Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
Organics Clean Up
With “clean eating” gaining momentum as part of the food culture, organic produce provides an easy solution for health-conscious consumers
These fruits and veggies fit right in with “clean eating” movement
By Janice M. Kresin
With “clean eating” gaining momentum as part of the food culture, organic produce provides an easy solution for health-conscious consumers. In fact, 90% of total organic fruit and vegetable sales in 2017—to the tune of $16.5 billion—came from fresh produce sales, according to the Organic Trade Association’s 2018 Organic Industry Survey. Fresh Trends 2019 found that 60% of shoppers said they opted for organics because they wanted to avoid chemicals in their food.
While each person has his or her own motivation for buying organic produce, most people do it to feel good about what they’re putting into their bodies, as the “clean eating” movement suggests. Nearly half of buyers in Fresh Trends 2019 (48%) indicated that “nutrient content/ personal health” was a reason they selected organic produce (although there’s no evidence that organics have more nutrients than conventionally grown product). Roughly a third of shoppers (34%) said they felt an environmental responsibility to buy organics.
Shoppers are motivated by a couple of main factors when it comes to buying organics. Consumers said the No. 1 thing they considered was price—they weighed whether the extra cost for organic was worth the advantage to their health. More than half of consumers (57%) said they would buy organic product if price was no object. Of course, shoppers buy with their eyes too. Thirty-seven percent of shoppers said they picked organic because it looked fresher, cleaner or more ripe than conventionally grown produce.
Buyers want to know where to find organics. Nearly two-thirds of consumers (65%) said they preferred
that organics be displayed in their own section within the produce department, not interspersed among commodities. Consider promoting “clean eating” on signs in the produce department or in newspaper and online ads to draw shoppers to this category. Shoppers were most likely to source organic fruits and vegetables at their regional supermarket or a specialty market like
Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods (24% said so). One-fifth of buyers said they picked up organic produce at a chain discount store like Walmart or Target.
Quite a few of those who opt for organic product are pretty heavily invested in it—31% of buyers estimated that 25%-50% of their produce purchases were organic.
Organic standouts
Some devoted organic fans shop all organic, all the
time. These consumers tend to fall into a few select demographic groups, typically those age 18-39 and those in the top income bracket. Often families with kids were among the most likely to shop exclusively for organic as well, but it depended on the commodity, and there were variances given exact family size.
Kale topped the list as the item that shoppers always bought as organic, followed by specialty mushrooms and blackberries. Blackberries saw the most year-to-year growth when it came to always-organic purchases, up six percentage points from last year. Raspberries and apricots followed close behind.
Asian pears saw the largest decline from last year based on the likelihood of an exclusively organic purchase— down 14 percentage points—but this fruit was one of
the least-purchased overall, so a small sample size likely affected this outcome. Cranberries and eggplant also saw significant dips in the likelihood of shoppers buying them as organic every time they purchased those items.
Many shoppers dabble in organic purchases, even if they’re not committed enough to always buy organic. Consumers were the most likely to buy kale as organic at least some of the time (it topped the list for periodic organic purchases last year, too).
Apricots showed the most year-to-year growth for periodic organic purchases (up 12 percentage points from last year). However, this fuzzy fruit was one of the least purchased overall, so with a small sample size this growth may not be truly representative. More shoppers bought organic honeydew at least some of the time over the past 12 months too, as the likelihood of a melon purchase increased nine percentage points from Fresh Trends 2018.
Blueberries saw the largest drop in the likelihood of a periodic organic purchase, followed by Asian pears and spinach.
Getting shoppers to opt for an organic purchase is not always easy, however. Onions, cantaloupe and bell peppers were the top items that shoppers never bought as organic, with at least seven in 10 buyers of these items saying they always bought these vegetables as conventionally grown.
USDA National Organic Program Holds Firm Against Efforts to Impose Special Restrictions Against Growers Using Container and Hydroponic Methods
Groups opposed to certification of production systems incorporating containers and hydroponics failed in their most recent attempts in the last few weeks to convince the USDA and the National Organic Standards Board to initiate the process for new standards for those production systems.
Several groups including the Real Organic Project, the Organic Farmers Association, the National Organic Coalition and others presented testimony at the recent National Organic Standards Board meeting in Seattle and in recent press campaigns to call for a moratorium on certifications for organic production systems using containers and hydroponics. The moratorium would be followed by the revocation of certification for existing operations. However, if the USDA does not agree to those terms, the groups insist that new more restrictive regulations must be drafted, implemented and then applied to container and hydroponic organic production systems.
Those groups have begun the tactic of inventing hypothetical scenarios about production practices, and they then ask for clarification from USDA regarding the legality of such an approach. USDA indicated that they would not likely give opinions regarding hypothetical situations, but USDA will look at specific cases and instances of operations performing actual activities to review for compliance. The CSO expects that opponents of certifications for containers will refer operations for review, and USDA will respond regarding those practices.
However, this activity will not be unofficial rule making or regulations that are created without any opportunity for public input. USDA does not have the authority to implement standards through the guidance process that would create special restrictions for container operations. Any new restrictions would have to go through the formal rule making process.
Organic producers must follow all applicable USDA standards for organic production systems. Specifically, growers need to show that their production system is managed to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.
Here are the requirements copied from 7 CFR 205.201 that lay out the elements required to be included in the organic production and handling systems plan.
§205.201 Organic production and handling system plan.
(a) The producer or handler of a production or handling operation, except as exempt or excluded under §205.101, intending to sell, label, or represent agricultural products as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must develop an organic production or handling system plan that is agreed to by the producer or handler and an accredited certifying agent. An organic system plan must meet the requirements set forth in this section for organic production or handling. An organic production or handling system plan must include:
(1) A description of practices and procedures to be performed and maintained, including the frequency with which they will be performed;
(2) A list of each substance to be used as a production or handling input, indicating its composition, source, location(s) where it will be used, and documentation of commercial availability, as applicable;
(3) A description of the monitoring practices and procedures to be performed and maintained, including the frequency with which they will be performed, to verify that the plan is effectively implemented;
(4) A description of the recordkeeping system implemented to comply with the requirements established in §205.103;
(5) A description of the management practices and physical barriers established to prevent commingling of organic and non organic products on a split operation and to prevent contact of organic production and handling operations and products with prohibited substances; and
(6) Additional information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the regulations.
(b) A producer may substitute a plan prepared to meet the requirements of another Federal, State, or local government regulatory program for the organic system plan: Provided, That, the submitted plan meets all the requirements of this subpart.
Your Membership and Activity Still Needed
The efforts of growers and other members of the organic community like yourself helped to create more regulatory certainty and to safeguard your rights to select the most appropriate growing methods in your organic operations continues.
Join the CSO if you have not done so already. Our sustained efforts on behalf of the hydroponic, aquaponics and container industry around the country and in Washington, DC rely on dues from farming operations like yours.
U.S. Organic Sales Break $50 Billion Mark
May 20, 2019
Organic sales are climbing across the board, and so are organic sales of fresh produce.
( File Photo )
U.S. organic sales hit a record $52.5 billion in 2018, up 6.3% from the previous year.
Organic food sales accounted for $47.9 billion, an increase of 5.9% from 2017, according to the Organic Trade Association.
More than one-third of organic food sales come from fruits and vegetables. Produce sales — including all forms, not just fresh — were $17.4 billion in 2018, up 5.6%.
“Organic is now considered mainstream, but the attitudes surrounding organic are anything but status quo,” OTA executive director and CEO Laura Batcha said in a news release. “In 2018, there was a notable shift in the mindset of those working in organic toward collaboration and activism to move the needle on the role organic can play in sustainability and tackling environmental initiatives.
“Activism is a natural reaction from an industry that is really close to the consumer,” Batcha said. “When we are in an environment where government is not moving fast enough, the industry is choosing to move to meet the consumer rather than get stalled.”
Fresh perspective
The United Fresh Produce Association, in its FreshFacts on Retail report about 2018, provided some context on the growth of organic fresh produce in particular.
