Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
The Quality Standards for Hydroponic Lettuce
While hydroponic crops have a lot of external benefits like water savings and food safety, those benefits are not shown when a hydroponic butterhead is graded
By Tyler Baras
Living Butterhead Lettuce in Retail Clamshell
“Voluntary U.S. grade standards are issued under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, which provides for the development of official U.S. grades to designate different levels of quality. These grade standards are available for use by producers, suppliers, buyers, and consumers. As in the case of other standards for grades of fresh and processed fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops these standards are designed to facilitate orderly marketing by providing a convenient basis for buying and selling, for establishing quality control programs, and for determining loan values.” (From the United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Leaf Lettuce)
Voluntary USDA grade standards designate different levels of quality in agricultural products. The USDA has official standards used to grade a lot of different crops including leafy greens like Greenhouse Leaf Lettuce, Field Grown Leaf Lettuce, Kale, Beet Greens, Collard Greens, Dandelion Greens and Mustard Greens. The standards for butterhead lettuce currently fall under the same standards used for Iceberg lettuce. Although the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lettuce do acknowledge the significant differences between the two types of lettuce, they are still grouped under the same standards. And there is no mention of living lettuce in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lettuce, while living lettuce is one of the primary crops grown by hydroponic leafy greens growers. If the hydroponic lettuce industry is to grow beyond the premium product niche and enter the ‘real world’ of lettuce production, it would be helpful if hydroponic growers decided upon grading standards appropriate for hydroponically grown lettuce.
When hydroponic lettuce growers try to compete against field growers they almost never win in the battle for price per pound. Field growers can sell heads of lettuce wholesale under $0.75. Large hydroponic lettuce growers (3+ acres) can get their price per head close to $0.90. Field lettuce is generally packed in a 24 count box that will weigh 50+ pounds. The heads are easily 1 to 2 pounds. Hydroponic lettuce is often packed in a 6 or 12 count box and the heads rarely weigh over 10 ounces (0.625 pounds).
While hydroponic crops have a lot of external benefits like water savings and food safety, those benefits are not shown when a hydroponic butterhead is graded with the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lettuce. To preserve the narrative around hydroponic lettuce, it may be necessary to have USDA grading standards specifically for hydroponic lettuce so the crop does not lose some of its value when it enters the larger lettuce market that puts it ‘head-to-head’ with field grown crops.
USDA grade standards are helpful in international trade. The U.S. has one of the biggest lettuce importers on the northern border… Canada! (See Stats). Currently most hydroponic lettuce growers sell to local markets or if they are one of the larger hydroponic lettuce growers they might sell to a grocery store chain or produce broker that distributes their product in multiple states. I have seen living butterhead lettuce from Canada in the U.S. but I’m not aware of any U.S. hydroponic leafy greens growers shipping internationally. I would think that the increased shelf-life of living lettuce would be an advantage in international trade since lettuce is highly perishable.
The Standards for Butterhead Lettuce Quality
What should a USDA Grade A butterhead lettuce look like? How big should it be?
I’ve seen a wide range of targets from growers across the US and internationally. The majority of US hydroponic butterhead growers target a head that is between 5 oz. and 8 oz. (with roots attached). Many aquaponic and indoor vertical farms sell heads closer to 5 ounces. Many of the larger hydroponic lettuce growers (1+ acre greenhouses) target heads between 6-8 ounces. I’ve seen some greenhouse lettuce growers target 10 ounce heads. In Europe, it is common to see butterhead lettuce over 1 pound. In Japan, it is common to see living lettuce sold at less than 5 ounces. The market standards for hydroponic butterhead lettuce minimum weight vary but generally the bottom line is the head should not bobble around when packaged in a clamshell. Most living lettuce labels do not even state a minimum weight, instead the label might have “1 Count” or “1 Head”. Beyond weight there’s the more qualitative traits like leaf texture, leaf color and head formation. Check out these unofficial visual aids provided by the USDA to help grade romaine and lettuce. What would a visual aid for hydroponic butterhead lettuce look like?
Here are some of my favorite butterhead lettuces I’ve grown over the years, which do you think looks most like a ‘standard’ butterhead?
This article is property of Urban Ag News and was written in cooperation with Tyler Baras.
Why Is Trump Slashing The USDA’s Independent Research Arm? Look At Its Findings
The Economic Research Service has undercut Trump's claims about food stamps, farming, and the environment. Now, it's about to get booted from Capitol Hill.
August 20th, 2018
by Sam Bloch
Last Tuesday, staffers at the Economic Research Service (ERS), the research arm of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), were called to a town hall meeting, where departmental leadership gave further details on what had been announced the week prior: The office was losing its independent status in the agriculture department, and being moved under the Office of the Chief Economist. It would also be moved out of Washington, D.C., likely to a Midwest location, by the end of next year.
The announcement of the move, which is expected to lead to mass buyouts and early retirements, took many in the agency by surprise. Indeed, ERS economists I contacted said veteran staffers intend to stay in Washington and find employment elsewhere, rather than move outside the Beltway.
“We’re finding out about this just as you are,” Howard Elitzak, a food markets economist, said when I reached him by phone. He declined to comment further, calling the move a “tenuous” situation.
What does ERS do, exactly? The agency of approximately 300 employees conducts a broad range of research on the American agricultural economy, issuing monthly commodity forecasts and trend reports on global trade, rural economics, food insecurity, and the changing face of family farms, among others. The agency’s releases are fundamental for policymaking, used by members of Congress and the office of the agriculture secretary, and a go-to source for reporters like me.
Photographed above is a USDA building in Washington, D.C. Engraved on it are the words: “Dedicated to the service of agriculture for the public welfare.”
In his announcement, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue described the agency move, one that also includes the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)—the agency responsible for allocating research funding at land-grant universities—as a cost-saving measure. Indeed, President Trump’s last budget called for a 50-percent slash in funding for ERS. This follows a year of significant reorganizations in the agriculture department, and a culling of thousands of employees—more than in any other federal department.
Some observers say what’s happening to ERS is no ordinary belt-tightening. Since 1994, when ERS was first separated from the Office of the Chief Economist, the agency’s research has been seen as independent, objective, and crucially non-political within the agriculture department. Returning it to the chief economist’s office could potentially dissolve the “firewall” between the scientific and political arms of the department. Joseph Glauber, a former chief economist, disputes that assessment, telling Government Executive that the office is “objective.”
Others, including current ERS economists, see the move out of D.C., and the shrinking size, as consistent with actions of an administration that has been notoriously hostile toward scientific and research findings. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that an administration led by a president who’s been known to revoke security clearances from officials who’ve been critical of him, would also be happy to move a government office that puts out research that isn’t totally aligned with White House messaging—or policymaking—a little out of its way.
