T h e N a t u r a l F a r m e r , $ 1 0 a y e a r , 4 1 1 S h e l d o n R d . , B a r r e , M A 0 1 0 0 5S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 �

Special Supplement onWho Owns Organic?

by Grace Gershuny

My friend Joe Smillie was the keynote speaker at a NOFA-VT Winter Conference sometime in the eighties, and opened his talk by saying “I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is: Success! Organic is growing and spreading, more people are buying organic food, and more farms are converting. The bad news is: Success...The “big guys” are noticing us, and looking for ways to cash in on the organic image.”

We have come a lot farther down the road to success since then, and Joe’s words continue to ring true. The charge he gave us that day was to begin to take ourselves seriously, and to be willing to work with anyone who was ready to play by the rules. Joe and I were both heavily involved in setting those rules—at the time, I was running the NOFA-VT certification program, and we had worked together to develop the first set of comprehensive guidelines for organic certification on behalf of OFPANA (the Organic Foods Production Association of North America), which is now known as OTA (the Organic Trade Association).

It was a pivotal time in many ways—there was already talk of Federal regulation of the organic label, along with fear of that eventuality. It was the beginning of referring to an “organic industry,” and competition was growing among certifiers, sectors of the trade and regions of the country. There was also the classic clash between farmers and middlemen, recreating the same exploitive economic relationships that characterize the conventional food system.

Within OFPANA at this time a debate was raging over the basis for organic standards. Farmers generally (and NOFA in particular) supported the idea that an organic label refers to the process by which a product is produced. That process entails principles such as ecological harmony, soil health, and minimizing dependence on nonrenewable energy as well as external inputs—especially petrochemical ones. Meanwhile, the manufacturers and marketing people were pitching the organic label as meaning “food you can trust”--clean, pure, and chemical free. To them, consumers’ belief that organic meant “no synthetics” was sacrosanct.

This debate came to be known as “origin of materials versus agronomic responsibility.” One side thought that organic is a process based on proper care of the soil and other ecologically sound agronomic practices, and not a claim about product quality. The other side, while they acknowledged that “no synthetic chemicals” was not an accurate characterization of organic practices or products, believed that the basis for organic standards should

Organic At The Crossroads: Revolution or Elite Niche Market?

clearly outlaw the use of synthetic substances, but make exceptions for those that were considered benign. Besides, consumers could never understand the nuances of “agronomic responsibility.”

Position papers were written, and the membership of the young trade association was polled. By a slim margin, the vote was for “origin of materials.” The guidelines that Joe and I had crafted to give central prominence to the principle of agronomic responsibility had to be reshaped so that the central question became whether or not a synthetic material was used. In my opinion, it is this decision that has come back to bite us all, and continues to limit the potential of organic agriculture to revolutionize the food system.

Today, we are strangling organic producers in a quagmire of red tape and picky questions about things like “food contact substances.” Crusaders are drumming up outrage over “weakening” the standards, sounding the alarm that nefarious agribusiness interests have taken over and want to make it so anything goes. The purity of organic food is their main concern, and the possibility that an organic product might be contaminated in some way their biggest fear. They also complain that the same interests are squeezing out small producers, and “stealing” the organic label that the pioneers of

the movement worked so hard to establish.

As organic food (and fiber) continues to gain momentum in the mainstream, among the central questions are these: Should consumers dictate the standards that organic farmers must live with? Is “raising” the standards the solution to preventing agribusiness from taking over? And finally, what are the bigger goals of the organic agenda—to protect an elite niche market from too many new entrants, or to increase the number of acres, animals, farm workers and earthworms that are organically managed? I think you can tell, by the way I phrased that question, what my own opinion is.

Protecting Organic Integrity and the Myth of Higher Standards

When I came to work at the NOP in 1994, the first thing they asked me to do was to write a definition of organic. When I stopped laughing, this is what I put at the top of a page: “The only thing I know for sure is not organic is dogmatism.” That motto continues to guide my advocacy for an organic approach to just about everything.

There has been a lot of talk about keeping standards high, which is seen as the means to protect organic integrity. Although this seems to make sense, there

Photo courtesy of Organic Trade Association www.ota.com

OTA members prepare to visit legislative offices as part of OTA’s Bring Your Legislator to Work Month, Fall 2005. One goal of the day is to let legislators

know how important organic agriculture and production is in their districts.

f r o m T h e N a t u r a l F a r m e r , p u b l i c a t i o n o f N O F A S p r i n g , 2 0 0 610

is a fundamental conflict between organic principles and the kind of rigidity characterized by “high” standards. There is a similar clash between organic principles and the concept of purity. Something that is pure is, above all, homogeneous—uncontaminated by diversity (think of white sugar, once preferred as free from impurities). And diversity, as everyone agrees, is integral to the meaning of organic.

I continue to use the word “higher” in quotes because there is also a disconnect between organic principles, which understand that nature works in cycles, and the linear world view of “high” versus “low.” There may be certain lines that can’t be crossed, but most of the decisions fall into the vast gray area. Even the distinction between synthetic and non-synthetic is not as clear and bright as most people assume. My attempts to help organic manufacturers comply with the post-Harvey (and pre-OTA amendment) landscape by reclassifying substances currently deemed to be synthetic underlined for me the fuzziness of that distinction. “Synthetic,” after all, also refers to a process by which a substance is created, not to any inherent quality of the substance.

