ChewsWise Blog

ChewsWise Blog

First, It Was Organic v. Local

Now it's Organic v. Fair Trade. William G. Moseley points out in the San Francisco Chronicle that tensions are growing acute between these two movements, spurred out by the demand for local food. (Via Lainie's awesome Organic Confidential blog).

If local is the new organic, and demand for imported organic food drops off, then African farmers who depend on organic export markets will have no alternative but to produce conventionally grown food for export. Local activists respond that these farmers should focus on local markets in Africa, but Moseley says they've already done that.

Many farmers in the poorest of African nations - where I do my research - already supply local markets with their grains and produce. While not formally recognized as such, these markets are virtually organic because most poor African farmers restrict pesticide use to traditional export crops such as cotton, cacao and coffee, while local foodstuffs are grown with few or no chemical inputs.

If the local food movements in Europe and North America reduce their demand for organic and fair trade products from afar, the most likely consequence is that African farmers who have entered these niche markets will return to producing their export crops in the conventional, pesticide-intensive manner. While local food markets can provide some income for these farmers, they still are reliant on export opportunities for the bulk of their cash income.

Food miles gives a one-dimensional view of socially responsible food production, though the reality is more complicated. The Soil Association tried to tackle this issue by seeking a fair trade designation for any air shipments of organic food -- a noble step, but one which might still limit these markets.

The question I had after reading Moseley's piece was whether some, all or most exports actually create cash for farmers, or whether these markets follow the plantation model and siphon cash out of the local economy. Again, I would think the answer is not simple.
 

In UK, Air-Freighted Organic To Be Fair Trade

By Samuel Fromartz

In a significant decision for global organic food markets, Britain's Soil Association, the nation's premier certification body, has decided to continue certifying air-freighted organic food so long as the products meet ethical standards.

This would bring a "fair trade" designation to organic food, balancing the benefits of trade in developing countries with concerns about rising carbon emissions. "The association rejected calls from the public, environmentalists and some of its own producers for a ban on all air-freighted organic food, deciding this would penalize many poor countries which benefit in terms of jobs and wages from growing organic food for British consumers," the Guardian newspaper reported.

"It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognize that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time," Anna Bradley, chair of the Soil Association's standards board, said.

The proposed standards require organic food producers in developing countries to contribute substantially to the social needs of communities and workers, and guarantee wages and good working conditions.

Significantly, sea-container shipped organic foods will not need to comply with the new standard, a Soil Association press officer said. That means spices and other foods with a long-shelf life that are often shipped by sea will get a pass. So will goods shipped by truck from, say, Turkey.

Although developing countries were the focus of the new standard, it does apply to any air-shipped organic foods, whether from Africa or from the US, Europe, and New Zealand. Perishables such as produce are often air-freighted. The London Telegraph reported that sweet potatoes and salad flown in from the U.S. would likely be stripped of their organic status.

"It's right to continue to allow some organic air freight. Most people say that they only support air freight if it delivers real environmental and social benefits. This linking of organic and fair trade standards does that," Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's policy director, said in the Guardian.

Image source: Soil Association

The Soil Association consulted nearly 200 organizations, including the World Trade Organization, governments and UN bodies. New Zealand, Kenya and the UK's Department for International Development argued strongly against a ban. Supermarkets recognized the public disquiet and argued for a labelling system, and UN bodies urged extreme caution to protect vulnerable economies, the Guardian said.

Patricia Francis, executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Center (ITC), which is a joint agency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the World Trade Organization, questioned whether the new certification scheme would be too restrictive.

"Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers," she said in a BBC report.

The Guardian said that the Soil Association punted when faced with the issue (though it used the word "fudged.") "This is not to single out the organic watchdog for special opprobrium. It has simply made a trade-off, just as many shoppers do in their Saturday-afternoon trolley dashes," the paper said in its editorial.

Aurora Plays Affordability Card

Responding to the class action law suits it faces, Aurora Organic Dairy said they were without merit. "There is absolutely no basis for claims we defrauded consumers by selling milk that isn't organic," CEO Marc Peperzak said in a statement.

He noted that a settlement agreement with the USDA confirmed that "AOD currently has eight valid organic certifications."

