cent of the area under organic certification in 2015-16,” highlighted the study.
In terms of organic crops, the combined share of the top 10 categories of organic food crops is around 99 per cent. The top four categories (with a share of about 85 per cent) include sugar, oilseed, fibres and cereals and millets.
“According to our findings, metropolitan cities have witnessed a 95 per cent increase in demand in the last five years,” said Vatsysyan.
“Many organic food companies are adopting the online route to expand their consumer base. The brick-and-mortar organic stores are usually located in metro and mini-metro cities. These companies are reaching out to the rest of the consumers through online channels,” he added.
Many organic food companies are coming up with new product categories and varieties to provide consumers with sufficient choices.
Apart from fruits, vegetables, teas, pulses and spices, companies have also introduced ready-to-eat snacks, cookies, medicinal plants and herbs and juices.
Additionally, increased organic alternatives can be observed in established product categories.
“Beyond Organic” Food Labels Seek to Supplant the USDA Standard
What does Regenerative Organic Certification mean for producers and consumers?Courtesy of The Rodale Institute
“Beyond Organic” Food Labels Seek to Supplant the USDA Standard
BY KATIE O'REILLY | MAR 23, 2018
The word “sustainable” doesn’t pack much punch any longer. Whether through overuse or greenwashing, it seems to have joined the same ranks as “eco” and “natural,” terms that essentially mean everything and nothing at once. Employed as it so often is—to blithely extoll corporate greening efforts and lifestyle products—some feel the word runs the risk of obscuring more than it reveals. “We should not as a society want to sustain; we should strive to improve,” says Jeff Moyer, executive director of the Rodale Institute, a nonprofit that conducts and funds organic farming research. “Ask growers in the developing world—they’re not hoping to sustain their subsistence farms, but to improve their soil and yields.”
It was an effort to move beyond sustainability that inspired the Rodale Institute to partner with two like-minded companies—Patagonia and Dr. Bronner’s—to create a Regenerative Organic Alliance and introduce a new food product label designed to encourage and reward continuous improvement in agricultural practices: the Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC), which officially launched earlier this month at the Natural Products Expo West trade show in Anaheim, California.
ROC products will have to be made with ingredients from farms that use certified regenerative farming systems that aim to build healthy soil, boost biodiversity, and draw carbon from the atmosphere via methods like cover cropping and minimum tillage. The new label has farmers move up through a tiered system designed to incentivize constant improvement in practices. It’s not intended to undermine USDA Organic certification, but rather to serve as an “add-on.”Agriculture products will only be eligible if they already have USDA certification or an international equivalent. After all, the players behind ROC are a large part of why the U.S. has its existing organic label.
J.I. Rodale founded his institute in 1947, and in so doing helped to popularize a holistic, whole-systems approach to farming in the United States. Rodale, his son Robert, and the rest of the institute eventually lobbied with farmers nationwide to get the federal government on board with organics. Their efforts ultimately helped bring about the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which authorized a USDA National Organic Program and set standards for the production, handling, and certification of organically grown agricultural products. “The organic industry has grown dramatically since the introduction of the USDA seal, but one of the things we lost in that adoption was the concept of continuous improvement,” Moyer says. “Whereas holistic organic principles are about continually improving the health of the soil and fair treatment of the people and animals who create the food, the federal organics program simply created a baseline that said, ‘Once you cross this line, you’re in the club.’ So it’s challenging to get new components incorporated within that standard—it’s not built for continuous improvement.”
“Whereas holistic organic principles are about continually improving the health of the soil and fair treatment of the people and animals who create the food, the federal organics program simply created a baseline that said, ‘Once you cross this line, you’re in the club.’ So it’s challenging to get new components incorporated within that standard—it’s not built for continuous improvement.”
You won’t find products bearing the new ROC label on shelves until 2019 or 2020 (the alliance first needs to run a pilot program and determine how it’ll handle inspection, certification, and auditing). The alliance—rather than the USDA—will oversee certification. On top of using certified holistic farming systems, ROC-minted farms will have to meet strict animal and human welfare standards; ROC will recognize existing standards including “Animal Welfare Approved,” “Certified Humane,” and “Fairtrade International.” The purported objective is to foster a standard across the global supply chain that supports greater food security while mitigating climate change.
Coincidentally, the ROC announcement came days before the USDA officially withdrew the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule, killing many protections for animals raised on organic farms. And a month before, a group of concerned “dirt first” organic farmers, dismayed by last November’s controversial federal ruling that food grown without soil via hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic methods could be eligible for organic certification, soft-launched another new label: the Real Organic Project (ROP).
Similar to the ROC, Real Organic Project was conceived with an eye toward greater integrity and transparency in labeling. Vermont farmer and ROP founder Dave Chapman describes it as a label that represents “real organic—with animal welfare rules and the prohibition of CAFOs and hydroponics in place.” He adds, “This is not exactly radical stuff, just the basics that seem to separate the sheep from the wolves, because right now, a lot of wolves are able to misrepresent their products and profit off the organic label.”
Like Chapman, many growers and consumers are concerned that the word “organic” is becoming diluted. Some point to the big agri-business farms that they say have successfully co-opted the word as evidence of the label’s erosion. Moyer says this may be why, over the past several years, some have started using the word “regenerative”—to the point he fears it, too, risks the same semantic fate as “sustainable” and “organic.”
“It’s becoming a marketing word,” says Moyer, “and people want to make money of it, so we wanted to put a stake in the ground around the concept and definitively link the two words—organic and regenerative—in a way that really helps to improve the health of the soil and better manage animals in our food systems, and incorporate social justice. We wanted to move that energy in a positive direction and improve the system.”