Organic sales of fresh produce in 2018 were $5.6 billion, up 8.7%. Organic fresh vegetable sales were up 7.1%, organic fresh fruit sales were up 10.7%, and organic fresh herbs/spices sales were up 7.9%.
Packaged salads are far and away the top organic fresh produce item in terms of dollars, while organic bananas top the list for volume. Other big-ticket fresh items for organic are apples, carrots and strawberries
Update On Glyphosate And Organic Certification
The debate on the failing integrity of the National Organic Program has become international, as heard on last night's program on BBC World. Click here to hear Dave Chapman, farmers from Holland and India, and General Mills discuss the controversies in organic
The debate on the failing integrity of the National Organic Program has become international, as heard on last night's program on BBC World. Click here to hear Dave Chapman, farmers from Holland and India, and General Mills discuss the controversies in organic.
I was honored to be a part of this show. It is clear that we are ALL affected by the failures of the USDA organic program, from California to Singapore.
A certified hydroponic organic blueberry "farm."
In my last letter, I quoted NOP director Jenny Tucker as saying that there is no transition period for hydroponics. After reading my letter, some withheld judgment until the Seattle meeting of the National Organic Standards Board. Jenny promised she would address the issue of hydroponics and glyphosate at that meeting. No transition period means that a hydroponic producer could use ANY chemical on their land or greenhouse that is allowed in conventional agriculture. They could do this the week before bringing in new substrate and still qualify for immediate organic certification.
A Driscoll's certified organic blueberry "farm" of coco coir pots.
Substrate is the fancy word for the growing medium in the pot. Hydroponic producers choose materials to grow in like shredded coconut husks (called coir) because they don’t rot. They also don’t provide any nutrition to the plants. The coir holds the roots and the water. All the nutrition is provided as a near-constant liquid feed in the irrigation water. Hydroponics can happen in a container on the ground or on a table. For some crops, it even happens without any container at all. At its most extreme form, called aeroponics, the roots are suspended in the air and sprayed with the nutrient solution. There is no nutritional difference between spraying the roots in the air or watering them in a container of coir or a bucket of water. The difference is in the time the plant can survive if the electricity goes off. With an “aeroponic” system, it is a matter of minutes. With a container system, it is a matter of hours. It is the same nutrition.
Jenny’s comment created quite a stir as the implications became clear. In the new USDA interpretation, “certified organic” no longer defines how the land is farmed. It now only defines how a pot of coco coir is “farmed.”
How twisted will the USDA "new organic" standards become? Will they look something like the political machinations we see in this district map of Maryland?
The new USDA definition of organic is becoming a form of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the process by which a group of political officials manipulates the drawing of an election map in a way that benefits them. The result is a complex, illogical map that makes sense only to those who will profit. This principle is applied to many areas of government. When the allowable levels of glyphosate were being crossed in conventional farm products, the EPA simply increased the “safe” level. In the case of "organic" hydroponics, we are ending up with a convoluted set of regulations that look like the latest Congressional district designed to keep one party in power.
Or we are left with no regulations at all, with every certifier making up their own? That is the case until the USDA answers our questions.
Wasn't preventing such a "Wild West" scenario the justification for the NOP in the first place?
Real organic blueberry production. Soil-grown blueberries must be free of prohibited substances for 3 years before being eligible for organic certification. This is referred to as a "3 year transition period."
The reason for this is because hydroponics CAN’T fit into the real meaning of organic. Organic farming is based on the principle of stewarding the life in the soil in order to provide superior nutrition for plants, animals, and humans. I would now add climate to that list of benefits. It is, in fact, the opposite way of farming from “conventional.” This foundation of soil stewardship is well understood in the rest of the world, as clearly defined by IFOAM (The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements). The United Arab Emirates has just joined the rest of the world in prohibiting hydroponic from being certified as organic. It is also well understood in our own law, the Organic Food Production Act. And yet, the USDA continues to be the rogue nation embracing hydroponic as organic.
Hydroponic is the opposite way of farming from organic. Being a hydroponic organic producer is like being an illiterate book critic. They just don’t fit together.
Jenny Tucker speaking this winter at an event on organic integrity.
So people came to Seattle ready for answers. They got none. Jenny Tucker has given the seemingly contradictory statements that glyphosate would never be tolerated in organic AND that there was no transition time for hydroponics, thus allowing glyphosate (and hundreds of other pesticides) to be used immediately before certification. And there are no standards prohibiting hydro producers from going out of certification for a week during the crop changeover so they can spray whatever they want, and then being immediately recertified when they bring in new pots.
Laura Batcha of the OTA and Dave after speaking together on a panel in Washington this Spring. We often agree to disagree. Photo courtesy of Charles E. DeBourbon/The Hagstrom Report.
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) delivered a letter to the USDA signed by members, including the leading USDA organic hydroponic producers. It demanded that USDA make clear that glyphosate is not permitted in organic certification. Which of course, it is not. Dr. Tucker was happy to make that clear. The letter briefly mentions the question of whether glyphosate is allowed the week before organic certification. Which it is, in the absence of applying the three year transition period to hydroponic and container operations. Yet the three year transition period is a cornerstone of the Organic Foods Production Act.
Just to be clear, the OTA continues to strongly support certification for its hydroponic members such as Driscoll's and Wholesum Harvest. Although OTA has publicly opposed certifying “hydroponics,” their definition of hydroponics is a perfect example of “rebranding.” In the strange world of OTA, hydroponics is limited to plants growing with their roots in water or in the air. Clearly, this is not what the rest of the world means by that word. No wonder they are so confused. In their private world, “Hydroponic is what we say it is. Organic is what we say it is.”
CCOF President Phil LaRocca at the 2017 Jacksonville NOSB meeting.
Phil LaRocca, President of CCOF, testified in Seattle, where he clearly expressed his genuine outrage that this “no transition period” was being allowed. He said that he had been told by CCOF’s Executive Director that, indeed, no transition time was being required by some certifiers for hydroponics. As the largest certifier in the world, CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers) would know. Phil asked that Jenny clarify the USDA National Organic Program position.
She would not.
Over and over people, including members of the National Organic Standards Board, pressed Dr. Tucker to respond and clarify the NOP position. Over and over Jenny responded that she would not respond to a question about “hypotheticals.”
It seems to me that when the NOSB and the President of CCOF ask what the USDA policy is on organic transition time, it is not a hypothetical.
I have wondered why Jenny refused to set the record straight and answer a simple question about policy? She did say that she misspoke in answering my question, but she would not disavow her statement! All she had to do was say, “I was wrong. A three year transition period is required for ALL organic production, and always has been.”
That answer would then lead to the decertification of those certified with no transition time. Probably that would lead to lawsuits. But if the USDA continues to allow this, that will also probably lead to lawsuits. It looks to me like the USDA is going to get sued (again), one way or the other.
The final testimony at the meeting came from Lee Frankel, the lobbyist for the misnamed Coalition For Sustainable Organics. They should be called the Coalition For Hydroponic Organics. They just don’t want you to know that. The desire to keep us in the dark seems to be the hallmark of the “hydroponic organic” producers. Lee asked what the logic was of requiring a three-year transition for hydroponics? It is interesting to note that Wholesum Harvest, the leader of the Coalition, is calling on the NOP to enforce a three-year transition in the OTA letter. On the same day, the Executive Director of the Coalition is questioning whether a three-year transition makes any sense.
Is there a logic in requiring a three year transition period for a pot of coco coir? The problem with this whole circus is that it doesn't make any sense certifying hydroponic as organic in the first place. Organic and hydro are opposite systems of growing. Let the hydro producers make their own label. Let them proudly offer their products to consumers.
But that transparency isn’t going to happen, is it? The large hydro growers run from honesty with their customers. The whole reason they want the organic label is to avoid being transparent.
Real Organic dairy at Radiance Dairy in Iowa.