Contrary to what President Trump likes to say, the ERS hasn’t found that trade deals are killing farmers.
“ERS researchers cannot see a justification for the move,” says an ERS economist who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. “ERS’s purpose is to provide research integrity, statistical analysis, and valuable information for policymakers in the capitol. Can moving to the Midwest justify our purpose, from that perspective?”
Put another way: “There are 16 agencies at USDA. Why these two? And they’re both science- and statistics-based?” Ann Bartuska, a former acting undersecretary for research, education, and economics at USDA, told Politico.
Take, for example, what ERS has found about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). Farm bill negotiations ahead of the vote, which is expected at the end of September, have been held hostage over Republican efforts to push for stricter work requirements. Leaders have publically said—as has the president—that SNAP use is out of control, and as an anti-poverty program it’s failing because the number of Americans who rely on it is higher than ever.
Republican messaging is flatly contested by ERS. In a recent, peer-reviewed report—ERS studies are all peer-reviewed—researchers found that participation and federal spending on the program have dropped every year since 2013. Last year, those rates fell by 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively. (As of early August, participation sat around 41 million—more than a million fewer participants than the program had in 2017.)
ERS findings are also not in line with the Trump administration when it comes to issues surrounding the environment.
Contrary to what President Trump likes to say, the agency hasn’t found that trade deals are killing farmers. Years of agency reports, including one released in February of this year, have found that increased trade benefits American farmers. Nor has the agency found that “our farmers have been hurt for 15 and 20 years”—roughly as long as we’ve been selling soybeans to China. In fact, ERS analysis found that net farm income was on an upward trend from 2000, until hitting a peak in 2013. Meanwhile, farmers’ overall income, which includes off-farm earnings, has actually been rising since 2016.
The administration has also been hostile toward science and research that has proven climate change is real and affecting our weather patterns—among other things. A 2015 ERS report found that greater incidences of extreme weather and increased variability wreak havoc on farm production. By 2020, ERS predicts, production of corn, oats, and soybeans will have decreased by more than 8 percent due to changes in precipitation and added concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The higher crop prices that will result won’t offset lost revenue from lower yields, the agency found. (ERS has also found that heat stress from climate change could lower dairy productivity.)
And here’s another thing: The Trump administration, and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, have attempted to roll back the Clean Water Act, and loosen restrictions on pollutants, like nitrogen, that enter waterways through soil runoff. But ERS research finds that cleaning those messes has been costly. Over the last two decades, the agency found, the agriculture department has spent $4.2 billion restoring and protecting wetlands, with the costs of removing nitrogen running up to $6,100 an acre in the Corn Belt. Hard to imagine that with looser restrictions we’ll end up spending less on clean up.
Then there’s crop insurance—a program that, among other conditions, allows grain farmers to receive government payments if their crop value falls below a set price. The president has promised farmers he’d make it work for them, and told Republican Congressman Mike Conaway, chairman of the House agriculture committee, to make it better and make it great.
“We’re finding out about this just as you are.”
But ERS research has found that crop insurance, while perhaps a useful safety net, doesn’t do much for growth: Farmers reported a 1-percent gain in grain acreage during years of increased participation. That finding, and other ERS research, was cited in a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of crop insurance, released late last year, that found the program was bloated, and costing billions of dollars that could be trimmed without a major loss in covered acreage. (During farm bill negotiations, an amendment to limit subsidies for high-earning policyholders, co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, was withheld from the Senate floor.)
That’s not to say that ERS research always conflicts with White House stances. In fact, ERS analysis of the Republican tax cuts, which was released last month, did find tax savings for the majority of farms of all sizes. At the Farm Bureau convention in January, Trump told the audience, basking in the afterglow of his successful push for tax reform, that “from now on, most family farms and small business will be spared—and it really is the word punishment—of the deeply unfair estate tax known as the death tax.”
That’s true, according to ERS: Trump’s tax reform will spare 99.89 percent of family farms from a tax liability. Of course, what he failed to mention was that his prognostication was, at the time, already a matter of fact—and that taxes under President Obama spared 99.14 percent.
Sam Bloch has written about arts, culture, and real estate for publications including L.A. Weekly, Artnet and Commercial Observer, and served as managing editor of Art Los Angeles Reader. His essay about Los Angeles' "shade deserts" will be published by Places Journal in 2018.
Reach him by email at: samuel.bloch@newfoodeconomy.org
Vertical Farming For The Future
Posted by Sarah Federman, AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Office of the Chief Scientist and Paul M. Zankowski, Senior Advisor for Plant Health and Production and Plant Products, Office of the Chief Scientist in Research and Science
Aug 14, 2018
Indoor and vertical farming may be part of the solution to rising demands for food and limited natural resources. Photo credit: Oasis Biotech
Imagine walking into your local grocery store on a frigid January day to pick up freshly harvested lettuce, fragrant basil, juicy sweet strawberries, and ripe red tomatoes – all of which were harvested at a local farm only hours before you’d arrived. You might be imagining buying that fresh produce from vertical farms where farmers can grow indoors year-round by controlling light, temperature, water, and oftentimes carbon dioxide levels as well. Generally, fresh produce grown in vertical farms travels only a few miles to reach grocery store shelves compared to conventional produce, which can travel thousands of miles by truck or plane.
Beyond providing fresh local produce, vertical agriculture could help increase food production and expand agricultural operations as the world’s population is projected to exceed 9 billion by 2050. And by that same year, two out of every three people are expected to live in urban areas. Producing fresh greens and vegetables close to these growing urban populations could help meet growing global food demands in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way by reducing distribution chains to offer lower emissions, providing higher-nutrient produce, and drastically reducing water usage and runoff.
Recently, USDA and the Department of Energy held a stakeholder workshop focused on vertical agriculture and sustainable urban ecosystems. At this workshop, field experts shared thought-provoking presentations followed by small group discussions focusing on areas such as plant breeding, pest management, and engineering. Workshop attendees from public and private sectors worked together to identify the challenges, needs, and opportunities for vertical farming. A report on this workshop will be released to help inform Departmental strategic planning efforts for internal research priorities at USDA and external funding opportunities for stakeholders and researchers.
We’re excited about the potential opportunities vertical agriculture presents to address food security. That’s why USDA already has some of these funding and research opportunities in place. The National Institute for Food and Agriculture has funding opportunities (PDF, 1.22 MB) that could support future vertical agriculture conferences and research.
Similarly, the Agricultural Research Service is working on a project to increase U.S. tomato production and quality in greenhouses and other protected environments.
We look forward to continuing our partnership with our customers, both internal and external.