Birgit Cameron, senior director of Patagonia Provisions, the arm of the outdoor clothing company that’s devoted to climate-friendly foodstuffs, describes the ROC label as the new “north star” for the organic community to work toward. “We’re not trying to degrade USDA Organic, but rather to build upon it and create one standard the encompasses the trinity of what we think is the right path forward—the building of organic matter and taking care of soil as a live ecosystem, and social and animal welfare—and create a gold stamp that really means something, and that helps consumers cut through the confusion,” she says. “With the state of our environment, this is the moment to run down this path as fast as we can. Patagonia wanted to not only take this journey, but to invite others to join us in this movement.”
Tickets to said journey, however, don’t necessarily come cheap. Some small- and medium-scale farmers worry that the marketplace’s glut of new certifications will make it even harder to compete with Big Ag. “New sets of uniform national organic standards will simply create additional options for industrializing organic food production,” says John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri and the author of the 2008 book Small Farms are Real Farms: Sustaining People Through Agriculture. “Once these large agri-food corporations gain positions of influence they’ll attempt to eliminate competition by creating complex regulatory requirements that smaller producers cannot meet--or can’t meet as efficiently. This is nothing new.”
One organic farmer, inspector, and auditor who prefers to remain anonymous put its more plainly: “How elitist can we get with farming? [These new labels] present a real threat to a lot of us because they totally favor large industrial farms. This is adding clutter and confusion to an industry already saturated with labels, many of them ultimately meaningless, that sow consumer confusion and make it harder on the non-corporate organic farmer: there’s ‘Bee-Friendly’ and ‘Non-GMO’ and ‘Paleo-Friendly’ and ‘Food-Justice-Certified’—the list goes on and on. Certified Organic was supposed to account for all this stuff! So, on smaller farms people are really frustrated because there are serious costs associated with all of these—not just in application and inspection fees but also in record-keeping and the time that takes. Large agri-businesses can employ people who take care of all this as their full-time job, but for everyone else, it just takes the farmer out of the field and might even dissuade young farmers from pursuing organic.”
“How elitist can we get with farming? [These new labels] present a real threat to a lot of us because they totally favor large industrial farms. This is adding clutter and confusion to an industry already saturated with labels, many of them ultimately meaningless, that sow consumer confusion and make it harder on the non-corporate organic farmer.”
This farmer also pointed out that while “we pretty much all believe in everything the ROC label stands for on a personal level,” its multifaceted ideals will likely prove difficult for smaller farmers to put into practice. “Not only is it going to make the organic landscape more corporate than it already is, but some of this stuff isn’t going to line up the way the Regenerative Alliance wants it to,” this farmer told Sierra. “For example, to be Animal Welfare-Approved, you have to be willing to treat your animals if they’re sick. But in the organic world, a lot of people aren’t necessarily treating sick animals because the second you use antibiotics, you’re removed from the organics program. ROC people are going to have to marry a lot of different philosophies around slaughtering and other issues.”
While Ikerd describes ROC and ROP labels as “a step in the right direction,” he, too, fears they could result in a more stiflingly bureaucratic process. “I would prefer organic ‘add-on’ or ‘real organic’ programs that are defined, organized, monitored, and enforced at the local or bio-regional level, by co-operative organizations,” he says. “Because when you introduce additional large-scale rules and regulations, you benefit industrial agriculture more than the small local guys—the ones who tend to run operations much closer to the notion authentic notion of organic.”
Rodale’s Moyer insists that the ROC label is scale-neutral, and designed to recognize the fact that small- and medium-sized farms are the “backbone” of organic agriculture. “ROC was developed to avoid duplication of audits and certifications and accepts existing high-bar certifications to fulfill requirements around both the animal welfare, and fairness for farmers and farmworkers. For soil health, the ROC accepts existing certifications as a baseline step, and farms can tailor additional regenerative requirements to their specific growing regions,” he says. “One reason we incorporated farmer worker fairness and fair trade requirements was to ensure that small farmers have living wages, long-term contracts, and safe and fair working conditions.”
A spokesperson for Patagonia adds that the companies that came together to create the standard were in fact primarily concerned about Big Ag companies taking over the food system. “The most exciting thing about ROC is that it would force the worst actors to compete on a level playing field by internalizing costs, forcing agribusiness to fundamentally change its practices.”
There’s also the matter of sufficiently explaining what “regenerative” means to ordinary consumers. Patagonia’s Cameron believes this will come down to the alliance ensuring all participating brands are on the same page in terms of the ROC’s language and raison d’etre. “If the messaging is consistent, then we can all employ our own brands’ personality to educate our customers with our own personality.”
It’s worth noting that some brands already moving to embrace regenerative ag are owned by massive food corporations. This spring, Annie’s Homegrown (a General Mills brand) is partnering with a holistic farm in Montana to make limited-edition versions of its Organic Mac & Cheese and Organic Bunny Grahams (pictured, right) using ingredients grown using regenerative farming practices. In an unorthodox marketing choice, they’ll be packaged in boxes awash in photos of soil. Brands including Annie’s Homegrown and Ben & Jerry’s (owned by European food conglomerate Unilever) are reportedly developing another global verification standard for food grown in a regenerative manner. No word yet as to whether Ben & Jerry’s will find clever ways to incorporate “soil” or “carbon sequestration” into flavor names.
The question of whether ROC and other new designations will indeed resonate with consumers or instead prove to be another asset to industrial agriculture remains to be seen. But Moyer and company seem right about at least one thing—dirt is indeed trending.
The Organic Way
The Organic Way
High demand means more organic crop production is needed to keep pace.
March 23, 2018
In a study by the Organic Produce Network and Nielsen, it was shown that sales of organic fresh produce items reached almost $5 billion in 2017, an 8% increase from the previous year (1). In fact, a bill was recently passed to increase the funding of organic farming research to meet this growing demand.
By the year 2023, the annual funding is supposed to increase to $50 million. Yet as organic remains the fastest growing sector in grocery, particularly fresh foods, it will require creativity and more private partnerships to meet demand with reliability.