People have said that real organic farmers are afraid of honest competition. I say bring it on. But let’s make sure it is HONEST. Let every hydroponic tomato and berry have an image above of plants growing in buckets of coco coir sitting on black plastic. Let every CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) produced container of milk or eggs have a picture of animals in confinement on the front. And real organic farmers will put pictures of our reality on our products, of plants growing in soil and animals eating fresh grass. Then we will see who wins the support of the customers.
Aurora Dairy in Colorado which, according to the Washington Post, is fake organic. For their investigation, the only cows found on pasture were "dry cows," not producing milk. Which milk would you buy? Photo courtesy of Washington Post.
Of course, this would be no contest. The HYDROs and CAFOs would go out of business. The farmers growing real organic would be unable to keep up with market demand. The stores would be falling over themselves to buy locally from real organic farmers. Real organic farmers would multiply.
The whole reason that we shouldn’t allow hydroponics to take over American organic vegetable production is that we want to be honest. We want to protect the customers from fraud. We want to protect the farms and farmers. We want to protect the land.
So I invite all in the organic community to come together.
If you are a consumer, demand that local real organic products are on the shelves of your grocery store.
If you are a member of CCOF, demand that your organization stops certifying hydroponics. Throw out CAFOs while you are at it.
If you are a member of OTA, demand that your organization publicly calls for an end to ALL hydroponic certification, including hydroponic containers. Throw out CAFOs while you are at it.
When that day comes, perhaps we can take back the organic seal in America. Oh, and we will need to elect a new President as well. I never said this was going to be easy.
In the meantime, please support the Real Organic Project.
Taylor Farms Acquires Earthbound Farm
Earthbound Farm will join the Taylor Farms Retail Group and help lead growth in the dynamic organic fresh produce category
APRIL 11, 2019
Taylor Farms acquired Earthbound Farm from Danone, SA.
"We are grateful for Danone’s stewardship of Earthbound Farm during the past two years and for the opportunity to return ownership of this organic fresh produce leader to local roots and family ownership," Taylor Farms said in a statement.
Earthbound Farm will join the Taylor Farms Retail Group and help lead growth in the dynamic organic fresh produce category. "We will build on Earthbound Farm’s tradition of organic authenticity, new variety development and quality focus with expanded regional organic growing and processing capability to better serve Earthbound Farm’s customers and consumers across North America," the company said.
Cornucopia Institute Takes Aim Against Certification Companies Over Organic Production Systems Incorporating Containers
The Cornucopia Institute released late last week a Guide to Organic Certifiers. The apparent point of the document is to encourage growers opposed to certification of organic production systems that include containers to switch their certification companies
The Cornucopia Institute released late last week a Guide to Organic Certifiers. The apparent point of the document is to encourage growers opposed to certification of organic production systems that include containers to switch their certification companies.
As efforts supported by Cornucopia to pass a National Organic Standards Board recommendation to modify USDA Organic Regulations in order to prohibit hydroponic systems failed, a new avenue to achieve their goals is to economically damage USDA approved and regulated certification companies to the point where those certifiers would drop growers that produce some portion of their crops in containerized production systems.
The Washington Post did publish a story on Friday on the subject (a repost of the story can be found here). The article states that the purpose of the certifier scorecard "is mostly a mechanism for shaming certifiers and the organic businesses that employ them."
CCOF Chief Executive Kelly Damewood responded in the article by saying "We are a federally accredited certifier and cannot deny certification based on philosophy or values alone. The scorecard is showing that they have an issue with the National Organic Programs allowance of hydroponics, not with CCOF."
Your Membership and Activity Still Needed
The efforts of growers and other members of the organic community like yourself helped to create more regulatory certainty and to safeguard your rights to select the most appropriate growing methods in your organic operations continues.
Join the CSO if you have not done so already. Our sustained efforts on behalf of the hydroponic, aquaponics and container industry around the country and in Washington, DC rely on dues from farming operations like yours.
"Do Organic Farmers Using Soil Have A Right To Exclude Aquaponic Farmers?"
Marc Laberge pleading for including all plants in organic rules
If there's one thing the soil-growing and out-of-soil producers can agree on, is that the debate around the organic & soil production is upsetting. If there's two, it's that hydro- and aquaponics should not be entering the organic world via a back door. But how should it be? In- or excluded? With one week to go before the Quebec public consultation on aquaponics ends, Marc Laberge with ML Aquaponics holds a plea for including all plants in the Quebec organic rules.
"Aquaponics is here to stay and is a great way of farming. Aquaponics has the potential to supply year-round organic fruits, vegetables and fish at a reasonable price, yet this entire type of farming, this fundamental Mother Natures’ purest, most organic, way of growing clean, dirt-free plants is at stake here", Marc with ML Aquaponics says. His aquaponics farm ML Aquaponics has harvested millions of crops of lettuce and rainbow trouts over the years. Following the Canadian Aquaculture Organic Laws, none of these has ever been certified organic - but that can change since the organic certification requirements of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) were extended to aquaculture products early this year.
Roots in water
"However Quebec’s organic watch dogs, the CARTV, are still not convinced that plants having their roots growing in water should be allowed to carry the organic certification", Marc explains. Currently the CARTV is asking for he public's opinion on this matter and Marc doesn't want the industry to miss out on this opportunity.
"We have every right to be called organic and are proud of it. Although our voices are outnumbered by at least a 1000 to 1, does this mean we have no rights?"
He shows Google answers on the search for organic:
1. Relating to or derived from living matter. “organic soils”. Synonym: living, live, animate, biological, natural.
2. (of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents. Synonym: pesticide-free, additive-free, chemical-free, nonchemical, natural
"If you look at the evolution of plants on this planet, you will find that they derived from water, starting out as some type of algae. Water is the essence of life on plant Earth, the Mother of all “Mother Natures” if you like", he says. "Organic farming is a method that grows plants in living matter without using synthetic chemicals. Synthetic fertilizers mean man made, we’re not talking about salts and minerals that are extracted from nature by man, but rather created by processes that would most likely never take place naturally."
Synthetic vs organic
"One of such procedures that comes to mind, is the use of petroleum to create nitrogen and then used as a synthetic fertilizer. So then, what is living matter? Besides the obvious, can soils be considered living matter? Of course, they can if they haven’t been burnt-out by harsh chemicals. What about water? The same applies, cities must kill off many living organisms in order to provide safe drinking water, but take a look under a magnifying glass at water from a natural source such as lakes, rivers, ponds and you will see life, lots of life."
Out of habit
Continuing on this point of view, Marc says that the combination soil-organic is mainly a combination made out of habit. "Organic farming using soil has been around for a long time, so long as a matter of fact, that some people are now saying that organic farming must use soil. Aquaponics is a farming method using fish to provide nutrients to plants that are grown in water. Although aquaponics has been around longer than soil farms, only in the last few decades has this way of producing food intensively, under controlled environments become of interest, to a new generation of organic farmers."
Questioning
That's why Marc now urges the public to take the opportunity and send out their point of view to the CARTV, currently holding a questioning on the matter. "The CARTV claim that only “aquatic” plants can be allowed to be organic, and that “terrestrial” plants must use the soil organic rules that, ironically do not allow cultivation in water. Looking at the definition of Organic, and knowing all terrestrial plants arose from water, we can only wonder if the organic farmers using soil, are trying to prevent other new organic aquaponic farmers from entering their niche markets?"
He's pleading for a more united industry and calls out to the industry to use the opportunity and fill in the Quebec questioning.
"We all believe in organic food the same way the soil people do, we share so many values and yet like siblings continue this fight", Marc says. "Have we forgotten what the essence of life is and that nothing will grow without it? Do the organic farmers using soil have a right to exclude aquaponic farmers from this label? Has the word Organic evolved into another meaning over time? If so, what definition should we use? What does Organic mean to you?"
