Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
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.
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.”
Hunter College New York City Food Policy Investigation
Is The Organic Label As Valuable As You Thought?
The demand for organic is reaching a fever pitch. Question is, though, can consumers trust the label or does it bear too many blemishes to have credibility?
By Karen Asp
USDA Releases Materials For Fall National Organic Standards Board Meeting
By urbanagnews
September 14, 2018
From the Coalition For Sustainable Organics
The USDA has published the pre-meeting materials on their website for the Fall 2018 National Organic Standards Board meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota to be held from October 24-26. The Discussion Documents and Formal Proposals do NOT include anything specific to greenhouse, container, hydroponic, aeroponic or aquaponic production systems. Those topics remain on the inactive work agenda of the National Organic Standards Board in spite of calls from an NOSB member to place the topic back on the active agenda.
In addition to the review of materials for the National List, the NOSB will review other topics including research priorities, strengthening the requirements for the use of organic seed in crop production, further defining excluded plant breeding methods, criteria for accreditation oversight and training and oversight of inspectors among others.
If you would like to give verbal comments directly to the members of the NOSB and to the broader organic community, you may sign up through the following links for the webinars on October 16 and 18 or in person on October 24/25. The deadline to sign up is October 4 or until all of the speaking slots have been allocated. Those slots have filled up before the deadline for the last several meetings.
You may also submit written comments for the public record by October 4.
Who Cares? Why We Sued Ben & Jerry's
The company’s “Caring Dairy” program sounds like a dream-come-true for Vermont’s dairy farmers and dairy cows. But it’s more like a nightmare
2018
Organic Consumers Association
by Katherine Paul
Splashed across the Ben & Jerry’s website are cartoon-like pictures of happy cows romping in green pastures.
There’s a reason those cows are depicted by drawings, not actual photos—most of the real, live cows whose milk and cream are used in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream products are crammed into dark, filthy barns for most of their short lives.
Ben & Jerry’s goes to great lengths to create the perception that the Unilever-owned company “cares” deeply about the farmers who supply milk and cream for the brand, the cows raised on Vermont dairy farms, and the state of Vermont’s environment.
The company’s “Caring Dairy” program sounds like a dream-come-true for Vermont’s dairy farmers and dairy cows.
But it’s more like a nightmare, for the cows, Vermont’s environment and consumers who care about animal welfare.
As we state in the lawsuit we filed this week against Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s markets its products:
. . . as being made from milk produced by “happy cows” raised in “Caring Dairies,” leading consumers to believe that the products are produced using animal-raising practices that are more humane than those used on regular factory-style, mass production dairy operations.
In contrast to Unilever’s representations, the products include milk that comes from cows raised in regular factory-style, mass-production dairy operations, also known as “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” or “Large Farm Operations”—not in the special “Caring Dairies” emphasized in Unilever’s marketing.
As we reported last year, our testing revealed that many samples of popular Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavors, in the U.S. and in Europe, contain traces of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. We see that as a sign that the brand falls far short of its claims of social and environmental responsibility.
Unilever spends nearly $9 billion a year on advertising, second only to Proctor & Gamble. We think the company should spend less on misleading product claims, and invest more in helping Vermont dairy farmers transition to organic and regenerative practices that actually support those claims.
‘Caring Dairies’ program nothing more than a scam
Like any successful brand, Ben & Jerry’s knows that animal welfare tops the list of issues people care about. Hence, the creation of a program—“Caring Dairy”—intended to make consumers believe that Ben & Jerry’s “cares,” too.
But it’s all smoke and mirrors. Here’s why.
On its “Caring Dairy Standards” website page, the company lists a set of standards it says are required for all dairy farms that supply Ben & Jerry’s.
Thanks to the work of Regeneration Vermont, we know that Ben & Jerry’s sources all of its milk and cream through a cooperative based in St. Albans City, Vermont. Fewer than 25 percent of the approximately 360 farms that deliver milk and cream to the St. Albans co-op meet the “Caring Dairy” standards. But when farmers deliver their milk to the co-op, it’s all mixed together—the co-op doesn’t separate the milk delivered by a “Caring Dairy” program participant from the milk of other dairy farms. So even if some of the milk comes from a farm that actually meets those standards, Ben & Jerry’s can’t truthfully claim that all of their milk and cream come from dairies that meet the company’s “Caring Dairy” standards.