General Mills just announced it is creating South Dakota’s largest organic crop farm and will convert 34,000 growing acres to organic production by 2020. The company will grow organic wheat for its popular Annie’s Macaroni & Cheese line, reports the StarTribune (2). But it will take more than that.
Recently Annie’s also announced a new project where they are partnering with farmers to launch limited edition versions of Annie’s Mac & Cheese and Honey Bunny Grahams, sold exclusively at Sprouts. Carla Vernon, president, Annie’s operating unit at General Mills states, “the products represent a big innovation in the food industry. On each box, we celebrate the specific farm, farmer, and regenerative farming practices that went into that very box.”
“Convenience stores, college campuses and airports are all increasing their selection of organic items,” says Lewis Goldstein, VP of brand marketing at Organic Valley, La Farge, WI. “Restaurants and other foodservice outlets are also offering more organic items. Consumers want to eat healthier food when they’re outside the home, too.”
Goldstein says meat and dairy are growing tremendously in the organic industry.
“Consumers recognize that when cows eat well, people do, too…turns out butter isn’t the devil. We’re seeing increased market demand in butter, cream, whole milk and whole milk yogurt,” he says. In turn, increasing numbers of farmers are converting to organic.
Conventional vs. Organic
So what separates conventional farming from the organic variety?
Ron Rosmann, owner and operator of Rosmann Family Farms in Harlan, IA, explains that organic farms typically have a much smaller acreage than conventional. His farm is relatively smaller (700 acres) while conventional farms are thousands of acres. Rosmann says it is an advantage for them using less land while still making a living.
Rosmann Farms stopped its use of pesticides in 1983 and believes a huge advantage of organic farming is eliminating harsh toxic chemicals on crops. This was even before an organic label or market existed, but the family believes this method better serves the environment, their livestock, family, and community. Rosmann says that a benefit of organic farming is being “able to work with nature and allow nature to use the eco-services that it makes available to protect your crops and nurture soil quality and productivity.”
Crop rotation plays an important role in organic farming. On a particular piece of land different crops are cultivated systematically for optimal benefits. Soil nutrients and health are sustained, pest populations are controlled and weeds are suppressed. This system allows for soil health to be maintained naturally rather than using chemicals. Crop rotations cycle through cash crops (vegetables) and cover crops (grasses or cereals).
Farmers using this method need a vast knowledge of different crops and their contributions to the soil. For instance, “nitrogen-fixing legumes such as soybeans and alfalfa in crop rotations fix atmospheric nitrogen into the soil through root nodules. This nitrogen is then available for subsequent crops” (3). Having this knowledge and practice is a useful way for farmers to prevent certain issues without the use of chemicals.
Of course, there are pros and cons to both conventional farms and organic farms from a business perspective. Farmers may choose to stick to conventional practices because the cost of food production is low, more job opportunities are produced, and the yield is greater. There are also differing opinions on genetically modified crops and nutrients. Some say that altering crops can cause a loss of nutrients in the agricultural community while others say this could be from many other factors. However, in organic certified farming, there can be no use of GMOs in any stage of farming.
A New Wave
Hydroponic farming isn’t anything new—it’s been around for quite some time but recently spiked in popularity. Plants are grown using water systems and are fed minerals, instead of soil. Those in favor of this practice argue there are many benefits unique to hydroponics not seen in traditional farming. The plants grown are high quality and do not consume the same resources as farming on land. Indoor and vertical farming requires less space than traditional field crops and can bring plants to areas they may not normally be. This innovative technique can be beneficial for these reasons but is facing criticism in the industry. Some question this method because it is so drastically different than traditional farming.
Farming without the use of soil has recently become more controversial especially in terms of labeling. Rosmann, who won a Farmer of the Year Award doesn’t believe that hydroponic should be considered organic because of the lack of soil use. “I am not opposed to them having their own unique label in the marketplace,” he says, “but it should not be labeled as certified organic.”
A divide has become evident within the industry regarding hydroponics. In November, organic farmers protested in Florida asking the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to uphold a ban that would exclude hydroponic farming from qualifying for organic certification. Despite the protest, NOSB voted against the ban.
Traditional organic farmers believe caring for soil is a huge part of the organic process, and that crops grown without roots should not be considered organic. On the other hand, hydroponic farmers feel they abide by organic regulations since they grow their plants without chemicals or pesticides. In addition, they believe there are benefits to hydroponics like the ability to grow crops year-round with less water usage than traditional farming (4).
Another trend on the rise is indoor vertical farming in which plants are stacked on vertical shelving on trays to conserve space. Rather than using traditional soil and sunlight to grow the plants, they rely on LED lights and minerals instead.
An article in The Atlantic focused on vertical farming as a positive source of food and possible protection from natural disasters (5). For instance, Hurricane Harvey destroyed many lands and crops so perhaps this type of farming is one solution for dealing with the aftermath of natural disasters. Those in favor of hydroponics say the food is actually fresher since the produce can go directly from “farm” to table. It eliminates the need to transport and possibly damage produce, and are said to last longer. This could be especially popular for younger generations of produce growers as they are moving steadily away from rural areas and more towards urban settings (5). The debate continues over whether these newer practices can be labeled as organic or not.
Biodynamic Farming
Similar to organic farming is the method of biodynamic farming. Biodynamic also does not use pesticides or chemicals on crops. Herbs and minerals are combined with animal waste to create a compost and field spray for the crops. The more controversial side of biodynamic farming and the difference between it and organic is the calendar used for farming. A lunar calendar is used to study the cosmos before planting and harvesting crops. Biodynamic is big on conservation and using as many resources as possible from inside the farm. The biodynamic standard is used more extensively in Europe but growing in popularity state-wide. Although there are some similarities to organic, the practices are quite different, with biodynamic placing greater emphasis on regenerative agriculture and soil health.