Anti-GMO Groups Petition USDA To Exclude Hydroponic Farming From Organic Certification
Cathy Siegner | Food Dive | February 13, 2019
Organic movement schism? Fight over hydroponics puts $50 billion industry in limbo
The Center for Food Safety filed a petition with the Department of Agriculture Jan. 16 urging the agency to exclude hydroponically grown produce from eligibility for the USDA Organic label. The group wants the USDA to make sure “ecologically integrated organic production practices” are required for organic certification and revoke existing organic certifications previously issued to hydroponic operations.
The petition, endorsed by 13 consumer groups, organic growers and an organic retailer, stated growing food without soil doesn’t meet federal organic standards and violates federal law requiring soil improvement and biodiversity conservation….
[T]he National Organic Standards Board recommended in 2010 that hydroponic not be considered a certified organic growing method….However, board members narrowly voted in November 2017 not to exclude hydroponic crops from organic certification.
Hydroponic growers see themselves as responding to the demand for local organic food. Plenty, a San Francisco-based vertical farming company that grows leafy greens and herbs indoors without soil, wrote to the [USDA’s] NOSB [National Organic Standards Board] in 2017 saying all available innovative solutions must be explored, particularly those that can save resources.
“For example, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be located close to consumers, regardless of climate, geography or economic status….” the company’s testimony said.
Read full, original article: Petition asks USDA to exclude hydroponics from organic certification
A New Study Claims Eating Organic Reduces Pesticide Intake. It’s Totally Misleading
The study doesn't test for the kinds of pesticides permitted on organic foods. And that suggests it's more about selling a worldview than good science.
The study doesn't test for the kinds of pesticides permitted on organic foods. And that suggests it's more about selling a worldview than good science.
February 13th, 2019
by Patrick Clinton
Flash! A new study published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research reveals that people who switched from a conventional to an organic diet reduced their intake of pesticides by 60 percent in just one week.
Well, that’s it. Game over. The evidence is all in, and organic wins.
Yeah, right.
If you’ve been reading about the study (I have, in a mini-explosion of coverage that hews remarkably close to the press release sent out by Friends of the Earth, which sponsored the research and employs one of the authors of the study), you may have formed the opinion that it’s kind of a big deal. Take the word of someone who reads press releases every day and has even written a few: Never trust them. RTFD. Read the document.
So I read the study. (You can, too, here.) Here’s what I got out of it. The researchers wanted to prove that going organic reduces pesticide exposure. That’s something that’s been proven before for certain pesticides, but they wanted to expand the list. So they got together four “racially and geographically diverse” families comprising 16 people and had them eat their regular diet for five days before switching to organic food (which the researchers provided) for six days. They collected lots of urine samples and tested them for the metabolites produced when the body is exposed to 40 of the most commonly used pesticides. The metabolites themselves aren’t toxic. They just tell you how much of the pesticide the subject has been exposed to over the preceding few days.
It’s kind of like taking a bunch of people who’ve been drinking, wresting away their booze, then testing to see if their blood alcohol drops.
Now, roughly half of the food supply contains traces of pesticides, though virtually always at levels the U.S. government deems acceptable. Organic food is permitted to have small traces of conventional pesticides (typically from unintentional cross-contamination), and organic farmers are permitted to use a small number of pesticides, mostly naturally derived. They aren’t allowed to use any of the pesticides tested for in the study. (Organic food, in general, has lower levels of pesticide residue than conventional produce.)
So basically, the Environmental Research study took people who had been eating food that was likely to contain traces of certain common pesticides, then fed them food that by law was supposed to be grown without the use of those particular pesticides. And they discovered that their test subjects were indeed consuming less of those particular pesticides. It’s kind of like taking a bunch of people who’ve been drinking, wresting away their booze, then testing to see if their blood alcohol drops. It might be scientifically useful, but it doesn’t merit the kind of press campaign that Friends of the Earth has been waging for it, complete with 20-page brochure, FAQ, and website. And it certainly doesn’t merit the kind of slavish (and occasionally plagiaristic) coverage I’ve been watching pop up all day online.
You might in fact be persuaded by the study results. That’s fine. But let’s be clear about some of the things the study may seem to prove but doesn’t.
First, it doesn’t prove that organic food is lower in pesticide residues than conventional food. (In any case, we already knew that.) It just shows organic eaters take in fewer of the 40 pesticides measured by the researchers. That’s 40 out of something like 900 pesticides on the market, and includes none of the pesticides that are permissible in organic farming.
Pesticides are not the point. What we want to look at is risk.
And it doesn’t show that organic food is safer, though that is certainly what Friends of the Earth wants you to come away believing. The fact is that there’s no way you can reduce your exposure to toxins to zero. The world’s a messy place. Chemicals drift from field to field, equipment and storage facilities get contaminated, and some people inevitably cheat and use products they’re not supposed to use. And plants themselves produce toxins. The trick is to keep your exposure to a safe level. The conventional food supply overwhelmingly meets the safety standards set by the U.S. government.
And what if the standards are wrong? I have no doubt that some of them are wrong. And there have been and will be battles over how the standards need to change. We’ll never see an end to re-evaluating the evidence and rewriting the regs. But the errors aren’t all going to be on the side of products favored by big agribusiness. Take the case of rotenone, a natural plant derivative that is used for things like controlling (that is, killing) invasive fish populations and as an insecticide. Because it is natural, it was acceptable for use in organic farming.
Take the word of someone who reads press releases every day: Never trust them.
It’s pretty toxic stuff, however, and in 2004 it was banned for use in the U.S. except for killing fish. But it continued to be used abroad, and it remained on the list of acceptable substances for use in organic farming for several more years, which meant that a foreign organic farmer could legally export produce that had been treated with rotenone to the U.S. and still have it meet the standard for certified organic. Several other pesticides that are permitted in organic farming are currently under fire in the EU—notably methyl eugenol in Canada and copper sulfate in Europe.
It may sound like I’m trying to argue that organic food presents just as many dangers as conventionally produced food. I’m not. I don’t know one way or another, and, after experiencing the hype and questionable intellectual honesty of the Friends of the Earth press kit, I’m persuaded they don’t know either, or they wouldn’t have had to oversell their work so much.
But pesticides are not the point. What we want to look at is risk—not just the risk of a specific class of chemicals, but total risk. That necessarily includes more factors than toxins. Some studies suggest that organic produce is more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than conventional produce. How much weight should that carry when we’re choosing between organic and conventional food? How much should access to food or environmental protection weigh compared to incremental individual risk?
Here’s a pretty basic question: What if a relatively poor person becomes persuaded that only organic food will do, but then drops a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables from their diet because organic food is so expensive? What happens to that family’s risk profile? I’m betting that in this circumstance, organic is the worse choice, but I could certainly be wrong.
It would make a great experiment, wouldn’t it? I wonder if Friends of the Earth would like to sponsor it. Do it, guys. I’ll even help write the press release.
Groups Take Legal Action To Prohibit Organic Hydroponics
Cornucopia Institute
Consumers And Organic Groups Say Hydroponic Systems Cannot Comply With USDA’s Organic Standards.
January 17, 2019
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a new legal action demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibit hydroponic operations from using the organic label.
CFS said hydroponic production systems — a catch-all term that applies to food production methods that do not use soil — do not meet federal organic standards and violate organic law, which requires that organic farming include soil improvement and biodiversity conservation; hydroponic systems cannot comply with the organic standard's vital soil standards because hydroponic crops do not use soil at all.
The CFS filing was endorsed by more than a dozen other organic farmer, consumer, retailer and certifying organizations, including the Organic Farmers Assn., Northwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, PCC Community Markets and The Cornucopia Institute.
"Mislabeling mega-hydroponic operations as 'organic' is contrary to the text and basic principles of the organic standard. Right now, there is a pitched battle for the future of organic, and we stand with organic farmers and consumers who believe the label must retain its integrity," CFS legal director George Kimbrell said.
The groups said consumers trust the organic label and pay extra for the assurance that it indicates a more healthful and environmentally friendly way of producing the food they buy. Since the federal Certified Organic label was introduced more than 20 years ago, the organic food market has grown exponentially and is now a $60 billion industry in which multinational corporations have bought organic brands and, thus, compete with small food producers growing food using environmentally friendly methods.