Advertising, even the false kind, pays
So you, the consumer, when you visit the Ben & Jerry’s website and see pretty pictures and a long list of standards the company says all of its farmers meet, are being duped.
All that talk of “Caring Dairies” is there to make consumers feel good about buying Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.
It’s pretty much all a lie. Especially when you consider that over the years, some members of the St. Albans co-op have been fined for violations of environmental laws, including one that illegally expanded its operation near the Missisquoi River Basin, which drains into the already heavily polluted Missisquoi Bay.
In fact, the dairy industry is Vermont’s biggest polluter, according to Regeneration Vermont, in part because the state’s conventional dairy farms feed GMO corn, heavily sprayed with pesticides such as atrazine, metolachlor, and glyphosate, to dairy cows.
So when Ben & Jerry’s says it’s “on a mission to make great ice cream that respects the farmer and their farmworks, the planet and the cow,” don’t believe it.
Ben & Jerry’s is on a mission to spin a false and misleading story about a company that has a lousy track record when it comes to sourcing ingredients from socially and environmentally responsible producers.
Consumers who care about their health, the environment and animal welfare would do better to buy organic brands from companies that don't source glyphosate-sprayed ingredients and that do source from dairies that meet organic standards.
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.
Teeny Greenie Farming: Local Farmer Producing Nutrient-filled Microgreens
She grows "microgreens". Research shows that the first leaves of a plant have up to 40 times the nutrients of a full grown vegetable.
by Kathryn Daniel
July 21, 2018
ALLENTOWN, Fla. (WEAR) — Virginia Bates raises about a dozen crops. She listed off just a few for us, "Radish, broccoli, kale, bok choy, arugula."
Her dozen or so varieties aren't grown in fields or even a greenhouse, but in a small, insulated "grow" shed.
Bates laughed, "This is the type of farming that anybody can do. I think that's what appealed to me, you can farm in heels if you want."
Bates plants and harvests every week and loves her work.
"My goal is to get people to think about what they put in their bodies," she explained.
She grows "microgreens". Research shows that the first leaves of a plant have up to 40 times the nutrients of a full grown vegetable.
She elaborated, "A handful of broccoli microgreens is like eating a pound and a half of mature broccoli. That's crazy."
Once a vegetable reaches "adult" status, its nutrients are spread throughout the entire item. Bates said with micro greens, all of that goodness is condensed into the first, tender shoots.
Bates calls her product "Super Teenie Greenies." She harvests between every seven to ten days to get the maximum nutritional punch.
Bates detailed that anytime a crop is grown without soil, it's done so hydroponically. The medium she grows in only looks like dirt.
"It is organic ground coconut husks," she revealed.
Bates supplies several local restaurants and Ever'man Cooperative Grocery weekly. She and her assistant, Jewel Owens, set up shop at the Palafox Market every Saturday.
Jewel's favorite variety is the kale and spicy mustard combo.
The teenager grinned, "I really like the taste. I like how nutritious they are for you. Normally things that are super nutritious don't taste as good, but these are really, really good."
Bates said many parents buy the Super Tennie Greenies and "sneak" them into smoothies, in sauces and on pizza for their children to get a ton of vitamins and minerals.
She sells a "grow kit" and is shipping them all over the country, which makes this fifth generation farmer feel proud of her healthy fare.
She said, "To hear that my product is able to impact their daily life and make them feel better in a real way that's backed by science."
USDA: Organic Labels Must Be Removed From Fumigated Imports
In a joint letter, linked at the bottom of this article, to all Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) licensees, the USDA Fair Trade Practices Program and National Organic Program remind U.S. importers that agricultural products treated with a substance prohibited by the USDA organic regulations, or that undergo ionizing radiation, may not be sold, labeled or represented as organic.
PACA licensees who sell or label such treated products as organic may be subject to penalties under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and the PACA.
PACA licensed individuals and firms may broker, handle or sell organic agricultural products. PACA licensees who broker organic imports may not need to be certified as organic, however, they are responsible for ensuring that imported organic commodities comply with all the requirements of the USDA organic regulations.
AMS enforces the USDA organic regulations for domestic and imported organic agricultural products through the National Organic Program.
The full joint letter can be found here.
For more information; USDA Press
E-mail: press@oc.usda.gov
Publication date: 7/19/2018