Regenerative Agriculture
Regenerative agriculture is a method of farming that is said to have many benefits like restoring soil, trapping greenhouse gases and improving water cycles. Excess carbon dioxide is pulled from the atmosphere to store in plants and soil where it can be harnessed and used for crops. This approach addresses many issues and how to reduce negative effects. Cover cropping and crop rotation are used to cover exposed ground between planting, composting naturally supplies nutrients to soil, perennial plants and diverse crops are used to provide harvests for several growing seasons from a single planting, livestock is rotated and managed for soil health and zero or low-tillage is used to protect soil and disturbance (6). Many of these methods are used in organic and other farming practices, showing to be effective.
Transition to Organic
The transition from conventional farming to organic can seem daunting for farmers. However, the challenges are not stopping farms from transitioning over as the demand grows. Although organic farms can triple their profit as opposed to conventional, the costs associated with transitioning could be a roadblock for some (7). Another challenge farmers face is lack of knowledge about the organic industry.
There is a three-year transition period until a farm can be officially considered organic. Physical, chemical and biological properties of soil can take over a year to fully take effect.
According to Rodale Institute, “These changes enhance nutrient cycling, enrich soil life and restore soil organic matter and water holding capacity” (7). During this three-year transition products can be labeled as transitional or conventional. Another shift farmers have to make is the way they view weeds. Although a challenge, weeds can actually have beneficial qualities: “They add organic matter to the soil when they are turned under, they keep the ground covered and they contribute to the richness of the root zone where an abundance of beneficial microbial activity takes place” (7).
How is this transition period regulated? An inspector employed by a certifier schedules visits to the farm to make sure all the regulations are intact. A report will be written up and then submitted to the certifier. Even after a farm is certified, it will still be visited and inspected throughout the year. Since 2002 all certifiers have shared regulations under the USDA (7).
Sustainability
There are very mixed opinions in the mainstream on whether organic farming is sustainable when comparing it with conventional farming practices. Along with land coverage, there is concern over how billions of people will be fed organically in a growing population.
Goldstein believes sustainability is integral to organic farming, and that it all begins with the soil. “A handful of organic soil contains more living organisms than there are people on this planet.” When this soil isn’t treated with chemicals, it becomes a nutrient-dense base for plants to thrive into robust root systems that require less water. This growth continues and feeds livestock like dairy cows.
“Good stuff in, good stuff out,” says Goldstein, “but sustainability also means a fair living for family farmers so they can produce healthy food and pass on their farms to future generations.”
Goldstein adds that Organic Valley’s philosophy is that agriculture should benefit everyone—farmers and their financial health, consumers, animals, crops and the environment. “We also feel that cooperation is the best way to do this, by working together for the common good of all.”
He sums up the ideology of organic farming as the belief this way of farming relies on a holistic system built literally from the ground up. “Healthy soil is the basic building block of organic as we practice it.” WF
References
- Organic Produce Network, “Exclusive: Nielsen and OPN Announce Organic Fresh Produce Retail Sales Reach Nearly $5 Billion in 2017,” http://www.organicproducenetwork.com/article/384/exclusive-nielsen-and-opn-announce-organic-fresh-produce-retail-sales-reach-nearly-5-billion-in-2017
- Steve Karnowski, “General Mills deal to create South Dakota’s largest organic farm,” http://www.startribune.com/general-mills-deal-to-create-south-dakota-s-largest-organic-farm/476026653/
- Reza Shamim, “Crop Rotation – A Vital Component Of Organic Farming,” https://permaculturenews.org/2016/06/15/crop-rotation-a-vital-component-of-organic-farming/
- WholeFoods Magazine, “Hydroponic Methods Create Divide In Organic Farming Industry,” https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/news/breaking-news/hydroponic-methods-create-divide-organic-farming-industry/
- Meagan Flynn, “The Promise of Indoor Hurricane-Proof ‘Vert ical’ Farms, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/vertical-farming-houston/552665/
- The Carbon Underground, Regenerative Agriculture Initiative, CSU, “What is Regenerative Agriculture?” https://www.regenerationinternational.org/2017/02/24/what-is-regenerative-agriculture/
- Rodale Institute, “Transition to Organic,” https://rodaleinstitute.org/transition-to-organic/
Regenerative Organic Certification Label Takes Root
Rodale Institute
PEA-PICKING SUSTAINABILITY: ROC certification aims to generate living wages for farmers and workers.
Regenerative Organic Certification Label Takes Root
The goals of certification include growing soil organic matter and alleviating climate change effects.
John Vogel | March 8, 2018
Move over, USDA Organic Program. Regenerative Organic Certification has higher standards. Years of organic labeling fraud and more recent Organic Trade Industry opposition to the National Organic Program’s approval of soil-less (hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic) growing systems and organic poultry production has seemingly accelerated development of ROC.
The ROC program was unveiled at this week’s Natural Products Expo West trade show. It’s owned by the Regenerative Organic Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of farmers, ranchers, scientists, and brands. Its standards will be administered and audited by NSF International.
The alliance is led by Jeff Moyer, executive director of Rodale Institute as board chair, and spearheaded by Patagonia and Dr. Bronner’s. Other founding members include Compassion in World Farming, Demeter, Fair World Project, Grain Place Foods, Maple Hill Creamery and White Oak Pastures.
“Farming can either create some of the world’s greatest challenges or solve them,” Moyer says. “Regenerative organic agriculture is our opportunity to solve them. It’s farming where more than yields and profit matter. Healthy soil, clean air and water are just as important. It’s farming where people and communities matter. It’s farming so we don’t just need to feed people for the next 100 years, but forever.”
Patagonia and Dr. Bronner’s teamed up with Rodale to create what the alliance calls an unprecedented effort to shake up and impact the sustainable food movements, even industrial agriculture, in profound ways. In brief, ROC’s core objectives are to:
• Increase soil organic matter over time.
• Sequester atmospheric carbon in soil, which at a global scale can help mitigate climate change.
• Model pasture-based animal welfare.
• Provide fair pricing standards plus a living wage for farmers, ranchers and workers.
• Create resilient regional ecosystems and communities.