In its public relations battle with Cornucopia Institute, Aurora is playing the affordability card. Aurora's critics "want to limit the supply of organic milk and drive up the price paid by American families. This would harm consumers and slow the spread of organic agriculture. If they win, consumers lose," Peperzak said.

Fromartz take: Price has not been the main issue of this fight -- rather it has focused on whether large-scale organic dairy farms are truly following the USDA regulations. Aurora's critics say that by flouting rules, Aurora created a low-cost production model that unfairly competed with those who do follow the rules at a higher cost. But as Peperzak noted, the agreement with the USDA did affirm its organic certificates, much to the chagrin of many of Aurora's critics. Now, for consumers at least, it's up to the courts to decide.

- Samuel Fromartz

Aurora Organic Slapped With Class Action Suits

(Updated with impending Denver Lawsuit)

Two mothers in St. Louis have filed a class action lawsuit against Aurora Organic Dairy (AOD), claiming that the milk they consumed from the nation's largest private-label organic dairy company was not organic, according to Sustainable Food News ($).

Leonie Lloyd and Kristine Mothershead claim they suffered harm by being “tricked” into buying Aurora's private label organic milk at Costco that was not organic. The plaintiffs, represented by the St. Louis law firm Simon Passanante, are seeking compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. The suit also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting AOD from engaging in “illegal activities.”

In April, the USDA's National Organic Program sent a letter to Aurora, citing 14 "willful violations" of the organic regulations by the company. In a subsequent settlement of those allegations, Aurora, which has $100 million in sales, agreed to amend its farming practices and stop selling certain milk. It was allowed to keep its organic certification.

AOD's Senior Vice President Clark Driftmier told Sustainable Food News he had not seen the lawsuit and that the company had not been served.

Meanwhile, the Cornucopia Institute reported late in the day that the St. Louis action is one of two lawsuits.

Law firms based in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri have so far have filed one of the lawsuits in Missouri, with another suit, covering dozens of additional states where plaintiffs live, due to be filed in Denver tomorrow.  The attorneys are seeking damages from Aurora to reimburse consumers harmed by the company’s actions and are requesting that the U.S. District Courts put an injunction in place to halt the ongoing sale of Aurora’s organic milk in the nation’s grocery stores until it can be demonstrated that the company is complying with federal organic regulations.

Cornucopia says the Denver suit is being handled by attorneys from Lane, Alton, Horst  in Columbus, Ohio; Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, and Herz in Chicago; and Gray, Ritter, and Graham, also based in St. Louis. Attorneys in both suits are seeking additional plaintiffs.

Behind the O-Market

Where do organic consumers live?
Primarily in the West, according to a recent survey by Scarborough Research. Here are the top regions for organic food purchases (percentage of consumers buying organic food at least once a month in brackets).

  1. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose (35 percent)
  2. Seattle/Tacoma (32 percent)
  3. Portland (27 percent)
  4. Washington, D.C. (26 percent)
  5. Denver (26 percent)
  6. San Diego (24 percent)
  7. Austin (23 percent)
  8. Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto (22 percent)
  9. Boston (21 percent)
  10. Phoenix (21 percent)

My take: Other surveys have shown that frequent buyers of organic food represent about 8 percent of all consumers. The figures measured here - once monthly - are a pretty low threshold and would drop sharply if they measured consumers buying at least several organic items in each trip to the store. Overall, organic sales represent about 3 percent of all supermarket purchases.

What drives purchases?
Availability. "Whole Foods and Trader Joe's have established themselves in the organics market, and as such are more popular among organics users. However, a high percentage of organics users shop prominent U.S. stores such as Wal-Mart due to its significant local market penetration," said Alisa Joseph, vice president, advertiser agency services, Scarborough Research.

My take: Surveys have shown this repeatedly. Purchases are determined by availability, though price helps too. Hence, Wal-Mart's entry into the field. This is also why the West Coast in particular has a high concentration of organic consumers: items such as fresh produce (the top segment for organic foods) are widely available.

Who are they?
The annual household income of organic consumers is $86,000 a year, 22 percent higher than the national average. They also skew toward younger families, with 19 percent more likely than the national average to be ages 18-34 and 13 percent more likely to have two or more children. 