Category/Topic: Research and Science
Tags: Office of the Chief Scientist National Institute of Food and Agriculture NIFA Agricultural Research ServiceARS Department of Energy vertical farming
Real Organic Project Seeks Add-On Label To USDA Organic Seal
July 17, 2018
For some growers, organic certification alone just isn’t good enough anymore.
The East Thetford, Vt.-based Real Organic Project wants an “add-on” label to the U.S. Department of Agriculture organic certification.
The project, a coalition of organic farmers and advocates, objects to USDA’s National Organic Program rules that permit hydroponics and concentrated animal feeding operations to be certified as organic, according to a news release.
The group said its proposed add-on label, which requires adherence to standards above and beyond USDA organic certification, would only be available to agricultural products that have already been certified organic by the USDA.
The Real Organic Project in July announced the launch of its pilot farm inspection program.
The release said the program aims to implement new standards that will provide consumer transparency by “distinguishing organic farms that grow their crops in the ground, foster soil fertility and adequately pasture livestock according to foundational organic standards and principles.”
The Real Organic Project add-on label to USDA organic certification, expected by spring 2019, will increase transparency under the organic seal by allowing consumers to trace retail products back to the farm, according to the release.
The inspection process includes a video interview of the farmers on their land explaining their organic production practices, the group said.
Real Organic Project associate director and Colorado farmer Linley Dixon is leading the pilot project effort, according to the release. For the past five years, she has been the senior scientist at the Cornucopia Institute.
Taking control
Controversy on the question of whether soil is essential to grow organic produce has been bubbling for years.
By a vote of 8 to 7, the USDA National Organic Standards Board on Nov. 1 rejected proposals to make hydroponic and aquaponic production methods prohibited under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program.
“Clearly the industrial egg operations became so powerful that they had significant political influence,” Dixon said in the release.
“We tried to keep the same thing from happening in other sectors of organic, especially tomato and berry production, but we lost that battle at the USDA last fall,” she said.
“Now we are taking matters into our own hands because we know it is what the consumer wants and expects when they choose organic.”
The add-on label will give farmers a way of communicating practices to “consumers who care,” the group said.
Sharing information with consumers and the trade in a positive manner is fair, said Lee Frankel, executive director for the Coalition for Sustainable Organics, a group that has defended USDA certification of hydroponic operations.
“The fear is that people resort to disparaging their competition and claiming that somehow they don’t meet the USDA organic standard,” he said.
“At this point, it looks like the Real Organic Project is trying to tell what they perceive as positive aspects about how they how they grow and how they operate.”
The release said the Real Organic Project will be managing a pilot program this year certifying a limited number of farms.
Real Organic board member Lisa Stokke, executive director of Next7.org, said July 16 that 41 farms from California to the Northeast have signed up for the pilot project so far this year.
The group said the “vast majority” of certified organic farms in the U.S. will easily meet these new “standards,” and the release said the provisional standards will be open for public comment this fall.
Stokke said that the movement is farmer-led, and there hasn’t been a lot of interaction with retailers yet. However, she believes the add-on label will appeal to retailers if consumers want it.
“I think it’s going to be about consumer demand,” she said. “As consumers begin to request this I would imagine retailers would also be on board.”
The pilot program will test the certification process in preparation for the label going public in 2019, according to the release.
In May, the group released what they called their provisional standards for the add-on label.
The standards are available at the group’s website.
USDA Slams EU’s Decision On Regulating Gene-Edited Products
July 30, 2018
These non-browning mushrooms, which were gene-edited, need no special approval by the USDA in the United States, but if they were sent to European Union countries, they'd face the same regulations as GMOs. ( File photo )
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is calling out a recent ruling in the European Union that puts products from new “gene editing” methods such as CRISPR in the same category of all techniques for genetically modified organisms.
In doing so, newer “mutagenesis” methods that introduce no foreign DNA into a new product will face the same regulatory barriers in European Union countries as GMOs.
“Government policies should encourage scientific innovation without creating unnecessary barriers or unjustifiably stigmatizing new technologies,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in the release. “Unfortunately, this week’s (European Court of Justice) ruling is a setback in this regard in that it narrowly considers newer genome editing methods to be within the scope of the European Union’s regressive and outdated regulations governing genetically modified organisms.”
The USDA must approve of GMOs, such as the Arctic apple varieties available for sale in the U.S.
Fruit and vegetable products are rare with the new gene-edited methods. A CRISPR — clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats — white button mushroom from Pennsylvania State University was engineered to resist browning by researchers deleting genes.
That mushroom was the first CRISPR product considered by the USDA for regulation. The USDA said it would not have to meet the agency’s approval in April 2016, but has not been brought to market yet.
According to the USDA, innovations in precision biotechnology “hold great promise.”
“The global regulatory treatment of genome-edited agricultural products has strategic innovation and trade implications for U.S. agriculture,” Perdue said in the release. “For this reason, USDA has clear science- and risk-based policies that enable needed innovation while continuing to ensure these products are safe. In light of the ECJ ruling, USDA will re-double its efforts to work with partners globally towards science- and risk-based regulatory approaches.”
The University of Florida, through a $466,000 multi-year USDA grant, is undertaking a consumer education program on genetically modified foods, in particular, the difference between CRISPR/other gene-editing methods and transgenic breeding methods, where the foreign genetic material is introduced into an organism.
“This ruling is short-sighted and will affect investment in breeding innovation,” said Brandon McFadden, former University of Florida professor who was working on the project. “The ruling seeks to apply the precautionary principle to breeding techniques, which if applied to all production inputs would result in producers still using walking plows.
“Moreover, this ruling will impact both conventional and organic producers because it is not limited to gene-edited crops. Mutagenesis is also now considered a GMO,” said McFadden, who joins the University of Delaware as a professor Aug. 1.
Related Topics: Produce Tech USDA Europe
Real Organic Project Seeks Add-On Label To USDA Organic Seal
Real Organic Project Seeks Add-On Label To USDA Organic Seal
July 17, 2018
For some growers, organic certification alone just isn’t good enough anymore.
The East Thetford, Vt.-based Real Organic Project wants an “add-on” label to the U.S. Department of Agriculture organic certification.
The project, a coalition of organic farmers and advocates, objects to USDA’s National Organic Program rules that permit hydroponics and concentrated animal feeding operations to be certified as organic, according to a news release.
The group said its proposed add-on label, which requires adherence to standards above and beyond USDA organic certification, would only be available to agricultural products that have already been certified organic by the USDA.
The Real Organic Project in July announced the launch of its pilot farm inspection program.
The release said the program aims to implement new standards that will provide consumer transparency by “distinguishing organic farms that grow their crops in the ground, foster soil fertility and adequately pasture livestock according to foundational organic standards and principles.”
The Real Organic Project add-on label to USDA organic certification, expected by spring 2019, will increase transparency under the organic seal by allowing consumers to trace retail products back to the farm, according to the release.