Only products certified under USDA’s organic program are eligible to meet ROC’s criteria. Using that as a baseline, ROC standards address next-level soil health plus requirements for animal welfare and farm labor.
The social fairness pillar of the new label is entirely missing from USDA organic standards, Moyer says. 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.
ROC certification is open to any industry, brand and even certain manufacturing facilities. The plan is to have products on shelves within two years.
For more details, see Regenerative Organic Certification requirements or contact Jessica Evans at jevans@nsf.org.
New Certification Goes Beyond Organic
New Certification Goes Beyond Organic
The Regenerative Organic Certification is open to organic producers certified by USDA, but it sets a higher bar for soil health and animal welfare and adds standards for social fairness for farmers and workers.
Carol Ryan Dumas Capital Press
March 15, 2018
The Regenerative Organic Alliance, led by the Rodale Institute, is launching a certification program focused on holistic agriculture that its sponsors say goes beyond simple sustainability.
The Regenerative Organic Certification will stand on the shoulders of the National Organic Program, and only products certified organic by USDA are eligible.
But ROC will raise those standards and fill in the gaps of that program that evolved by either design or default, said Jeff Moyer, executive director of the Rodale Institute.
ROC will address the standards consumers perceive to be part of NOP through its three pillars of soil health, animal welfare and social fairness, he said.
“It’s important to think about what it really means to be regenerative; it’s more than just a word,” he said.
Rodale’s work to support and strengthen organic standards has always been based on a standard of continuous improvement to resources. But that concept was given up in the National Organic Program, or NOP, which allows the use of chemicals, he said.
The ROC will address continuous improvement in soil health and also go further than NOP in addressing animal welfare. It will also include social fairness for producers and workers, which isn’t an aspect of the NOP conversation, he said.
Rodale’s founder, J.I. Rodale, was the first to link healthy soil to healthy food to healthy humans, he said.
“Too often we don’t pay attention to that,” he said.
Rodale’s son, Robert Rodale, later recognized that farming by organic principles could mitigate climate change, he said.
“Farming can either create some of the world’s greatest challenges or solve them. Regenerative organic agriculture is our opportunity to solve them,” he said.
Healthy soil, clean air and clean water are just as important as yield and profit, and people and communities matter, he said.
ROC will link together all the values that matter to consumers to improve the health of the planet and people around the world, he said.
Spearheading the effort along with Rodale are Dr. Bronner’s — a major brand of natural soap worldwide committed to social justice and environmental sustainability — and Patagonia, an outdoor company committed to environmental activism.
ROC was created with the intent for the standard to become adopted by companies and producers on a broad scale and has already gotten a lot of attention from other brands, Moyer said.
Some brands will use the ROC logo and label, and others will use it as an internal control that food, fiber and other products are produced in accordance with their values and the values of their customers, he said.
The alliance will be launching pilot audits, working with accredited certifiers and producers to understand how the standards can be implemented on farms and ranches.
“We built the boat and want to see if it will float,” he said.
Hopefully, certification will begin in early 2019, with the goal of having ROC products appearing on store shelves within the next two years, he said.
Online
USDA Continues Attack On Integrity of Organic Food Label, Sparks Alternative Add-On Labels
(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 20018)
Comment by April 4 to Protect Organic Integrity. Organic integrity is under unprecedented attack from the Trump Administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA), Congress, and those who would like to sell food as “organic” without following the stringent rules established for organic food production and labeling. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), established to represent the organic community in advising USDA on organic practices, will be voting on important issues, and your input is critical to that process. The NOSB meets twice yearly to consider issues including materials used in organic production and oversight of the National Organic Program within USDA.
Submit your comments at Regulations.gov!
Enforcement is a critical component of any standard-setting program. Recent reports in the Washington Post have highlighted fraudulent activities by companies selling products as organic. While this activity is certainly deviant, it taints the organic label and, if not dealt with seriously, will become a bigger problem. The NOSB will consider motions at the Spring 2018 meeting that will stop this practice. Your voice is needed to make this happen!
Make your voice heard on this and other issues by submitting comments NOW on what materials and practices are allowed in organic production! An easy way to speak out is to go to the Beyond Pesticides website, find our positions, write your comments (using our summary –feel free to cut-and-paste our comments), and submit your comments on the government website. [For those not familiar with commenting on these critical organic integrity issues, because of the government public comment process, this action requires that you post your comments on the government’s ‘regulations.gov’ website. We have simplified this process through our Keeping Organic Strong webpage.]
Beyond Pesticides provides you with our positions, which you can use as the basis for your comments. Please feel free to develop your own comments or copy and paste ours. If you copy and paste our comments into regulations.gov, please begin your comment with a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance of these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer, or other concerned parties.
We encourage anyone who feels strongly about any of these issues to claim a three-minute speaking slot at the NOSB webinars on April 17 and 19, 2018 or at the NOSB meeting in Tucson, Arizona on April 25. Registration closes April 4.
Some major issues being considered at the Spring meeting are:
Addressing Fraud in Organic Production: The fraud problem extends to both imported and domestically grown organic food. It is a problem whenever someone portrays as organic a product that does not meet the rigorous organic standards required to use the USDA organic label. Fraud hurts all sectors of the organic community –especially organic producers who follow the letter and spirit of the law and the consumers who depend on the market to provide organic food that meets organic standards. Fraud is a problem when crops that are grown with prohibited inputs, when livestock do not get the required access to pasture, and when organic crops are produced in artificial media.
The topic of inspector qualifications and training, listed separately on the NOSB agenda, is an integral part of fraud prevention. Regulations must be clear so that they can be enforced. USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) must have a will to enforce, whether the violator is large or small, foreign or domestic. The task facing the NOSB and NOP is to craft a multi-faceted strategy to prevent organic fraud.