My take: these income figures don't jive with other surveys I've seen from the Hartman Group, which has found organic consumers are close to the national median in income. Despite the widespread perception that organic shoppers are wealthier, I'm not convinced -- especially among those consumers buying very discretely, which is most. Why else would Wal-Mart rank high for purchases? As for age, I've seen other surveys that peg younger people and older consumers as more likely to buy organic food. This seems in line with those findings.

Can Organic Farming Feed the World?

By Samuel Fromartz

Organic food is often portrayed by its critics as a low-yielding farming method that undercuts the main goal of food production – feeding the world.

These critics also argue that if organic farming were to grow much beyond its tiny elitist niche, forests would have to be plowed under because a much greater land mass would be needed to make up for far lower crop yields.

Pretty sad picture isn't it? Organic farming is portrayed as an inferior agricultural method that ends up raping and pillaging the natural world.

The only problem with this argument is that it doesn't square with the facts. (Nor with the actual picture if you check out the organic wheat field pictured above that was part of a USDA trial).

Although many studies have countered these arguments, three recent ones deserve notice.

First, researchers at the University of Michigan recently published a new study in the Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems that evaluated 293 studies comparing conventional and organic farming.

They found that in the developed world, such as the US, Europe and Japan, organic farming methods yielded slightly less than conventional methods.

But importantly, in the developing world, where food-scarcity is most pronounced, organic methods were actually two- to three-times as productive as conventional agriculture.

Farmers in poorer nations often could not afford the chemicals and fertilizers that are required by high-yielding seed varieties. By farming organically, they could enhance soil fertility by composting waste sources on their farms.

The researchers write that organic farming could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," said Ivette Perfecto, a professor at University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and a principle on the study.

She added that the idea people would go hungry if farming went organic was "ridiculous." (You can listen to a brief interview with the researcher).

Another report out of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Iowa is also significant, for it demonstrates the long-term yield potential of organic methods.

The now nine-year-old trials "convincingly show greater yield, increased profitability, and steadily improved soil quality in organic over conventional rotations," the Leopold Center stated.

The longest running rotation of corn, followed by soybeans, oats with alfalfa, and then another crop of alfalfa, produced 188 bushels per acre of organic corn in 2006. The traditional corn-soybean rotation on conventional fields yielded 177 bushels/acre – a 6 percent deficit from the organic fields.

In soybeans, the organic fields produced 45 bushels per acre in this long rotation, compared with 43 bushels on conventional plots.

Over eight years of data, here's the average corn yield in the various methods:

  • Conventional corn, soybeans rotation, 160 bushels per acre of corn
  • Organic corn, soybean, oats mixed with alfalfa rotation, 150-1/4 bushels/acre corn
  • Organic corn, soybean, oats mixed with alfalfa, alfalfa rotation, 160-1/4 bushels/acre corn

Those include the first three years of the organic transition. If you back those years out, and only look at the organic fields post-transition you get these average yields:

  • Conventional corn, soybeans rotation, 173.2 bushels per acre corn
  • Organic corn, soybean, oats with alfalfa rotation, 162 bushels/acre corn
  • Organic corn, soybean, oats with alfalfa, alfalfa rotation, 176 bushels/acre corn

The study shows that well-managed organic crop rotations, which are key to organic farming practices, actually lead to slightly higher yields than conventional chemical methods and rotations. And in the current ethanol-infused corn boom, farmers are forgoing the traditional corn-soybean rotation and growing continuous corn on corn, which requires a greater amount of chemical fertilizers to keep the yield up.

Finally, organic farming gets criticized for its tillage practices, which critics say leads to soil erosion and leaches nitrates into groundwater. These critics say conventional "no-till" farm methods, associated with genetically modified crops and heavy doses of herbicides, are superior.

But again, the facts point to a different conclusion. USDA researchers report that organic farming methods actually produced healthier soils than no-till conventional methods.

In a nine-year study at the Henry A. Wallace Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland, USDA researchers found that the addition of organic matter in manure and cover crops more than offset losses from tillage.