The inspection process includes a video interview of the farmers on their land explaining their organic production practices, the group said.
Real Organic Project associate director and Colorado farmer Linley Dixon is leading the pilot project effort, according to the release. For the past five years, she has been the senior scientist at the Cornucopia Institute.
Taking control
Controversy on the question of whether the soil is essential to growing organic produce has been bubbling for years.
By a vote of 8 to 7, the USDA National Organic Standards Board on Nov. 1 rejected proposals to make hydroponic and aquaponic production methods prohibited under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program.
“Clearly the industrial egg operations became so powerful that they had significant political influence,” Dixon said in the release.
“We tried to keep the same thing from happening in other sectors of organic, especially tomato and berry production, but we lost that battle at the USDA last fall,” she said.
“Now we are taking matters into our own hands because we know it is what the consumer wants and expects when they choose organic.”
The add-on label will give farmers a way of communicating practices to “consumers who care,” the group said.
Sharing information with consumers and the trade in a positive manner is fair, said Lee Frankel, executive director for the Coalition for Sustainable Organics, a group that has defended USDA certification of hydroponic operations.
“The fear is that people resort to disparaging their competition and claiming that somehow they don’t meet the USDA organic standard,” he said.
“At this point, it looks like the Real Organic Project is trying to tell what they perceive as positive aspects about how they how they grow and how they operate.”
The release said the Real Organic Project will be managing a pilot program this year certifying a limited number of farms.
Real Organic board member Lisa Stokke, executive director of Next7.org, said July 16 that 41 farms from California to the Northeast have signed up for the pilot project so far this year.
The group said the “vast majority” of certified organic farms in the U.S. will easily meet these new “standards,” and the release said the provisional standards will be open for public comment this fall.
Stokke said that the movement is farmer-led, and there hasn’t been a lot of interaction with retailers yet. However, she believes the add-on label will appeal to retailers if consumers want it.
“I think it’s going to be about consumer demand,” she said. “As consumers begin to request this I would imagine retailers would also be on board.”
The pilot program will test the certification process in preparation for the label going public in 2019, according to the release.
In May, the group released what they called their provisional standards for the add-on label.
The standards are available at the group’s website.
USDA Names Jennifer Tucker Deputy Administrator For The National Organic Program
USDA Names Jennifer Tucker Deputy Administrator For The National Organic Program
The Coalition of Sustainable Organics congratulates Dr. Jennifer Tucker on being selected to lead the USDA National Organic Program. Dr. Tucker has worked to enhance fraud prevention, detection and prosecution in addition to being open and transparent with the industry.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the appointment of Dr. Jennifer Tucker as Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP), part of the Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area.
“Dr. Tucker’s work to strengthen enforcement and improve customer service has already earned her the respect and trust of the program’s many diverse stakeholders,” said AMS Administrator Bruce Summers. “Under her leadership as Deputy Administrator, I am confident that this trusted program will continue to meet the evolving needs of farmers, businesses and American consumers in this rapidly growing agricultural sector.”
Dr. Tucker has served as Associate Deputy Administrator of the National Organic Program since 2011. Before joining USDA, she served as a group facilitator and organization development consultant, working primarily with scientific and technical government and non-profit organizations. She earned a B.A. in Environmental Science from Wesleyan University, an M.S. in Management from Purdue University, and a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies from Virginia Tech.
Based on her experience within the National Organic Program and her prior work, she has an excellent aptitude to facilitate constructive dialogue with the various viewpoints within the organic community as the head of the NOP. In addition, she has a strong understanding of the organic laws and regulations that should help the NOP and the industry focus their efforts on areas where positive change can be achieved.
NOP is a regulatory program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service that develops and enforces national standards for organically-produced agricultural products. These standards assure consumers that products with the USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards for production and distribution. The growth and continuing demand for organic products can be attributed to the strength of the organic standards and trust in the organic industry and seal. Organic products are now found in the majority of U.S. households with Americans spending nearly $50 billion in organic purchases annually. In 2017, certified organic operations grew seven percent in the United States (26,400 operations) and 11-percent across the globe (41,000 operations).
5 Reasons Getting USDA Organic Certification Is Really Difficult
5 Reasons Getting USDA Organic Certification Is Really Difficult
By Modern Farmer on May 24, 2018
The National Organic Program is a complicated operation. And unless you've been through the process, it's tough to imagine exactly how difficult it is to get—and stay—certified.
As the only government-administered label that addresses farming practices, the organic emblem is vitally important. There literally is no other badge that carries as much weight. USDA certified organic-food sales topped $43 billion in 2016—emphasis on “USDA certified.” Ask around at your local farmers market and you’re likely to run into a few “all-but-certified” farms (for which there are no statistics). The reason? Organic certification is incredibly difficult. Here’s why.
1. Transitioning takes three years.
If you have a conventional farm and you want to convert to organic, you’re in for a lengthy waiting period. The National Organic Program requires three full years—36 months—of organic operations before a formerly conventional farm can call itself organic. That means for three years, that farm will be obeying all organic regulations, paying applicable fees (see below), and yet unable to use the organic label—or charge the premium price that organic foods bring. After a year, you can label your goods as “transitional,” and the USDA is working on a better way to advertise this system, but at the moment, that waiting period likely means a farm is operating at a loss.
2. Certification isn’t free.
You might think that a farmer wishing to do the right thing by operating within sustainable guidelines would not have to pay for the privilege. You’d be wrong. The average cost of certification—which requires visits from a USDA or USDA-accredited certification agent, extensive paperwork, and more—estimates the National Young Farmer’s Coalition, is about $1,000 per year per farm. Some states have assistance programs for organic farms that can help reduce that number, but in the notoriously thin-margin world of farming, an annual fee can make all the difference.
3. The rules can be infuriatingly vague.
For example, The organic regulations demand a “buffer zone” between an organic farm and nearby conventional farms. How big does the buffer zone need to be? Good question! The regulations…don’t actually say. They describe what the buffer zone must do (essentially block any runoff from a conventional farm into the organic farm), but it’s left up to the individual certifier to decide whether a buffer zone is of sufficient size.
4. The paperwork can be onerous.
The USDA will inspect all organic farms once per year, and they’ll want to see extensive paperwork, often much more in-depth than conventional farms would maintain. It’s often recommended that organic farmers set-asides time for this paperwork every day, which could mean updating field notes, planting schedules, soil tests, fertility observations, projected yields, and organizing receipts.