Packaging Substances, including Bisphenol A (BPA): BPA should be eliminated from organic food packaging. At the same time, since some known alternatives to BPA may also present similar problems, the NOSB should approach the issue of food packaging in a comprehensive way. The NOSB’s Handling Subcommittee should ensure that packaging is a priority issue and request a scientific technical review of BPA and its alternatives so that it can adopt the strongest most comprehensive packaging standard for organic food.
Eliminating Incentives to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Cropland: Unfortunately, the legal requirement to avoid the use of prohibited substances for three years before land can be certified organic produces an unintended incentive to convert important native habitat to organic farms. To protect native lands, the NOSB should pass the Certification, Accreditation, and Compliance subcommittee improved the proposal. The details on implementing the proposal as part of farmers’ organic system plans should be worked out in cooperation with the Wild Farm Alliance and experienced certifiers.
Comment by April 4 to Protect Organic Integrity
As The Organic Movement Fractures, Farmers And Food Companies Are Redefining The Standard They Built
As The Organic Movement Fractures, Farmers And Food Companies Are Redefining The Standard They Built
Meet the new "organic-plus" certifications developed by a movement's discontents, from Patagonia to Dr. Bronner's. But how many certifications are too many—and will anyone be able to understand the difference?
March 15th, 2018
by Stephanie Strom
Frustrated by what they see as a continued watering down of the standards that define what foods may be labeled “organic,” Patagonia Provisions—the food business offshoot of the outdoor apparel company—organic body care and food products company Dr. Bronner’s, and the research-based Rodale Institute will begin offering a new organic certification program.
Related: USDA withdraws organic animal welfare rules.
Companies seeking the new certification, called Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC), will first have to secure the federal organic seal through the National Organic Program, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency that controls organic regulation. Then they’ll have to meet additional requirements to protect workers and guarantee a higher standard of animal welfare, among other things.
At the same time, several founders of the organic movement in the United States have started the Real Organic Project, which will offer a seal of approval to organic farmers who meet higher standards that it is setting for organic farming.
“The industrial organic machine has been using real organic farmers as a sort of smokescreen.”
“In its origins, the organic movement encompassed fair labor practices, a greater level of compassion for animals, and a mandate to improve soil health, but much of that got lost when the federal organic regulations were set,” says David Bronner, the “cosmic engagement officer” (or CEO) of Dr. Bronner’s. “Our new seal recognizes and celebrates that next level of organics, which goes further than the federal program.”
These new certification programs have brought to light a schism that has been growing for more than a decade in the organic business, creating a quietly expanding divide between companies and farms that do just enough to win the federal organic seal and those with practices that go far beyond the requirements set by the Department of Agriculture.
That the rift has now become public has raised concerns among organic champions, who fear that it will reduce the value of “organic” as a marketing and advocacy tool and confuse eaters who invest in products bearing the seal.
Related: It’s the end of organic as we know it.
Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic advocacy group, says that while diehard organic eaters may devote time to understanding the nuances of three different organic labels, many more may just throw up their hands and decide it’s too hard to suss out their varied meanings.
A long-time adversary of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), Mr. Kastel has, somewhat uncomfortably, found himself on the industry trade group’s side in the debate over the new certification programs. “There’s a real risk that the new seals will turn products that just have the federal seal into second-class citizens, unable to command the premium prices needed for even the most basic organic production,” Kastel says.
In comments submitted to Regenerative Organic Alliance—the body overseeing the new Regenerative Organic Certification, OTA warned that another organic seal posed “a serious risk” to the federal label—which first went on packaging in the early 2000s. “As awareness of this standard spreads, so may the misconception that the USDA organic standards do not include requirements for soil health, biodiversity and animal welfare,” the group wrote. “Although not intended, this could present an unfortunate disservice to the livelihood of the organic sector and organic farmers across America.”
Regenerative Organic Certified
New certification programs have brought to light a schism that has been growing for more than a decade in the organic business
But David Chapman, an organic farmer in Vermont who is the spokesman for the Real Organic Project, says the standards in federal law and regulation are the bare minimum for organic farming and that USDA does little to enforce them.
Over the last decade, the department has revoked less than a dozen organic certifications in the U.S. and more than 80 in foreign countries, according to its Organic Integrity Database. It suspended more than 1,700 certifications during that time.
Chapman says large companies hoping to cash in on the premium prices organic products command were doing as little as they could to stay in compliance with federal regulation. At the same time, they were counting on media coverage of small organic farming operations with shinier stories to convey a narrative about organic that doesn’t reflect the vast majority of farming federally certified as such.
“This is not creating divisions that don’t exist already,” Chapman says. “The industrial organic machine has been using real organic farmers as a sort of smokescreen, allowing consumers to think that farming the way I do it, say, is the same as the farming they’re doing—and it isn’t.”
These new certification programs have brought to light a schism that has been growing for more than a decade in the organic business.
Like ROC, Real Organic will require at a minimum federal organic certification. But it will not offer its additional certification to companies making processed foods; rather, its certification is for farmers who go well beyond the federal requirements. Mr. Chapman said about 20 farmers will participate in a pilot program this year, with a goal of putting the first seal on produce next year.
The project grew out of a decision last fall by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that allowed companies growing fruits, vegetables, herbs and other produce using hydroponic and aquaponic systems to continue to use the federal organic seal. New technologies have greatly expanded the use of such systems, but organic traditionalists object to allowing produce grown that way to be labeled organic because it isn’t grown in soil.
The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 states that an organic plan, which is required for organic certification, “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.”
Related: What are hydroponics, anyway?
Depletion of the nation’s soils has become a hot-button issue across farming at large after decades of pesticide application, tillage, and other practices that diminish soil health. Farmers are looking to crop rotation, reduced tillage, manure and other techniques to try to increase nitrogen stores in soil and enhance carbon sequestration.
“The problem is—and I hate it—the USDA has given up any claim that organic might have to do with leadership in soil health,” says Chapman. “I have friends who are not organic farmers, but they are definitely regenerative farmers doing pioneering stuff and doing a better job of protecting the soil.”