"Allowing hydroponic systems to be certified as organic undercuts the livelihood of organic farmers that take great lengths to support healthy soil as the bedrock of their farms," Kate Mendenhall, director of the Organic Farmers Assn., stated. "Hydroponic producers getting the benefit of the organic label without actually doing anything to benefit the soil undermines the standard and put all soil-based organic farmers at an untenable economic disadvantage."
Organic agriculture certification has always included soil requirements such as fostering soil fertility, improving soil quality and using environmentally beneficial farming methods like proper tillage and crop rotation. “The National Organic Standards Board, the expert body assigned by Congress to advise USDA on organic matters, recommended that the agency prohibit certification of hydroponic systems, but USDA instead continues to allow hydroponics. Canada and Mexico also prohibit hydroponics from organic, and the European Parliament voted to end the organic certification of hydroponic products in April 2018,” CFS said in a statement.
TAGS: POLICY
Leclerc Opens Second Marché Bio Store
As announced a few weeks ago, Leclerc has been stepping up its efforts to promote biological products through a new brand of organic stores. After the opening of the first supermarket in Saintes at the end of October, a second one will open today in Erstein (Bas-Rhin), near Strasbourg.
The focus is on local and short-circuit supply, as much as possible, and also on bulk. But the main asset for Michel-Edouard Leclerc are the prices. “Our products are about 30% cheaper than in specialized stores, while enhancing the producers and the sector. In order to be accessible, taking a 60% margin is out of the question,” he explained during the opening of the store in Saintes.
New Research Shows How Organic Farming Is Worse For Climate
Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden
One of the main aims of organic farming is to maximise the 'natural' aspects and minimise chemical interference when it comes to producing our food. But is it actually better for the environment?
A new study, published in Nature, looked at pea and wheat crops and it suggests the opposite. It claims that organic farms are worse for the climate, simply because they tend to take up more room. That means more deforestation, and less carbon getting pulled out of the air and stored in the ground, conclude the international team of researchers.
But to be clear, this research was limited to a couple of crops in just one region, so it's way too soon to make any broad sweeping statements about the entire industry. For their study, the team of scientists focused on the farming of organic peas and wheat in Sweden.
Primarily because no fertilisers are used, organic pea farming takes up more space than non-organic pea farming, and that can be a problem, depending on how that land would otherwise get used.
"Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas," says one of the researchers, Stefan Wirsenius from Chalmers University of Technology. "For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference – for example, with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent."
The team developed a "carbon opportunity cost" metric for assessing the carbon footprint of certain types of land use, charting carbon dioxide emissions against how much food is produced. For organic farms, that ratio lags behind non-organic farms. Few previous studies have considered how carbon storage in vegetation and soil affects the environmental impact of organic farming, according to the researchers.
And the team isn't suggesting organic farming should be shut down at the earliest opportunity – rather that its use should be carefully considered. That consideration could extend to biofuels too, which also need more land to produce than conventional fuels.
According to sciencealert.com, the issue is particularly topical in Sweden, with the government pushing for an expansion in organic farming. These policy decisions have an impact on the climate across the globe, the researchers point out.
Publication date : 12/17/2018
Company Finds New Way to Grow Lettuce, Cut Risk of Foodborne Illness
One rooftop greenhouse company in Chicago says their lettuce is safer and longer-lasting.
3:25 PM, Dec 5, 2018
4:16 PM, Dec 6, 2018
The romaine lettuce outbreak has many consumers thinking about where their crops are grown.
One rooftop greenhouse company in Chicago says their lettuce is safer and longer-lasting.
Jenn Frymark, the chief agriculture officer and manager of Gotham Greens, pulls out a head of lettuce and immediately starts to eat it.
"No, you don't need to wash it,” Frymark says. “We don't have that on our package, but there's no reason for me to wash it. I never wash any of our lettuce at home. It's amazing; nothing touches it; it’s so clean.”
Here at Gotham Greens, lettuce is grown differently.
They do it hydroponically. That means it’s grown without soil, but in a nutrient-rich water. Instead of a traditional farm field, this lettuce is grown on rooftop greenhouses.
Their space on Chicago's south side is the largest rooftop greenhouse in the country. Because of the controlled environment, crops can grow in a third of the time of a traditional field.
“We're giving this plant everything it wants: the right day temp, the right night temp, the nutrients, CO2 levels, air circulation, the water,” Frymark explains. “I mean, these are very coddled plants and they have everything they need, and they can just grow in this perfect environment and reach maturity very quickly.”
Gotham Greens sells to grocery stores in the Chicago and New York metro areas, as well as select Whole Foods stores. The product goes from the greenhouse directly to grocery shelves in a day and a half.
The company’s lettuce also lasts longer than the traditional grocery lettuce out here. Frymark says their product can last up to two to three weeks in the fridge. Additionally, Gotham Greens prices are comparable to other organic produce.
Frymark also says their method dramatically lowers the risk for foodborne illness.
“There [are] no manures, there’s no water sources that could be contaminants,” she says. “We don't have birds and animals getting into the field.”
She says the company is expanding and plans to open more rooftop greenhouses in the near future.
Farm in a Box
Local agricultural technology may change the way we eat
(Clockwise from top left) A lighting system nurtures infant greens; Tiger Corner Farms general manager Stefanie Swackhamer and her dad, AmplifiedAg CEO Don Taylor; green oak lettuce, nearly ready to harvest.
For conscientious eaters, the holy trinity of organic, local, and in-season can be difficult to come by. Leafy greens, in particular, are tricky to grow in the Lowcountry, and thus tough for the likes of schools and grocers to obtain. Local start-up Tiger Corner Farms has a solution: aeroponic farms built inside shipping containers, where humidity, light, nutrients, and carbon dioxide levels can all be controlled, yielding a year-round supply.
Controlled environmental agriculture is booming nationwide, but Tiger Corner has an edge: it’s part of a parent company called AmplifiedAg founded by former Benefitfocus CTO Don Taylor. AmplifiedAg’s two other divisions are Boxcar Central, an automation software platform that lets users dial in exact specifications for any plant, and Vertical Roots, whose growers operate farms in Summerville, off Clements Ferry Road, and outside Daniel Island eatery Dockery’s (which serves the greens).
“We have a continuous feedback loop that allows us to quickly make adjustments to our product to best serve the farmers,” says Tiger Corner general manager Stefanie Swackhamer about Vertical Roots, which sells to GrowFood Carolina and retailers like Whole Foods, Harris Teeter, and Earth Fare. They also supply greens to Dorchester District Two schools, and “This school year, we’re implementing a farm at Ashley Ridge High School to allow students to get involved in the growing process,” says Swackhamer.
Head Count
How many farms—and leafy green plants—is Tiger Corner Farms producing? Take a look at the numbers:
A full, turnkey farm—including 4 pods and a “clean room”—takes about 4 weeks to build and costs $550,000.
Each pod yields 3,800 to 7,000 plants (depending on variety) per month.
Tiger Corner has built 18 pods since 2016, making its very first sale to The Citadel.
Resources:
Photographs by (4) Melissa Sommer
Organic Food Consumption Lowers Cancer Risks
The conclusion of a recent population-based cohort study of 68,946 French adults brings promising, though perhaps predictable, news.
(Beyond Pesticides, October 30, 2018)
The conclusion of a recent population-based cohort study of 68,946 French adults brings promising, though perhaps predictable, news. Greater consumption of organic food — as opposed to food produced conventionally, with use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers — is associated with a reduction in overall cancer risk, and reduced risk of specific cancers, namely, postmenopausal breast cancer and lymphomas. The NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study was published on October 22 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. It is important to remember that correlation is not causation; but the findings were strong enough that researchers concluded that more research is not only warranted, but also, could “identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk.”