5. Neighbors aren’t always friendly.
With organic farms at a distinct disadvantage of numbers—around 1 percent of all American farms—it’s highly likely that an organic farm will be near, if not completely surrounded, by non-organic farms. That presents all kinds of difficulties. It’s not at all uncommon for pesticide sprayed on nearby non-organic farms to drift on the wind over to an organic farm. That pesticide can damage organic farms, which can take a huge bite out of yields. Even worse, if that pesticide leaves a residue considered “too high” by the National Organic Program—usually around 5 percent of the EPA’s maximum tolerance—an organic farmer can lose his or her certification. In that case, the organic farmer might have to start that three-year transitioning program all over again.
Frustrated With Certification Process And Market Access
Frustrated With Certification Process And Market Access
US farmers are dropping organic labels
Midwestern fruit and vegetable farmers are more likely than their counterparts in other regions to give up federal organic certification, according to a Purdue University study.
Obtaining organic certification can be an expensive, year-long process that requires changing management practices and working with certifiers who determine if farms meet the government’s extensive requirements. But many farmers -who can get higher prices for organic products- think this is all worth it.
In 2017, organic food sales topped $45 billion, up 6.4 percent from 2016, according to the Organic Trade Association. Sales have more than doubled since 2010. Fruits and vegetables are the top-selling categories, making up nearly 37 percent of organic food sales.
Despite the boom in demand, the number of organic farms has declined from 14,540 in 2008 to 12,818 in 2015. Some of that is due to the consolidation of small and medium farms into larger operations. But some operations are simply leaving the organic program.
That may be because too few of the smaller organic farms are located near markets that would purchase large quantities of organic produce. Transportation to larger population centers may be less cost-effective for the small organic farms.
Organic farmers were also likely to opt out of certification if the process became too much of a hassle. “Farmers were more likely to decertify if they perceived that loss of freedom, paperwork, cost of certification, interaction with the certifier, and lack of information were barriers to remain certified. It seems that the requirements embedded in the certification process were detrimental to the decision to remain certified,” the authors of the study wrote.
Understanding the reasons why organic farmers decertify may help inform government decisions on certification rules and processes.
Publication date: 6/1/2018
Wholesum Harvest’s Take On USDA’s Organic Hydroponic Ruling
Wholesum Harvest’s Take On USDA’s Organic Hydroponic Ruling
By Lee Allen|May 16, 201
When the National Organic Standards Board (an advisory body to USDA that generally sets the standards for certification) ruled in November 2017 that hydroponic produce can gain the USDA organic seal, it roiled the organic growing industry.
Those on the purist side, who believe healthy soil is the core philosophy of organic growing, have long fought the ruling.
Hydroponic growers, who are just as passionate about the overall sustainability of the growing method, were thrilled. Their produce finally won approval for organic labeling consideration.
Read the full story about Wholesum Harvest, as well as other articles from American Vegetable Grower‘s April 2018 issue!
Oddly enough, the team at Wholesum Harvest was left unfazed. Wholesum Harvest was featured on the cover of American Vegetable Grower‘s April 2018 issue.
“The short and sweet answer is there has been no effect,” says Jessie Gunn, Marketing Vice President for Wholesum Harvest. “We’re a container production operation, growing certified organic produce with that methodology for more than 25 years. And we’re excited that science won out in the industrial debates and container production is still 100% certifiable organic.”
Wholesum Harvest has organic certification through Quality Assurance International, a USDA-accredited organic produce certifying agency.
“We grow nothing that isn’t organic — we’re 100% dedicated,” Gunn says.
Since Gunn sees organic production as primarily a scientific designation, she sides with those who fought for the ruling, not those who see growing in soil as indivisible from organic growing.
“I conceptualize organics as coming down to the bioactivity of the plant’s root system. And science is an immovable baseline to build one’s position on. I’ve read every line of the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA), and we follow it to a T, subscribing to its general intent of growing in a harmonious way, congruent with the needs of our planet and our environment.”
Allow Organic Referendum
( The Packer staff )
The U.S. Department of Agriculture pulled the plug on the proposed organic marketing board before the drama of a referendum could unfold.
In so doing, has the agency turned back the momentum of the organic movement?
A 3-month public comment period that ended in April 2017 garnered more than 14,700 comments, according to a USDA news release.
The USDA cited specific concerns expressed in those comments, which led to its decision to not pursue the program:
- A majority of organic growers in the U.S., earning less than $250,000 a year, would be exempt;
- How organic promotion would affect other commodities;
- The method of assessing imports, and tracing imported products;
- The financial burden on small producers;
- The burdens of paperwork; and
- The methodology used in voting.
Was the decision fair? Why not test the true support for the organic marketing board with a referendum?
A statement by the Organic Trade Association cast the USDA as unwilling to embrace the growth of organic agriculture. The group said the USDA’s action to terminate the rulemaking process to establish a national research and promotion program for organic “reflects a pattern of holding back forward progress on organic by USDA.”
Saying the $50 billion organic sector offers opportunities for U.S. organic farmers, “it makes no sense that the agency is continuing to take steps to cut it off at the knees.”
“This announcement comes within days of a smiley face GMO disclosure logo, which is bound to cause confusion for consumers and reveals that USDA is not being even-handed,” Laura Batcha, CEO and executive director of the Organic Trade Association, said in the release.
Batcha said the association was certain about the quality of the proposal, which she said was crafted over the course of five years.
“We submitted comments with 1,358 public endorsers named, including over 1,230 certified organic operators,” she wrote.
She called it “unfathomable” that organic stakeholders will not be given the chance to cast their vote and decide for themselves regarding the checkoff.
The USDA decision to end the quest for a national organic marketing board will resonate for several years. In my opinion, even though the debate would have been messy, the market would have been served by a referendum. Without the clout of industry assessments, it will be difficult for organic marketers to have a substantial message about the value of organic certification.
How will the consumer value the USDA organic seal in coming years, given that the confusing labeling of food with “free from” labels will only increase? “Non-GMO” seems to have emerged as a competing label, which surely must frustrate organic operators.
The USDA has put the brakes on the national organic checkoff, and also may have pumped the brakes on consumer momentum toward organic food.
Tom Karst is The Packer’s national editor. E-mail him at tkarst@farmjournal.com.
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.
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
Draft House Farm Bill: Organic Agriculture
DRAFT HOUSE FARM BILL: ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
April 14, 2018
Organic produce at Washington DC’s Dupont Farmers Market. Photo credit: Reana Kovalcik, NSAC.
This is the sixth and final post in a multi-part blog series analyzing the draft farm bill released on April 12, 2018, by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX). Previous posts focused on: beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, crop insurance and commodity subsidies local/regional food systems and rural development, research and seed breeding, and conservation. The bill is expected to be considered and “marked-up” (aka amended) by the full Agriculture Committee in the next week.