A USDA spokesman pointed to notes provided to the House Appropriations Committee, explaining a request for an additional $3 million for enhanced enforcement of organic regulations. “With respect to goals, National Organic Program activities will have a strong emphasis on strengthening enforcement in order to protect the integrity of the label and allow for the industry to continue to grow,” wrote USDA.
“There’s a real risk that the new seals will turn products that just have the federal seal into second-class citizens.”
Soil regeneration and enhancement are required in order to qualify to use the seals of the Real Organic Project and ROC, and so produce like hydroponically grown strawberries and aquaponically grown herbs will not qualify.
“Under the existing organic standards, you can be an organic farmer and not do everything to the best of your ability to continue to improve soil health over time,” says Jeff Moyer, executive director of the Rodale Institute.
ROC will, for instance, require farmers to reduce tillage, one area where conventional farming has outpaced organic farming. (One of the selling points of genetically engineered crops is that they require little tillage.) “Particularly in organic vegetable operations, there may be too much tilling,” Moyer says. “If you’re an earthworm, doing your work to enrich the soil, those are pretty rough days.”
Rodale will oversee the ROC standards for soil health, while standards for worker welfare have been compiled by the Fair World Project, a fair trade group born out of the Organic Consumers Association. Compassion in World Farming helped draft the animal welfare standards.
Dr. Bronner’s and Patagonia Provisions are among 10 or so companies that will participate in a pilot program, but mammoth food companies like Danone, the French dairy business, and Kashi, owned by the Kellogg Company, have also expressed interest in the new seal. Roughly 20 companies applied to be part of the pilot, which will run for the next nine months or so.
“ROC brings everything together under one cohesive seal that signifies a product was grown in a way that’s good for the soil and good for the workers and animals involved,” says Justin Gold, the founder of Justin’s, the nut butters and snacks brand now owned by Hormel.
Organic traditionalists object to allowing produce grown that way to be labeled organic because it isn’t grown in soil
Danone’s chief executive, Emmanuel Faber, has long been a proponent of better care for earth and animal, and the company’s Happy Family, Horizon Organic, and Vega One brands are helping the development of ROC certification. “We have always been a strong supporter of the USDA organic standard,” says Michael Neuwirth, a company spokesman. “DanoneWave looks forward to concretely exploring and understanding how this proposed new certification will further benefit our planet through soil health, animal welfare, farming communities and more choices for our consumers and our business.”
Over the past several years, many of the oldest organic food companies and the farmers and stores that support them have become increasingly disenchanted with the National Organic Program, contending that it has loosened standards to accommodate big food businesses seeking to cash in on burgeoning consumer demand for organic products.
Sales of organic foods have grown strongly over the last decade, rising 8.4 percent in 2016, while sales of food overall conventional foods grew a meager 0.6 percent. Organic products, including clothing and health and beauty products, accounted for $47 billion in sales that year, according to the OTA.
“The USDA has given up any claim that organic might have to do with leadership in soil health.”
Recently, two things, in particular, have rankled those who consider themselves the keepers of the organic flame. First, the Trump administration shelved more stringent animal welfare requirements that were slated to go into effect for organic producers. Currently, some private animal welfare certification programs have more stringent requirements for animal care than the federal organic program, which some in the organic world consider an embarrassment.
And then there was the brouhaha over hydroponic and aquaponic production, or what its practitioners prefer to call “container growing.”
“While it is very convenient to blame both the Trump and Obama administrations, neither of which has been a friend to organic, the industry itself is culpable as well,” says Max Goldberg, founder and publisher of Organic Insider, a newsletter that broke the story of the ROC program. “There are organic companies who have representatives on the National Organic Standards Board, and these individuals voted for hydroponics. In my mind, this is a complete betrayal of the American organic consumer, who is under the impression that her strawberries and tomatoes have been grown in soil.”
Goldberg says he regards ROC as a kind of “gold standard for organics” but that establishing the new seal would not be easy. For one thing, he says, there is not yet an abundant supply of commodity ingredients like corn and wheat that will meet the higher standards. For another, explaining what the ROC seal means to eaters already confused by the proliferation of seals on food packaging will be a challenge.
Related: Welcome to certification nation.
And ROC’s founders agree that, at least in the beginning, products bearing the new seal are likely to be more expensive because of the higher standards it requires for production. “We know that there are consumers out there who want more transparency about the food they eat and are willing to pay for it,” says Rose Marcario, chief executive of Patagonia.
Marcario also contends that the new seal may, in fact, reduce confusion caused by the proliferation of seals on packaging because it implicitly covers practices policed by, say, fair trade or animal welfare certification groups.
“The ROC seal will mean that not only has the product received the approval of the federal organic program, it has also met requirements for regenerating and improving soil quality, treating workers fairly and with justice and treating animals with a high level of compassion,” Marcario says.
Related: Who certifies the certifiers?
NSF International, the company behind one of the largest organic certification agencies, will act as the certifier for ROC during the pilot program, though Marcario says the aim is for other organic certifiers to join once the kinks are worked out. The seal should start showing up on grocery shelves early next year.
“We want to continue to support the work of the National Organic Program, but we believe there is an option for farmers who have been doing more than the program requires for decades to showcase the extra things they do,” she says. “Think of ROC as organic-plus.”
Stephanie Strom was a reporter for The New York Times for 30 year. During that time, she covered Wall Street, nonprofits, Japan and retail, but her favorite assignment by far was covering the food business and the people in it. She lives in New York City with her husband and a feisty French bulldog.
ENVIRONMENT, FARM, NEWS, POLICY, SHELF, SYSTEMSORGANICOTAREAL ORGANIC PROJECTREGENERATIVE ORGANIC CERTIFICATIONSOILUSDA
The Real Organic Project: Disgusted With the USDA, Farmers Make Their Own Organic Label
The certified organic label is, easily, the most important label in the U.S. food regulation system.