The project tracked subjects — who were 78% female and 44.2 years old, on average — for 4.5 years. Those subjects reported the frequency of their consumption of 16 organic food products as “never, occasionally, or most of the time.” Those included: fruits, vegetables, soy-based products, dairy products, meat and fish, eggs, grains, legumes, breads, cereals, flour, vegetable oils, condiments, ready-to-eat meals, cookies, chocolate, sugar, marmalade, dietary supplements, and some beverages (coffee, teas, and wine). An organic food score was then computed and assigned to each subject.
Annual follow-ups screened for first-incident cancer diagnoses in the study’s subjects. Results showed that a higher “organic” score was positively correlated with overall decreased cancer risk, and lower risk of developing those specific cancers previously mentioned; no association was detected for other types of cancer. The study controlled for multiple confounding factors, including sociodemographics, lifestyle, and dietary patterns.
The researchers note that environmental risks for cancer include pesticide exposure, whether direct (for pesticide applicators and handlers, e.g.) or through the other primary vector, which is diet. They go on to say, “Epidemiological research investigating the link between organic food consumption and cancer risk is scarce, and, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate frequency of organic food consumption associated with cancer risk using detailed information on exposure. . . . Among the environmental risk factors for cancer, there are concerns about exposure to different classes of pesticides. . . . The role of pesticides for the risk of cancer could not be doubted given the growing body of evidence linking cancer development to pesticide exposure. While dose responses of such molecules or possible cocktail effects are not well known, an increase in toxic effects has been suggested even at low concentrations of pesticide mixtures.”
The Los Angeles Times reports, “At least three [pesticides] — glyphosate,malathion and diazinon — probably cause cancer, and others may be carcinogenic as well, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.” Foods grown or produced organically are far less likely to harbor such pesticide residues (than is conventionally grown produce) because the National Organic Standards forbid use of virtually all synthetic pesticides, except the few that meet the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act. Unsurprisingly, people who consume a relatively “organic” diet have lower levels of pesticide residues in their urine. One of the key points made by the study authors is this: “If the findings are confirmed [by future research], promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer.”
The health advantages of organic agricultural production for workers and consumers — compared with conventional agriculture, which uses toxic pesticides and synthetic, petrochemical inputs — are legion. There is a strong case that a switch to a generally organic diet confers not only some protection from development of any number of pesticide-induced diseases and other harmful impacts via, e.g., endocrine disruption and subsequent dysregulation and dysfunction, but also, other significant health benefits because it reduces the body burden of toxic chemicals.
One ready example is the evidence for pesticides’ impacts on sperm quality. The ongoing global drop in fertility is strongly associated with pesticide exposures. A 2015 study demonstrated that eating produce containing pesticide residues adversely affects men’s fertility, leading to fewer and poorer quality sperm — adding to a growing body of research showing impaired reproductive function. The results of that study also underscore the importance of an organic diet in reducing pesticide exposures. Interestingly, a fairly old Danish study (1994), published in The Lancet, showed “unexpectedly high sperm density in members of an association of organic farmers, who manufacture their products without use of pesticides or chemical fertilisers. This is of interest in the light of evidence that indicates a world-wide decrease trend of sperm density in the general population.”
The benefits of organic are perhaps most dramatic for children, whose pesticide exposures come largely through diet (unless they live on or near conventionally managed farms), although they may also be exposed via school or recreational properties. Children are particularly vulnerable to pesticide impacts because their brains, organs, and reproductive systems are still developing. One study showed near-immediate benefit when kids’ diets were switched to organic — their urine showed lowered-to-undetectable pesticide levels within hours of the switch. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a report that said, “In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.”
Beyond Pesticides advocates choosing organic because of the health and environmental benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. See more on the benefits of organic agriculture, and an overview of organics.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Sources: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2707948and http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-organic-food-cancer-20181022-story.html
Growponics Wins EU Seal of Excellence For Developing Organic Fertilizer
Growponics’ R&D project for nitrogen fixation has been granted the Seal of Excellence and has passed Phase 1 of the EIC SME Instrument, with a grant of €50,000. The SME Instrument is a part of the EU program Horizon 2020, aimed at small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with ground-breaking ideas and innovations.
Growponics’ R&D project for nitrogen fixation has been granted the Seal of Excellence and has passed Phase 1 of the EIC SME Instrument, with a grant of €50,000. The SME Instrument is a part of the EU program Horizon 2020, aimed at small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with ground-breaking ideas and innovations.
Our project is focused on developing a process for the production of a sustainable organic hydroponic fertilizer, utilizing nitrogen fixed by cyanobacteria. Nitrogen is one of the key elements required for the growth of any living organism, used for the production of proteins. The majority of organisms cannot use nitrogen from the air. The few organisms who can perform this task, transform nitrogen from air into organic compounds (like ammonia and nitrates), that can be metabolized by the organisms who need it but cannot make these by themselves. Most plants cannot fix nitrogen, and this is why they rely on obtaining it through nutrients found in ground and water. Hydroponically grown plants rely on supplemented fixed nitrogen – fertilizers.
What kind of nitrogen fertilizers are available now?
Current synthetic fertilizers use nitrogen produced in the Haber process. This process requires a large amount of energy, and also emits undesired greenhouse gases. Organic fertilizers that are currently available are expensive, or their nitrogen is of low availability to plants, or they are high in sodium – all are disadvantages which prevent commercial use.
What is our project all about?
We are developing a method for production of nitrogen in-situ by cyanobacteria, from air and water, using the sun as a source of energy. The entire process is efficient and ecologically sustainable, and will allow hydroponic growers to provide their crops with the necessary nitrogen in an environmentally friendly way.
The grant of €50,000 awarded in Phase I will allow us to complete our feasibility study and prepare a business plan ready for scale up. We intend to proceed to Phase II (scale-up and commercial readiness) and Phase III (business acceleration). Hopefully, in ~3 years time we can be in the market with a commercial solution, to be used by our partner greenhouses and proceeding to other projects internationally.
To read more about our project on the EIC SME website click here.
In the photo: cyanobacteria (the blue strings) as caught under microscope in our R&D lab.
From Roof to Table, This Farm is Bringing Organic Vegetables to Brooklyn Residents
Part of the Food Policy Community Spotlight Series
Name: Eagle Street Rooftop Farm
What they do: Eagle Street Rooftop Farm is a 6,000-square-foot organic vegetable farm located on a warehouse rooftop in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. The Farm is a product of the collaborative effort between the green roof design and installation firm Goode Green and the Brooklyn-based sound stage company Broadway Stages, which financed the installation of the Farm.
The Farm realizes the economic, ecological and societal benefits of green roofing while also bringing local produce to the North Brooklyn community. According to Michigan State University, green roofs can “improve stormwater management by reducing runoff and improving water quality.” In addition, they help to “conserve energy, reduce noise and air pollution, sequester carbon, increase urban biodiversity by creating a habitat for wildlife, increase the space available for urban agriculture, provide a more aesthetically pleasing and healthy environment for surrounding residents, and improve return on investment compared to traditional roofs.”
Eagle Street Rooftop Farm operates a weekly farm market and caters to area restaurants. Between 2010-2011, it became the first rooftop farm to host its own site-based Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. In 2010, the Farm also launched an Apprenticeship Program, which instructs seasonal apprentices (spring, summer, fall) in organic farming based on the Farm’s planting and growing practices. Additionally, with support from Growing Chefs, a nonprofit field-to-fork education program that is also under the aegis of Annie Novak (the co-founder and farmer of Eagle Street Rooftop Farms), the rooftop farm’s education staff operates a range of other educational programs.
How they do it:
In its first season, the Eagle Street Rooftop Farm grew over thirty types of produce, from watermelon to cabbage, in order to see which would thrive in a green roof growing environment. The most botanically successful crops for health and high yield included hot peppers, cherry tomatoes, and sage.
Since the 2012 growing season, the Farm has focused on a selection of hot peppers to begin development of a Brooklyn-based hot sauce. Currently you can find their hot sauce – “Awesome Sauce” – at Archestratus Books + Food as well as at Littleneck Outpost, both located in Greenpoint.