Programs and policies that affect organic agriculture are found across multiple titles of the farm bill. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has combed through the draft farm bill recently introduced by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX) and provided an overview of how the bill would affect some of the programs and policies most important to the organic industry. Overall, the bill is mixed when it comes to organic agriculture. It fails, unfortunately, to address some very significant issues concerning conservation and crop insurance access, as well as certification support for producers transitioning to organic. However, organic research and data initiatives receive support in the Chairman’s draft and generally fared better than other areas of organic agriculture.
The bill also proposes several changes to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which is the Federal Advisory Board that considers and makes recommendations on a wide range of issues regarding organic production. The organic community is currently analyzing these changes and submitting their feedback, and NSAC will monitor the debate as it moves forward.
Below, we include a summary of the key takeaways on how the Chairman’s mark addresses a subset of organic policies and programs in the draft farm bill.
Highlights
- Increases funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), which is the only research program to receive an increase in the draft bill. The 2014 Farm Bill mandated $20 million per year for the program, while the Chairman’s mark increases annual funding to $30 million. While this level does not meet the $50 million proposed in the Organic Agriculture Research Act, it is a very significant step forward in advancing research to support growth in the organic sector.
- Restores funding for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI), which the 2014 Farm Bill provided with a total of $5 million. ODI is a multi-agency initiative that facilitates the collection and distribution of organic market information, including data on production, handling, distribution, retail, and consumer purchasing patterns. The House draft bill meets NSAC’s recommendation to provide $5 million to be available until expended.
Lowlights
- Fails to include any significant provisions to expand access to crop insurance for organic agriculture. NSAC has urged Congress to direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete price elections for all covered crops, including organic crops, within five years to ensure that organic operations have the same risk management opportunities as conventional operations.
- Eliminates all funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, which supports the growth of domestic production so that U.S. producers can take advantage of growing market opportunities.
- Fails to make any changes to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Organic Initiative that would improve access to conservation support for organic producers. For example, the bill does not eliminate the significantly lower payment cap within the Organic Initiative, nor allocate dedicated funds to the states to ensure utilization.
Mobile Farmers Market Offers Affordable, Accessible Produce To Gainesville, Florida Residents
Fresh Wagon is a United States Department of Agriculture-funded project that provides fresh produce to Gainesville residents at a low cost. The wagon has been in business for two years, according to Bruce Waite, executive director of Common Thread Alliance
Bruce Waite, executive director of Common Thread Alliance, in front of the Fresh Wagon. The Fresh Wagon, a project of Common Thread Alliance, delivers fresh produce to low-food-access areas. (Audrey Alonso/WUFT News)
Home / Health and Science / Mobile Farmers Market Offers Affordable, Accessible Produce To Gainesville Residents
Mobile Farmers Market Offers Affordable, Accessible Produce To Gainesville, Florida Residents
March 1, 2018 Health and Science
The smell of fresh produce filled the air of the parking lot on the north side of Nationwide Insurance Thursday morning. A white trailer with bold, green letters that read “Fresh Wagon” across the side, displayed a variety of fruits and vegetables for Nationwide employees to choose from.
Fresh Wagon is a United States Department of an Agriculture-funded project that provides fresh produce to Gainesville residents at a low cost. The wagon has been in business for two years, according to Bruce Waite, executive director of Common Thread Alliance.
Fresh Wagon is a service of the Food Oasis Project, which is a program of Common Thread Alliance. The alliance is a nonprofit organization and is a farmer-producer that operates in Melrose, FL. The workers of Common Thread go out weekly and aggregate produce from nine partner farms, Waite explained.
The Fresh Wagon facilitates a relationship between local farmers by making it available for small family farms to have the opportunity to build sustainable revenue, according to Waite.
On Thursdays, the wagon goes to a number of companies and employers, such as CH2M Hill, Nationwide Insurance, UF’s College of Public Health and Health Professions and the Malcolm Randall VA Medical Center.
On Fridays, the wagon goes to numerous Housing and Urban Development-sponsored locations in East Gainesville, from housing that focuses on people with disabilities to the elderly to families, Waite explained.
“Part of our research is trying to connect the issues associated with state, federal and corporate employees that may be struggling to make ends meet,” Waite said. “And [they] may be deferring their utilization of fresh food, because it’s expensive.”
“So even though they (employees) come here (Nationwide Insurance) every day to work, [the question is]: Do they go home to a neighborhood that doesn’t have a supermarket for them?”
Students and employees walk along the circle drive of the College of Public Health and Health Professions, located at 1225 Center Drive, as the Fresh Wagon trailer pulls up and parks around noon Thursday. The farmers open the doors on the side of the trailer and pull out the shelves of produce.
Within five minutes, a crowd of people lined up to begin picking their produce, a green basket in hand. Students walking by stop to observe the wagon, eventually picking up a basket or plastic bag to start picking.
“It’s easy to come by and get fresh food while at work,” Anne Bogar, a UF Health Shands Hospital employee, said. “I don’t have to deal with the insanity of the local market by where I live.”
The farms listed on the Fresh Wagon Website are as follows: Barnes Farm located in Hastings; Blue Sky Farm and Brubaker Farms located in Elkton; Brown’s Family Farm and Frog Song Organics located in Hawthorne; Full Circle Farm located in Melrose.
“We load about 32 to 34 different fresh fruits and vegetables by Wednesday of every week,” Waite said.
He explained that Common Thread received an inquiry from the City of Gainesville around six months ago about positioning the wagon in locations where more people can access it.
He mentioned that so far there has been no update on the inquiry but assured that the alliance is willing to discuss expanding.
The idea of Fresh Wagon came from a concern about food proximity in neighborhoods where people lacked the access, according to Waite.
“Over time, it has also grown to encompass a strong interest in working people and their lack of proximity and inconvenience of getting fresh food while working,” Waite said.
To locate the areas where additional access to fresh produce is needed, the program employs Neighborhood Deprivation Indexing. It looks at 17 different socioeconomic measures and enables Common Thread to map those measures in four quadrants of health risks, Waite explained.
“People lack access to transportation. Even though there is bus service available, it’s a challenge [to grocery shop],” Waite said. “We’re trying to strengthen those communities. We’re trying to foster independence.”
Tags AGRICULTURE ALACHUA ALACHUA COUNTY BUSINESS CITY OF GAINESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EAST GAINESVILLE FLORIDA FOOD DESERT FRESH WAGON GAINESVILLE HAWTHORNE SHANDS HOSPITAL TRANSPORTATION UF UF HEALTH UF HEALTH SHANDS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA USDA
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
Organic Farmers Launch Effort For Add-On Label After Disappointing NOSB Actions
Organic Farmers Launch Effort For Add-On Label After Disappointing NOSB Actions
This article is powered by Food Chemical News
26 Feb 2018
Disappointed with the direction in which USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) has been heading and concerned that consumers may be losing faith in USDA’s Organic Seal, a new group of organic farmers and advocates is launching an effort to create a new, “add-on” organic label.