In a final three-year study, corn was grown with no-till practices on all plots to see which ones had the most productive soils. The organic plots had more carbon and nitrogen and yielded 18 percent more corn.

Needless to say, critics won't be convinced by this evidence. But then neither do those who continually assert, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that global warming doesn't exist.

We know better.

How the Media Missed the Organic Story

By Samuel Fromartz

The USDA's recent approval of 38 non-organic ingredients in organic food products was widely portrayed in media reports as evidence that the USDA was watering down organic standards.

This is a standard interpretation - that, at the behest of agribusiness, the USDA is constantly chipping away at the integrity of organic food regulations, making it easier for big companies to subvert what organic food is all about. They were doing so now by including these 38 non-organic ingredients in organic food.

The only problem was this was flat out wrong.

Why? First, because the USDA has no statutory authority over these non-organic ingredients. The body that oversees the so-called National List of these ingredients - and which stands as the final arbiter of what goes into organic food products - is a citizens advisory panel known as the National Organic Standards Board.

As section 6157 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which governs organic food, makes clear:

The National List established by the Secretary shall be based upon a proposed national list or proposed amendments to the National List developed by the National Organic Standards Board.

The Secretary may not include exemptions for the use of specific synthetic substances in the National List other than those exemptions contained in the Proposed National List or Proposed Amendments to the National List.

In other words, not even the Secretary of Agriculture can overrule the decisions of the NOSB with regards to what goes on this list. This was explicitly written into the law by Sen. Patrick Leahy in 1990 precisely to prevent the list from being controlled by the USDA (a point I explain more fully in my book).

So who sits on the NOSB? It is made up of certifiers, farmers, retailers, scientists, and food processors, including big and small companies and those with no industry affiliation at all. Now you can argue about the composition of the NOSB but it would be a gross misrepresentation to say the members are interested in watering down and subverting organic food regulations. If they were, we should all stop buying organic food now. But they aren't, so we shouldn't.

There have also been instances where the USDA has re-interpreted or put forth new regulations, leading to a political backlash from organic advocates that forced the department to reverse course. This was not what happened here, however.

Secondly, the approval of the 38 ingredients was actually a dramatic tightening of organic food regulations that resulted from a law suit brought by a small organic blueberry farmer from Maine, named Arthur Harvey. But I saw no headlines screaming, "Organic Food Regulations Tightened! Numerous Non-Organic Ingredients Disallowed."

In a recent public email, Jim Riddle, who trains organic certifiers and was one of NOSB's more outspoken (and radical) members during his tenure as chairman, explains:

I received a call from a reporter, informing me that 38 non-organic ingredients had been approved by USDA to be added to the National List. He did not mention that the USDA had approved the substances in an Interim Final Rule, which allows for 60 days of public comment. Since returning home, I have become aware of heated rhetoric on this issue, with charges of “Sneak Attack”, “Undermining the Organic Standard”, etc. I would like to say a few words to put this issue into perspective.

Previous to the Harvey ruling, (which became final on June 9, 2007), certifiers had allowed processors to use non-organic ingredients in up to 5% of an “organic” product, (which must contain at least 95% organic ingredients), if the processor could demonstrate a good faith, but unsuccessful, effort to source the ingredient(s) from organic sources. Hundreds, if not thousands, of non-organic ingredients had been allowed.

If all 38 minor ingredients are added to the National List, it will bring to 43 the number of non-organic ingredients that can be used in “organic” products, if the manufacturer can demonstrate to the certifier that organic forms are not commercially available. This is a significant narrowing from the previous, pre-Harvey situation. (emphasis added)

While I have serious concerns with a few of the petitioned items, including hops, fish oil, and “natural” casings ... I urge my colleagues to direct your concerns to the USDA. To exaggerate and/or misrepresent this issue in the press weakens confidence in organic foods, harms organic farmers, and undermines the growth of this ecologically-sound production system.

The only thing I would add to Riddle's comment is that every ingredient must be reviewed by the NOSB before it gets on the National List. There's rarely 100-percent agreement on these items, only consensus, reflected in votes by the NOSB. (You can read the transcripts of meetings at the NOSB's web site if you have a few hours. They are actually very informative. Or better yet, attend one of their public meetings). Now is the opportunity to comment, if you oppose any or all of the 38 items, though I think it doubtful that the USDA will force the NOSB to reconsider the matter.