The Farm sells its harvest through its site-based Sunday farm market and delivers fresh produce by bicycle to local restaurants including Williamsburg’s Marlow & Sons and Greenpoint’s Paulie Gee’s, Brooklyn Brine, Eastern District, Anella’s, Spritzenhaus, Ovenly, Sea Bean Soups, and Champion Coffee.
On Sundays in the growing season, the Farm is open to the public and welcomes volunteers of all skill levels during its market hours, which are listed on the events calendar. Growing Chefs curates the farm’s Free Lecture series, which are held at two o’clock on Sundays and have covered topics ranging from urban chicken-keeping to pickle making.
Mission: to provide fresh, organic, locally produced fruits and vegetables to Brooklyn residents and restaurants
Latest project/campaign: The publication of their book, The Rooftop Growing Guide: How to Transform Your Roof into a Garden or Farm, in February 2016.
Major Funding: Broadway Stages, Gina Argento & family
Profit/nonprofit: Profit
Interesting fact about how it is working to positively affect the food system: The Eagle Street Rooftop Farm’s education staff, working with Growing Chefs’ curriculum, hosts a range of workshops for children and adults. Topics include growing food in New York City, seed-saving, the art of cooking locally, city composting, the benefits of green roofs, beekeeping, and guest lecturers.
FACT SHEET:
Location:
44 Eagle Street
Brooklyn NY 11222
Core Programs:
-Community Supported Agriculture program (CSA)
-Community Outreach/Education (urban farming education, Growing Chefs workshops)
-Farmers’ Markets
-Apprenticeship Program
Number of staff: 4
Areas served: Brooklyn
Year Started: 2009
Director, Manager or CEO: Annie Novak
Contact Information: info@Rooftopfarms.org
Owned by Broadway Stages and built by Goode Green, the farm was made possible by the generous support of Gina Argento and family. Learn more about Broadway Stages’ green work in Greenpoint here!
Tags: Eagle Street Rooftop Farm Farmers markets Garden Education Organic Farming Rooftop Farm Urban agriculture
Gabrielle Khalife
Hydroponic Organic Produce: Year One
By Lee Allen| October 10, 2018
The final ruling to confirm hydroponic produce is eligibile to apply for organic certification took nearly 15 years.
We’re approaching the first anniversary of last year’s National Organics Standard Board (NOSB)/USDA clarification that cleared up any confusion about whether hydroponically grown produce is eligible for organic certification. It is.
The decision was not made lightly, nor in haste. The final ruling took nearly 15 years and, like the ongoing Hatfield and McCoy feud, verbal shots are still firing from both sides.
Technically, certifying hydroponic production has been allowed since 2002.
“At the Fall 2017 meeting, the NOSB reaffirmed certification for that system,” says a USDA spokesperson.
Actually, in 2010, NOSB recommended against allowing organic certification, writing, “Growing media shall contain sufficient organic matter capable of supporting natural and diverse soil ecology. For this reason, hydroponic and aeroponic systems are prohibited.”
The National Organic Program (NOP), however, determines what is allowed and what is not allowed. It ruled against NOSB’s recommendation.
With the 2017 decision, both bodies are finally in alignment.
Shortly after the decision, protests popped up around the country. The counterview was captured in a National Public Radio report.
“When the founding principles of organic go to soil health and regeneration rather than simply feeding plants nutrients, it goes to the foundation of what organic farming means.”
The Massachusetts chapter of Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) and the National Organic Coalition are advocating for the NOP to halt certifying hydroponic producers until what the groups term, “more clear guidelines for what constitutes organic hydroponics are issued.”
So while the decision is made, some are hoping an appeal will overturn it.
Future Sales Likely to Attract More Organic Growers
We can complain till the cows come home. Now the central question is: Will the ruling have a transformative impact on the organic vegetable industry? Or will it ultimately be labeled as ‘no big deal’?
The number of certified organic hydroponic operations is still limited. Exact numbers are difficult to come by at this point, but the number is likely in the low two digits. Certification takes time and is infamous for its reams of paperwork. Numbers are likely to increase sharply over the next two to three years.
Organic food sales in the U.S. already post ongoing and off-the-chart revenue increases — from about $3 billion in 1997 to nearing the $50 billion mark in 2017. It’s a four-decade jump that represents a bit over 5% of total food sales in America.
“Consumers love organic. And while the market will see a steadier growth pace as it matures, it will continue to surpass the growth rate of the broader food market,” writes Laura Batcha, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association, in her assessment of Nutrition Business Journal’s 2018 Organic Industry Survey.
That January 2018 Organic Industry Survey showed produce (with fresh produce accounting for 90% of the demonstrated rise) topping the 2017 category at $16.5 billion in sales, a 5.3% growth.
Global Players Will Play Major Role
The U.S. is late in joining the hydroponic and aquaponic game. Greenhouse vegetables are much more common in some countries, including Europe, Canada, and Mexico.
The global hydroponic vegetable market will likely double by 2025, a study by Transparency Market Research shows. It predicts lettuce will be the biggest winner, with a 33% share of the hydroponics market.
The 2017 International Trade Statistics Map (ITSM) shows the value of vegetables imported into the U.S. that year was $73.9 million, with the preponderance coming from North American Free Trade Association partners Mexico ($10 million) and Canada ($6 million).
“Europe is anticipated to dominate the global hydroponic vegetables market with a 41% share overall by the end of 2025,” ITSM writes.
Interestingly enough, two dozen European countries, as well as Mexico, Canada, and Japan, prohibit the selling of hydroponic vegetables as ‘organic,’ meaning that producers there frequently grow for an American market.
A European Parliament-approved resolution will prohibit importing hydroponically produced organic food from non-EU (European Union) nations beginning
January 2021. In essence, U.S. growers will no longer be able to ship hydroponically grown and organically certified food to the EU for sale as organic.
Industry Reactions
When you talk with growers and others invested in the hydroponics ruling, opinions vary on how important the ruling will ultimately be.
Arizona organic growers Wholesum Harvest and California’s Driscoll berries are the two big domestic names in the industry, and both say they are already delivering what consumers expect in an organic label — produce raised affordably, year-round, and without synthetic pesticides.
Theo Crisantes, Chief Operations Officer of Wholesum Harvest, USDA organically certified for the last 30 years, says he hasn’t seen any major shift in the organic vegetable industry as a result of the ruling.
“The status quo was maintained,” he says, “although it did spark some interest from different growers beyond the vegetable industry into a broader spectrum, like the berry industry. But we haven’t seen a real rush from other growers to join the industry because it takes both knowledge about how to grow as well as requiring a heavy capital investment.”
Because of the peak growing season at press time, Driscoll’s, an organic berry grower in 21 countries and a fourth-generation family business that controls roughly a third of the $6 billion U.S. berry market, wasn’t available for comment.
Agricultural/Biosystems Engineer Dr. Stacy Tollefson, University of Arizona’s Controlled Environment Agriculture Center, was part of the NOSB taskforce that made the recommendation to reclassify.
“I haven’t seen any real impact on the organic hydroponic industry since the certification confirmation decision was made,” she says. “It’s basically been business as usual, but with the knowledge that the threat no longer exists of losing that certification.
“I do think a lot of hydro growers who were starting to grow for the organic market slowed down production or put research and expansion on hold, and some new growers thinking of going that route might have held back because they didn’t know how the decision would go. But now they can call their product ‘organic.’ I think this will solidify their expansion plans.”
Francis Thicke, another NOSB member, farms in Iowa and has a different take on the matter. He is also a member of the Organic Farmers Association.
“The official allowance of organic certification of hydroponic production is having, and will continue to have, a big effect on organic vegetable production,” Thicke says.
“Although not labeled as hydroponic, some estimates are that about half of the certified organic tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers are already hydroponically grown, with many growers wanting to begin or expand organic hydroponic production. With the USDA green light, I expect that soon most of the organic tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers on the grocery store shelf will be hydroponically grown.”