The Real Organic Project: Disgusted With the USDA, Farmers Make Their Own Organic Label
By Dan Nosowitz on March 5, 2018
How much do you trust the organic label?
Christopher Paquette on Flickr
The certified organic label is, easily, the most important label in the U.S. food regulation system.
Worth billions of dollars, the organic label is the only federally regulated food label that conveys any information about how that food was produced. Certified organic is the fastest-growing food segment—and the distinction can be profitable for farmers (and also costly and difficult to implement)—but that doesn’t mean everyone’s happy with it. A series of scandals and a lack of faith in the current iteration of the USDA, which oversees the organic program, has led a group of pioneering organic farmers to create their own label: the Real Organic Project.
In the past few years, the rules surrounding organic farming have taken a turn not to the liking of the sustainability-focused small-scale farmers who pushed the movement into being with the 1990 Farm Bill. For one, the USDA declared that soil-free farming methods can snag the coveted label despite objections from farmers who consider the Earth a fundamental component of organic farming. And more recently, the USDA torpedoed a previously-approved law that would have required basic animal welfare standards for organic livestock.
“I got involved when I started seeing a lot of hydroponic tomatoes certified as organic showing up in the market, about five years ago,” says Dave Chapman, a longtime organic farmer who runs Long Wind Farm, in Vermont. “We made a really good faith effort to reform the organic program, but we realized [certification of hydroponics] was not the only egregious failure—the NOP [National Organic Program] was very weak on animal welfare, too.”
Perspectives On Organic Standards
Perspectives On Organic Standards
I seem to view organic standards a bit differently from most people involved in the organic movement. I see standardization as a requisite for industrialization. Standards tend to simplify production processes, but complex standards can be accommodated with computers and robots. Regardless, production processes must be replicable and scalable to allow the specialization and consolidation characteristic of industrial organizations. That’s the reason uniform national standards were required to allow organic foods to move into the mainstream, industrial food system.
New sets of uniform national organic standards will simply create additional options for industrializing organic food production. The new “Regenerative Organic Certification” (ROC) and “Real Organic Program” (ROP) would certainly represent improvements over current USDA standards, which appear to ensure little more than adherence to an approved list of organic inputs and materials. The ROC proposal includes standards for social equity and animal welfare, which are essential for “sustainable” organic production. The ROP proposal appears to be an attempt to redefine and enforce standards that many organic farmers thought were ensured by current USDA standards. Regardless, the goal of both proposals is to provide a new and better set of uniform national standards for organic production.
I personally see no inherent problem with having a variety of organic standards or standards for other agri-food production processes. Ultimately, discriminating consumers will have to accept responsibility for their individual food choices. Anyone who simply relies on labels—such as organic, natural, grass-fed, or cage-free—is going to end up eating foods that are produced by large, agri-food corporations. Such corporations are purely economic entities. At best, they will meet the minimum enforceable requirements for the label, and labels simply cannot ensure the ecological or social integrity of an agricultural production process.
Once these large agri-food corporations gain positions of influence they will quite naturally attempt to remove any existing impediments to further industrialization. In addition, they will attempt to eliminate competition by creating complex regulatory requirements that smaller producers cannot meet—or can’t meet as efficiently. This is nothing new. Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations, “The usual corporation spirit, wherever the law does not restrain it, prevails in all regulated companies. When they have been allowed to act according to their natural genius, they have always, in order to confine the competition to as small a number of persons as possible, endeavoured to subject the trade to many burdensome regulations.”
We see this tactic most clearly in the new FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The new standards make it very difficult for farmers who are large enough to represent a competitive threat to the large agri-food corporations to compete. The paperwork burden in the current USDA organic program is another example. We can expect this tactic to be embedded in or emerge from any new organic certification program proposed or promoted by the large “organic” agri-food corporations. New standards that are developed and promoted by grass-roots organic farmers have a much better chance of increasing the overall integrity of organics, as well as increasing the difficulty of organic industrialization. Their priority is more likely to be organic integrity than economic efficiency.
I personally would prefer national organic standards that included only those practices that are appropriate, meaningful, and enforceable at the national level—such as allowable and non-allowable inputs and materials. This would allow elimination of paperwork associated with the unenforceable portions of current USDA standards—making the program more accessible to smaller organic farming operations. I would also prefer organic “add-ons” or “real organic” programs that are defined, organized, monitored, and enforced at the local or bio-regional level. The organic bioregions should be small enough to allow the integrity of the bioregional labels to be ensured through personal relationships. These bioregional organic programs could be administered by cooperative organizations with memberships that include the certified organic producer and boards of directors with representatives of local consumer and citizens groups as well as producers.
Additional standards regarding authentic organic production practices—such as employee working conditions and wages, animal welfare, and relationships with the local community—could be designed to fit the specific ecological, social, and cultural environment of the bioregions. Standards defining the social and ecological integrity of the bioregional organic labels could be enforced through peer evaluations during periodic visits to organic farms by other organic farmers and community members chosen by the cooperatives. Organic farms could also be required to be open to the public for visits by local customers or anyone in the surrounding communities. Requirements for organic certification could be clearly posted on the farm. Employees and visitors could be encouraged to talk with the farmer about any concerns and to report potential unresolved violations to the cooperative.
Obviously, a bioregional organic certification program would result in a proliferation of organic labels. In fact, that would be the primary intent of the program. Authentic organic production should reflect the ecological and social diversity of the environment within which the farms function. The nation is not uniform or standard, and thus, any set of uniform standards cannot define a system that is truly organic. As with basic human rights, advocates of organic food production should work to define a common set of minimum enforceable standards that apply nationally—perhaps internationally. Again as with human rights, individual farmers and bioregional groups of farmers should be encouraged to raise their organic standards well above the national minimums. The resulting organic food markets might not be as economically efficient, at least in terms of costs of production, but they would have the ecological, social, and economic integrity of authentic organics.
John Ikerd