Where the media erred was in trying to find evidence to fit the premise that organic regulations were being loosened. Had they looked more deeply into the matter they might have realized that the evidence led to an entirely different conclusion.

Organic Call To Action on Farm Bill

By Samuel Fromartz

Every so often, the broad coalition of organic food supporters – which include food companies, retailers, farmers, advocacy groups, and of course consumers – coalesce around one crucial issue.

This happened in 1997, when the first draft of organic regulations were released by the USDA and included such anti-organic practices as irradiation, genetically modified crops and sewage sludge fertilizer. The community sent an unprecedented number of comments to the USDA opposing the so-called "Big Three" and they were struck down in the final version of regulations.

In 2003, when a Georgia Congressman inserted a rider onto a bill in the dead of night and won passage for the right to use non-organic animal feed (sought by one of his chicken processors), the community rose up again. Led by opponents in Congress, the measure was rescinded in a subsequent bill.

Now, arguably, it's time again for the organic community to rise up again, spreading the word through advocacy groups, in email, on blogs and most potently, at the check-out counters of natural food stores and co-ops.

What's the issue this time around?

  The Farm Bill. Organic supporters have been pushing very hard in Congress to win a few crucial programs for organic farmers but the buzz is at a low level in Washington. Organic doesn't even win a mention as a worthwhile alternative (evident in this recent Washington Post editorial),  when the talk comes to reforming the farm bill.

What are supporters of organic farming seeking?

  • Basic research funds. Currently organic farming research and education gets about $13 million from a patchwork of USDA programs. But only $3 million of those funds is specifically dedicated for organic farming. Supporters want to increase those targeted funds to $15 million annually in mandatory funding - this, out of a USDA research budget of about $2 billion.
  • Certification cost share. Farmers can get up to $500 annually to offset up to 75 percent of the costs of organic certification. (This is the only "subsidy" specifically targeted to organic farmers and is meant for smaller farmers). But many states have run out of money and they won’t get any more until the new farm bill is approved. Supporters are looking to increase the cost share to $750 through $25 million in funding over five years.
  • Crop insurance. Organic farmers must pay a 5 percent premium to receive crop insurance but their crop losses are compensated at the same rate as conventional growers (even though the organic crop is worth more). They want the USDA to correct this unfair practice.
  • Transition Support. Transitioning farmers must follow organic methods for three years before they can sell their crops under the organic label. That means their costs are usually higher but they are still getting paid conventional prices for their crops. The lobby is looking for $50 million per year to help with the transition process, with the funds split between technical and financial assistance.
  • Data Collection. Right now there is little reliable data on organic products, on the amount and sources of organic food imports, on the prices farmers get for their crops or the usual information available to conventional farmers. That discourages investment, skews crop insurance decisions and undermines the market. So supporters wants some dedicated funds for this type of research.  (For more detail on  these issues, see this PDF from the Organic Farming Research Foundation).

Although the House Agriculture Committee nodded in the direction of organic farming in the mark up of the farm bill, much of the funding under consideration would be discretionary – not mandatory. The programs will only get funded if money can be found, which is highly unlikely in this tight fiscal climate.

Why does organic farming need these funds?

Demand for organic food now exceeds supply, but US farmers are not converting fast enough to fill the gap. The costs of transition, the lack of knowledge about organic methods, and uncertainty about the market all play a role in inhibiting conventional farmers from making the switch. With American farmers lagging, production is increasingly shifting overseas – meaning U.S. farmers will lose out on a lucrative market. Consumers will see more organic products from Mexico, China, Chile, Brazil, India, Australia, Italy and Turkey, including fresh and frozen produce, soybeans, grass-fed meat, grains and beans. That's not a bad thing, in terms of agricultural practices and opportunities in those countries, but it won't do anything for farming in the US.

So what can we do?

The Environmental Working Group has launched a worthwhile site to generate 30,000 signatures to lawmakers by July 15. But for mass action, retailers and co-ops with direct access to consumers need to step up to the plate. They need to publicize this issue at the check-out counter, since most people don't even know about it. The message: Support organic farmers in the 2007 Farm Bill.