The label will be reserved for products that already carry USDA’s organic certification, but to earn it, products also would have to meet other “critical additional requirements” related to animal welfare and growing practices, says the group behind the effort, which calls itself the Real Organic Project (ROP).
Specifically, the new label will show an organic product was grown without the use of hydroponics and that production did not involve a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), explained Dave Chapman, a Vermont farmer and one of the founders of the group.
And at least in the beginning, the new label will signify that a product originated in the United States, Chapman told IEG Policy on Friday.
“The basic intent is to create a label that will stand for traditional organic farming,” said Chapman, who like at least four other ROP members is also a former member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
“We are not trying to destroy the organic label,” he added. “We are just trying to create transparency.”
However, it may be awhile before organic producers can try to add the label to their products, as the Real Organic Project is just beginning to draw plans on how the project would work.
Created by farmers who feel that their voice is no longer represented in the NOP, the ROP has established a 15-member standards board, which will meet March 27-28 to set the first standards for the new label.
Though the group has modeled its standards board after the NOSB, the ROP stresses that its board has a much greater representation from the organic community. The board includes nine organic farmers in addition to representatives from non-government organizations, stores, consumers, scientists, and certifiers.
Once the board sets the standards for the new label, it will continue to meet once a year to ensure that the standards are being updated and reviewed on regular basis.
After the standard board’s first meeting in March, Chapman said the group will have a better idea of what the new label might look like, when it may be put into use and how the program could evolve in the long term.
For now, however, the group hopes to establish the label as a pilot program, with only a small number of farms testing the label and the certification process over the first year.
“Our intention was to start it fairly regionally, but the response we have received has been overwhelming,” Chapman said.
ROP wants to return to traditional organic values
The new add-on organic label will be the flagship project of ROP, which started recently after several meetings with organic farmers in Vermont who felt that the USDA organic label was no longer something that represents their values for organic farming.
But the local group has quickly gained support from farmers in all parts of the nation who share the same sentiment. The group now includes organic farmers from Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Maine and other states, as well as two members from Australia, Chapman said.
“We also have people who advise us from as far away as Holland,” he said.
The roster of board members for the group now includes a number of highly respected organic farming advocates and leaders, Chapman said.
They include Jim Gerritsen, co-founder of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, Jay Feldman co-founder and executive director of Beyond Pesticides, as well as Michael Sligh, director of the Just Foods Program for Rural Advancement Foundation International, who was also the founding chair of the NOSB.
According to Chapman, group members were all brought together by a common concern that USDA might no longer be able, or willing to protect the integrity of its organic seal.
“The organic community has always worked very hard … hoping that this arranged marriage with USDA will work out. But it’s not working out,” Chapman said. “We tried very hard to reform the NOP and we failed. In the last six years, it didn’t get better, it got worse.”
And in the current political climate, the organic farmers behind ROB have felt USDA's position on what “organic” means has become increasingly more aligned with big businesses than their own.
While such concerns have bothered ROP’s advocates of traditional organic farming for awhile, it all came to a head last year after a contentious meeting of the NOSB in November, when the board voted 8-7 to reject a proposal to take away the ability of hydroponic and aquaponic farms to earn organic certification.
In the months leading to the vote, organic farmers who oppose the idea of allowing hydroponic and aquaponic products to carry the organic certification held 15 rallies around the country with signs reading, “Real Farmers Do It in the Dirt” and “Don’t Water Down Organics With Hydroponics.”
Though hydroponic, aeroponic and aquaponic crop systems have been eligible to earn organic certification since the NOP was created, an outspoken segment of the organic community objects to the idea, arguing that the use of healthy soil for growing lays in the very foundation of organic farming.
The ROP also takes issue with USDA’s decision to clear Aurora Organic Dairy’s High Plains operation in Colorado of any wrongdoing, after the Washington Post in May published a report suggesting that dairy cows at the operation had not been allowed sufficient grazing time. Organic dairies are required to allow a certain amount of grazing time for cows throughout the growing season, and after observing the Aurora facility managing over 20,000 cows (milking about 15,000) for eight days last year, using drone imagery as proof, the Post said “at no point was any more than 10% of the herd out.”
The Post’s investigation into the Aurora CAFO – which supplies the house brands of Walmart, Costco, and other major retailers – also found anomalies in acid levels in the operation's milk suggesting cows had not spent an adequate amount of time grazing outdoors.
Following the report, the Cornucopia Institute – a farm policy research group based in Wisconsin - filed legal complaints against Aurora Dairy and the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and even asked the Trump administration to remove USDA’s lead organic regulator.
“People want to buy healthy food. They want to buy food that is good for their families and good for their children. The bad news is that large companies have learned how to take advantage of [the organic program].” - Dave Chapman, ROP founder
Despite those complaints, however, the NOP said in September that Aurora’s livestock and pasture management practices comply with existing USDA organic regulations and policies and noted that the newspaper's photographs and observations did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations that Aurora had violated the organic regulations.
“This dairy operation was described in detail in one WaPo article, along with compelling test results to prove the cattle weren’t on pasture,” the ROP says in an open letter on their website. “The government approval set the stage for Aurora to build several new CAFOs that will dwarf the current 15,000-cow operation.”
The USDA also abandoned the animal welfare reforms that had been approved under the Obama administration – yet another decision that bothers members of ROP. The controversial Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) final rule, which would have added new provisions for regulating livestock handling, transport for slaughter and avian living conditions for organic products, was delayed several times before USDA ultimately proposed to withdraw it in December. The rule would have expanded and clarified existing requirements covering livestock care and production practices, a move that prompted the Organic Trade Association (OTA) to file a lawsuit against the agency.
Animal producers, such as the National Pork Producers Council, support the USDA decision, as they believed federal regulators overstepped their authority by issuing animal welfare requirements under the National Organic Program (NOP).
“This rejection by the USDA was the result of intense lobbying from such groups as the Coalition For Sustainable Organics (in their Senate testimony), American Farm Bureau, and the National Pork Producers Council,” the group said in its open letter. “They were championed by the ranking members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, protecting enormous 'organic' egg CAFOs in their home states. The USDA thus cleared the way for CAFOs to continue receiving 'organic' certification.”
And the group is also concerned about other Washington Post reports of shipments of “organic” corn and soybeans from Turkey, which were sold as organic in the United States, even though the products had been grown conventionally. An audit from USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) also found weaknesses in USDA’s oversight of imported organic products, which led Cornucopia to ask USDA to address the “documented influx of fraudulent organic grain imports” into the country.
The ROP now hopes to restore the integrity and transparency of organic certification and is planning other projects and initiatives besides the effort surrounding the new label.