Dirty Feed, Done Dirt Cheap: Are Consumers Who Shell Out for Organic Meat Eating a Bunch of Bull?
By Brian Barth on August 9, 2018
Illustration by Brian Stauffer
America imports staggering amounts of organic grain from abroad—which allows for sleight of hand during shipping and opens the door to tainted feed. Are consumers who shell out for organic meat eating a bunch of bull?
Many Americans assume that anything labeled “USDA Organic” hails from the USA. And for produce, at least, the assumption typically holds true, with the exception of obvious imports like mangoes or coffee beans or tomatoes in January. But the farther an item is removed from the soil, the greater the possibility it harbors ingredients farmed abroad. One needn’t reach the tail end of the supply chain, where the frozen breakfast burritos dwell, to find foreign inputs. Just consider the steak in your butcher’s case. A cow must jump through multiple hoops before earning USDA certification. While the animal may have grazed on chemical-free Iowa pasture all summer, what did it eat during the off-season and where were the feed’s ingredients grown?
Chances are, not here. Although the United States remains the world’s largest exporter of conventional grain, we now import a hefty chunk of the organic stuff. Roughly 70 percent of our organic soybean supply, and some 40 percent of the organic corn consumed domestically, originates overseas. Between 2013 and 2016 alone, the amount America spent on imported organic soy leapt from $110 million to $250 million, and on imported organic corn from $36 million to $160 million. As a result, the bottom fell out of the U.S. market: Prices for organic soy plummeted from $26 to $18 per bushel, and organic corn from $14 to $7.50 a bushel—less than what it costs most American farmers to produce the crops.
A number of these growers found the sudden spike in imports suspicious. Beyond questions regarding food security and food miles, the glut of foreign grain raised regulatory concerns, especially given the three-year transition period required for organic certification. How could the USDA possibly enforce its strict standards on a rapidly expanding global playing field?
“I knew something was up,” says John Bobbe, executive director of OFARM, a marketing co-op that represents several hundred organic grain growers across 19 states. In May 2016, Bobbe needed to move corn from Illinois farms to an Indiana feed mill, and had a tough time finding anybody to haul the load. Turns out, a much bigger gig was drawing Midwestern truckers: A cargo ship called the Federal Nakagawa had just docked in Burns Harbor, Indiana, with 25 million pounds of feed corn in its hold. “That’s as much as 50 of our farms produce in a year,” explains Bobbe, who doubted the corn was organic when he discovered its country of origin.
Turkey lacks the flat, fertile plains needed to support export-scale corn and soy production. The politically volatile nation also has a history of attempting to export fraudulent organic goods to the European Union, according to a 2016 report from the USDA’s own Foreign Agricultural Service. Yet, that year, we imported $118 million worth of organic corn from Turkey, more than twice the amount the United States purchased from all other countries combined. The amount we spent on organic Turkish soybeans rose 268-fold between 2013 and 2016.
Bobbe soon heard of other ships delivering purportedly organic grain from Turkey to our ports. In September 2016, he turned over the names of the vessels, and one particularly suspicious importer, to the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), which is charged with ensuring the integrity of the organic seal. “The NOP told me it was too late to investigate,” he says. “I think it was more like, ‘We don’t want to bother.’”
Then, in February of last year, Peter Whoriskey, a reporter at The Washington Post, got in touch. Plying industry informants and Freedom of Information Act requests, Whoriskey managed to unearth shipping documents and other paperwork that laid bare a lucrative laundering scheme. His May 2017 article detailed three shipments of conventional grain that magically turned “organic” as they crossed the sea. All three came through Turkey, but at least two originated in other countries. “Lo and behold, the NOP started looking into it,” recalls Bobbe.
So just how, exactly, does the USDA go about certifying crops grown overseas? In the case of some countries (Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Korea, and the 28 European Union nations), the agency basically takes their word for it, via “equivalency arrangements” that acknowledge a foreign government’s organic standards as equivalent to ours. America has also signed “recognition agreements” with Israel, India, and New Zealand, recognizing certifiers accredited by those governments. Everywhere else, a USDA-accredited certifier must perform the inspection.
You might be surprised to learn that, of the 80 third-party, organic-certification agencies accredited by the USDA, 32 are based in foreign countries. Bobbe believes that’s part of the problem. “There is no way the NOP has the manpower to monitor them,” he insists, pointing out that only six or so auditors, none stationed abroad, are tasked with overseeing all the paperwork submitted by organic certifiers worldwide. He also faults the NOP for failing to inspect inbound cargo. U.S. Customs and Border Protection might, but those agents aren’t trained to scrutinize organic-certification documents. “Your chances of getting caught with a shipload of fake organic grain are next to nil,” Bobbe says. And should you get caught, the maximum fine per violation is $11,000—not much of a deterrent when millions can be made off a single shipment of fake organic corn.
Kelly Damewood, director of policy and government affairs at one of the largest certification agencies in this country, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), agrees that the NOP needs more funding, though she warns against overstating the lapses. “In the rare cases of fraud, it can often be traced back to an uncertified handler,” says Damewood. “Technically, if you are not repacking it, processing it, relabeling it, or turning it into anything else—if you are just a pass-through entity—then you are not required to have certification.” Last September, CCOF started requiring the companies it certifies to complete a new form, verifying that every handler is complying with organic standards.
That same month, following a strongly worded directive from the USDA Office of Inspector General, the NOP issued new guidelines for certifiers aimed at closing loopholes along the supply chain. The agency also stopped a freighter named the Diana Bolten as it arrived in Bellingham, Washington, loaded with “organic” corn for the same importer associated with the Federal Nakagawa. Sources with knowledge of the incident told Bobbe that a portion of the shipment was rejected by the USDA as fraudulent. The USDA declined Modern Farmer’s request for comment on the matter.
Another sign of progress: Last September, Representatives John Faso (R-NY) and Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) introduced the Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act, which would authorize $5 million for the NOP to upgrade its enforcement systems and technologies, and mandate ongoing budget increases at a rate that matches the growth of the organic sector. The bill has garnered broad bipartisan support, with a mix of co-sponsors from both parties, including celebrated food-movement champions like Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME).
“This is the system working more or less as it’s supposed to,” says Mark Lipson, a former organic and sustainable agriculture policy advisor at the USDA. Lipson worries that extrapolating a few specific, if glaring, fraudulent incidents into a systemic indictment of the NOP risks undermining public confidence in the organic label—and would be unjustified. “The Washington Post report demonstrated that the enforcement structure needed to catch up with the growth in the market, but the National Organic Program still works better than a lot of other regulatory divisions,” says Lipson.
Bobbe isn’t so sure. While the amount of certified organic grain flowing in from Turkey has decreased since 2016, to approximately $80 million apiece for soy and corn last year, his network of farmers continues to suffer. One of them, Bob Stuczynski of Amherst, Wisconsin, says, “Organic farmers in America can hardly move their corn unless they want to fire-sale it.” Stuczynski estimates that he’s lost tens of thousands of dollars in revenue over the past couple years. And an OFARM analysis found that imported organic grain cost U.S. farmers a total of $300 million to $400 million from 2015 through 2017.
Bobbe recently attended a conference convened by the European Organic Certifiers Council and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements in Odessa, Ukraine, across the Black Sea from Turkey—an apropos location. Some of Bobbe’s E.U. counterparts are convinced the Turkish mafia is barging in conventional corn from Ukraine and other Black Sea countries, then shipping it out as organic to Europe and North America. “It’s an international crime syndicate,” he says.
A final piece of the puzzle has even more of a conspiracy-theory ring to it. The nations surrounding the Black Sea, like Kazakhstan and Armenia, generally do not produce corn and soybeans on a significant scale. But there is one giant exception, and its grain exports are booming of late. “Russia!” says Bobbe, his voice dropping to a whisper. “It’s the elephant in the room.”