The point is to win baseline funding for organic agriculture, so that it can be increased in the next farm bill. If the baseline is near zero, it isn't going to move at all – not in the next bill, or the one after that and farmers will continue to sit on the sidelines.

When you wonder why so many organic products are originating overseas, you will have your answer: the modest government incentives and research U.S. farmers needed to pursue organic farming weren’t available. So they didn't bother to switch.

Big Decertified Dairy Pulls Out of Organic

By Samuel Fromartz

 
The Case Vander Eyk Dairy, which reportedly said it was seeking recertification of its 3,500 head organic herd, has decided not to pursue it after all.

The controversial dairy in the Central Valley of California had been certified by Quality Assurance International, but QAI suspended the company's organic dairy operations in May for failing to meet regulatory standards. The dairy then approached California Certified Organic Farmers about beginning the recertification process.

Photo and caption: Cornucopia Insitute

Peggy Miars, executive director of CCOF, one of the oldest organic certification agencies in the nation, said in an email the dairy was in "the initial review stage" for recertification. "Obviously, CCOF holds all applicants to the same strict standards and would ensure that all previous noncompliance issues are resolved."

"However, that seems to be a moot point based on my conversation with our contact at Vander Eyk," Miars continued. "He said that the Vander Eyk family is pulling out of the organic dairy business indefinitely."

Vander Eyk plans on getting CCOF to recertify its pasture as organic but run the dairy as a conventional operation. Presumably, this would give Vander Eyk flexibility to return to organic in the future, since a farm must prove that its pasture was farmed organically for three years before it can win certification. Certifying a conventional dairy herd as organic, however, only takes one year.

The farm had what was known as a "split operation," with 10,000 organic and conventional cows. The operation had been criticized by the Cornucopia Institute, among others, for minimizing pasture on its farm.

To recertify its pasture, it will have to submit a "farm plan" that lays out its organic practices in detail, correct any non-compliance issues, pass certification inspections, and be reviewed by the USDA.

 

An Organic Discussion

In my book, Organic Inc., I argued that the 'organic community' is made up of various strands, often in conflict. But the best way to go forward is to maintain discussion among these often conflicted parts of the community. (I touched on this too in a recent column in a trade journal). In that spirit, I am reprinting the following letter based on a conference-call summit this week with more than 100 participants.

The Organic Community Summit
June 18, 2007

Dear Organic Stakeholders,

Approximately a hundred diverse members of the extensive organic community met on Monday, June 18, in an effort to reach consensus on issues of deep concern to members of the organic movement that includes a wide range of commercial entities, consumers, advocates, and farmers. The teleconference was quickly put together in response to the highly exclusive nature of the so-called Organic Summit due to meet this week in Boulder, Colorado.

When many of us first heard of that meeting, we assumed that the term summit was indicative of an all-inclusive gathering of the whole organic industry/community. However, due to a limit on the number of participants, high fees and hotel costs, transportation expenses to Colorado (far from where the majority of organic production takes place), as well as scheduling the event during the busy farming season, it became apparent that this discussion of organics was primarily designed for business leaders and industry representatives, with just a smattering of selected community delegates. We were motivated to sponsor the Organic Community Summit when we learned that many key participants would be excluded from joining what was billed as the “new organic conversation” with "industry leaders" in Boulder.

The Community meeting featured two keynote speakers. Jim Riddle, former National Organic Standards Board chair, said organics encompasses a wide range of farmers, activists, academics, business people, and regulatory personnel, and “in harmony we thrive.” He said the organic movement has strong roots, and this is a time of great opportunity for the whole community, as organic agriculture is best positioned to meet today’s paramount challenges of climate change, energy use, and sustainable food production. These issues were underscored by the second keynoter, Fred Kirschenmann, a universally respected organic leader and also former member of the NOSB, in the context of the longtime organic movement, which grew out of the commitment to soil health principles espoused by its early pioneers. He also referred to the tension the organic community is experiencing with the commercialization and mainstreaming of movement ideals and the need for the entire industry to move beyond this conflict if organic is to survive as meaningful label in the marketplace.