As part of the group’s new Just Ask campaign, the group will encourage consumers to inquire at stores about whether their certified organic products were raised with the use of hydroponics or CAFOs, Chapman said. And the group also wants to launch a public education campaign designed to help the general public understand why it is important to let cattle involved in organic production graze, and why growing vegetables in soil matters for organic farming, he said.
“People want to buy healthy food,” Chapman said. “They want to buy food that is good for their families and good for their children. The bad news is that large companies have learned how to take advantage of [the organic program].”
Organic Certification For Hydroponic Systems
Organic Certification For Hydroponic Systems
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic products remain eligible for organic certification.
By Lydia Noyes | Spring 2018
The National Organic Standards Board has ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic products will continue to be eligible for organic certification.
Photo by Getty Images/LouisHiemstra
As hydroponic and aquaponic farms have flourished across the country in recent years, debates about their suitability for organic certification have reached a fever pitch. This past November, the National Organic Standards Board came to a decision on one of the most divisive topics in sustainable farming: Should plants qualify for organic certification if they’re grown without soil? Through a series of close votes, the board — an advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — ruled that hydroponic and aquaponic products will continue to be eligible for organic certification.
To be clear, this vote doesn’t change the standards in place. Hydroponic and aquaponic systems already qualified for certification, but their increasing prevalence has made this standard controversial among many traditional organic farmers, who argue that the lack of soil used with these growing techniques means they don’t meet the USDA’s definition of organic. (Hydroponic systems grow plants in water-based nutrients, while aquaponic systems combine hydroponics and fish farming. Both techniques often grow produce indoors.)
The subject of organic certification is quite contentious. Conceptualized in the mid-20th century, the organic movement originally idealized a “closed-loop” farm system, or a property that produced almost everything it needed on-site. Based on the notion that a well-managed farm would rely foremost on natural processes, organic farming was fundamentally about maintaining and improving soil health.
Today, organic certification has drifted away from this original premise. The requirements for certification focus less on a natural farming philosophy and more on what isn’t allowed — namely, synthetic chemical inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. This creates a considerable gray area for farming practices that technically follow organic certification requirements but ethically and/or technologically may fall short of their original intent. While hydroponics don’t pollute the soil with toxic chemicals, they also don’t improve it, mainly because no soil is involved. This leads to the crucial question: How do you categorize a farm operation that uses sustainable techniques, but doesn’t benefit the land it’s on?
Beyond the philosophical tensions, organic farmers are worried about the financial impacts of making certification more inclusive. Organic food sales reached $43 billion in the United States in 2016. Because large-scale greenhouses are cheaper to operate than soil-based farms, hydroponically-grown organic tomatoes can undercut soil-grown ones and drive down prices. Moreover, because hydroponic operations don’t need to undergo a three-year “transition period,” as field-based farms do before putting certified products on the market, they can benefit from a faster return on their investments.
While the controversy over organic certification ostensibly pits farmers with similar goals against each other, the stakes are high. The recent decision may have awarded hydroponics more credibility in the sustainable-growing sphere, but it hardly signals the end of the debate.
Notice of Public Meeting For The Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture
Notice of Public Meeting For The Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture
A Notice by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture on 01/29/2018
Publication Date: 01/29/2018
Agencies: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Dates: The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 2018 from 1:30 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. local time (Pacific Time).
Document Type: Notice
Document Citation: 83 FR 4026
Page: 4026-4027 (2 pages)
Agency/Docket Number: Docket No. NIFA-2018-001
Document Number: 2018-01577
AGENCY:
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
ACTION:
Notice of public meeting for the Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture of the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council.
SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is publishing this notice on behalf of the Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture (IWGA) of the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council to announce a public meeting of this group. This public meeting provides an opportunity for the IWGA to discuss ongoing and planned activities in support of aquaculture development in the United States with stakeholders. In turn, this meeting provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss issues of relevance to the IWGA members in attendance.
DATES:
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 2018 from 1:30 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. local time (Pacific Time).
ADDRESSES:
The Aquaculture America 2018 Conference will take place at Paris Las Vegas Hotel, 3655 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NV 89109. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
IWGA Chair and Aquaculture National Program Leader Dr. Gene Kim, USDA NIFA; email Gene.W.Kim@nifa.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture (formerly known as the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture) was created by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-362, 94 Stat. 198, 16 U.S.C. 2801, et seq.) and is chaired by the Department of Agriculture, with vice-chairs from the Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior. The IWGA reports to the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council. The purpose of the coordinating group is to increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal aquaculture research, transfer, and assistance programs. In fulfilling this purpose, the coordinating group:
(1) Reviews the national needs for aquaculture research, technology transfer and technology assistance programs;
(2) Undertakes planning, coordination, and communication among Federal agencies engaged in the science, engineering, and technology of aquaculture;
(3) Collects, compiles, and disseminates information on aquaculture;
(4) Encourages joint programs among Federal agencies in areas of mutual interest relating to aquaculture; and
(5) Recommends specific actions on issues, problems, plans, and programs in aquaculture.
The IWGA addresses issues of national scope and importance and may form national task forces or special projects to facilitate a coordinated, systematic approach to addressing critical issues and needs. More information is available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/ iwga.
This notice invites the public to participate in this IWGA meeting. The location is at the Aquaculture America 2018 Conference venue, which allows for stakeholder interaction at what likely is the largest gathering of U.S. aquaculture research, extension, and private sector representatives. Attendance or response to this notice is voluntary. We are not requesting information as part of an ongoing regulatory process. Although this will Start Printed Page 4027be a discussion of stakeholder issues of concern, will not be considered formal public input on regulations, as the IWGA is not a regulatory body. Responses to this notice may be used by the government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Information obtained from the discussions occurring during this meeting may be used for program planning and federal coordination among Federal agencies, and may guide future Federal agencies' activities that are national in scope. USDA requests that no business proprietary information or copyrighted information be submitted in response to this notice. No registration or fee is needed to attend this IWGA meeting. Please note that there will be no other method for interaction for this meeting, aside from in-person attendance. Participants are encouraged, but not required, to email their contact information to the email address below for planning purposes: Dr. Maxwell Mayeaux, Aquaculture Program Specialist, USDA NIFA at: mmayeaux@nifa.usda.gov.
The agenda for this meeting is as follows:
Agenda
I. Overview of Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture Activities
II. Reports on Federal Interagency Initiatives
a. Agency updates on regulatory reform
b. Overview of national aquaculture statistics reporting and the Census of Aquaculture
c. Interagency collaboration on research, extension and outreach activities
d. Other Agency Updates
III. Public questions and discussion on IWGA activities
Done at Washington, DC, on January 19, 2018.
Sonny Ramaswamy,
Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2018-01577 Filed 1-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P