Misconceptions are also rampant about different types of regulations and standards and what they are supposed to do. Most environmental and consumer activists are accustomed to standards that regulate environmental contamination and health hazards, which most certainly should be as strict and high as possible. Their purpose is to protect us from pollution of all kinds, with the goal of keeping toxic substances out of our air, water, and food.

Organic standards are an entirely different animal. While they do have a consumer protection function,

it is not protection from contaminants but protection from mislabeling. The major purpose of having consistent national standards in this case is that of market development. This is also true for product standards; industries typically work with regulators to make sure that grades are consistently applied to products such as butter, textiles, potatoes and peanuts. They want these standards to be strict, not so much to protect the public, but in order to keep inferior or nonconforming goods out of the market, and thus maintain prices.

Consumers generally have no role in setting these kinds of standards, although consumer expectations are an important consideration. Consumers expect accurate information about the grade of a product, since higher grades often cost more—fancy apples are free from blemishes, for example. That said, I believe that consumers should have some role in organic standard development. But, if consumer perceptions are based on inaccurate information, they should not be accepted as an immutable fact of life, but regarded as an opportunity to educate the public about the real benefits of organic agriculture.

In the case of organic, and any process-based standards, stricter does not generally translate into benefits to consumers or environment. It translates mainly into increased barriers to new entrants, and disincentives to those who wish to remain. It also creates abundant new job opportunities for people like me, who help generate the bureaucratic procedures needed to enforce these rules, and help people make sense out of them (if there is any).

In general, stricter standards work against the small, family operation, whether it is a farm or a processor. Big companies have compliance staffs to make sure they are meeting all the requirements of myriad

Photo provided by Organic Trade Association www.ota.com

Massachusetts Congressman John Olver and OTA’s Policy Associate Beth Fraser talk about organic agriculture and production over heirloom tomatoes.

types of certifications their customers demand of them. They are not interested in lower barriers for new entrants to the market, and mostly want to make sure the prices for their niche organic product remain high enough to cover the extra expense of ingredients and certification. In my experience in organic certification and on the NOP staff, it was usually the small, independent folks who felt they needed the rules bent to accommodate their needs. The mythical pressure from agribusiness to “dilute” or “weaken” organic standards is, in my experience, fictional (and often happened in reverse—the big players advocated for “stricter” standards).

The Way Forward

The attacks and smear campaign that characterized the debate surrounding the Harvey lawsuit and legislative amendment sponsored by OTA has violated the spirit of organic. It has probably also confused consumers, and engendered some unwarranted distrust of the organic label. I am not claiming that the process is always working, or that it can’t be improved. However, the politics of polarization, painting the world as “us” and “them,” and staging all-out attacks on “them” is a recipe for global catastrophe, and a poison that has infected the world of organic advocacy.

Here’s what I think you, as an informed organic producer or homesteader can do to keep organic moving in the right direction. First, be skeptical about pronouncements from self-proclaimed upholders of organic integrity, and learn the facts for yourself. Educate yourself and your customers about what organic really means, and promote its real benefits, not faith-based claims of purity and safety. There is no place on earth that is not contaminated in some way.

Support efforts to involve more people in food production, and to encourage local food systems. Food security, food sovereignty, and all similar movements to decentralize the food system are critically important, and should not be seen as competing with an organic industry that many think has become too mass-production oriented. While I personally grow most of my own vegetables and chicken, I still want to buy organic coffee and bananas, which I know supports small farmers and benefits the environment in tropical countries.

Don’t expect or demand that the organic label solve all the problems of a corporate dominated, globalized food system. Pursue social justice goals vigorously, through fair trade schemes and political action, but don’t pile them onto organic standards. All it will do is reduce the possibility that organic will become the dominant system of agriculture in our lifetime.

Grace Gershuny is widely known in the alternative agriculture movement as an organizer, educator,

author and consultant. In the seventies and eighties she market gardened and worked for the Northeast

Organic Farming Association (NOFA) in many capacities, including developing its first organic

certification program, and was a founding member of the Organic Trade Association. She has written extensively on soil management and composting, including The Soul of Soil, coauthored with Joe

Smillie, and edited Organic Farmer: The Digest of Sustainable Agriculture for its four year existence. From 1994-99 she served on the staff of USDA’s National Organic Program, and was a principal author of its first, much maligned proposed rule.

She now consults for the organic industry (including OTA), does some inspections and a little teaching, and is working on a book about the real meaning

of organic. She still grows most of her own veggies (organically of course) at her homestead in Barnet,

VT.

Biodynamics,the oldest non-chemical agricultural movement, seeks toactively work with health-giving forces of nature. Join withus in the renewal of agriculture, health, and nutrition. Tosupport our efforts, consider an annual membership, whichincludes a subscription to the quarterly BIODYNAMICS anddiscounts on our books and conferences. Membership cost is$45.00. To receive an information packet and a copy of ourbook catalog, please call, write or e-mail us at:

BIODYNAMICSWorking for Social Renewal Through Agriculture

autumn 2005 – number 254

Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association25844 Butler Road, Junction City OR 97448

(541)998-0105; fax: (541)998-0106; biodynamic@aol.com; www.biodynamics.com