The remainder of the meeting was open to all the Summit participants. Others sent comments via e-mail. Participants strongly felt that all sectors in the organic community (farmers, advocates, consumers, academics, public interest groups, investors, manufactures, distributors, and retailers) are vitally important to both the economic success and realizing the societal benefits that organic food represents.

Maintaining genuine and meaningful organic standards was high on everyone’s list. The organic industry is successful because of the high esteem the consumer holds for organic food and the farmers who produce it, as well as an authentic approach to food processing, distribution, and retailing. There is great danger that market acceptance will rapidly diminish if consumers perceive the integrity of organic is being breached by business interests looking to capitalize on organics’ good name. Organic production does not mean business as usual in this respect, but rather resides in the province of socially responsible business.

In the coming years, climate change, energy conservation, water quality and quantity, and food security will be the major emerging themes in this country and around the world. How agriculture reacts to the end of cheap energy and cheap water resources will have a profound effect on our well-being and, through impacts of global warming, on the planet. In all of our deliberations we need to make sure that organic food production, processing, and distribution remain a proactive alternative for consumers to meet these profound challenges.

Organic food also needs to remain at the forefront of offering consumers alternatives to technologies and practices they find environmentally destructive, a danger to their families’ health, or morally abhorrent. In the near term, animal cloning, genetic pollution, livestock confinement operations, as well as the exponential growth of imports and concomitant food safety problems will be high-profile issues that have the potential to showcase the vastly superior organic alternative.

To keep organics healthy, other important issues will also need to be addressed. There is wide concern that smaller farmers and processors are being squeezed out in terms of distribution opportunities and escalating costs at the USDA for certification. Also, aggressive action is needed to recruit and train new, young farmers to take the place of retiring organic producers and to meet increasing demand for organic commodities—domestically.  The word local needs to be respected and continued to be associated with organics.  Shipping food around the country, or around the world, does not conform to the expectation of the organic consumer. And more needs to be done to facilitate market access by smaller, dedicated farmers, who are held in high esteem by the consumers. These family-scale farmers are the "face of organics”!

Overall, we need a greater level of transparency, both in the processes and ingredients used to manufacture organic food and in the oversight of our industry by the USDA. At the same time, the National Organic Program needs a much higher level of funding, as does organic research. Industry clout could be a positive force for change at the political level to support and expand all aspects of organic agriculture.

In closing, we need to move toward a unified industry. The fact that we felt compelled to hold a Community Summit in the same week that industry interests were holding their Summit is counterproductive and a loss of a great opportunity to join experienced and passionate people in the common goal of furthering the organic movement. This message, and our gathering, were not intended to be "anticorporate." We absolutely welcome corporate investors into the organic market. Their capital and expertise have broadened both product offerings and distribution and are an integral part of organics’ success. But, the commercial sector needs to carefully consider the long-term implications of not respecting the high standards created by the organic community/industry. If we lose the integrity of the organic standards, we will rapidly lose organics’ preeminence in the marketplace.

We all look forward to future meetings that are truly legitimate gatherings of the entire organic community. Together, we can ensure that organic food and farming offer healthy returns to farmers and investors, respectful employment to all those involved in such an important enterprise, respect for the Earth, a productive, sustainable, safe, and nutritionally rich food supply that meets modern energy and climate challenges, and a positive “green” model for society.

Sincerely yours, on behalf of all those who participated in Monday's Organic Community Summit,

Barth Anderson
The Wedge Co-op
The nation's largest single-store natural foods cooperative

Dave Engel
Certified organic dairy farmer
Natures International Certification Services

Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association

Steven Heim
Expert in corporate responsibility and ethical investing
Boston Common Asset Management

Steve Gilman
New York Organic Farming Activist

Michael Potter, CEO
Eden Foods

Ken Rabas
Farmers All-Natural Creamery

Mark Kastel
The Cornucopia Institute

Trudy Bialic
PCC Natural Markets
The nation’s largest consumer-owned grocery Cooperative

Goldie Caughlan
PCC Natural Markets
Former member: National Organic Standards Board

Organizations listed are for identification purposes only