|
by Rachel Forsmann
November 2002
Although the new organic standards have come a long way since their
inception, there are some organic farmers that are dropping out.
Knoll farms of Redmond California, didn't renew their certification
in 2002, instead deciding that focusing on being a sustainable farm
is more important than adhering to what they consider are watered-down
standards. According to Rick Knoll, "A lot of the original
ideas have been lost." What originally started as a system
of farming, whereby the soil and the ecosystem around the plants
cultivate a healthy environment, now big business farmers can purchase
the organisms and other organic inputs that allow them to qualify
as USDA Organic without developing a sustainable ecosystem. Rick
and Kristie Knoll don't need to purchase healthy organisms for their
soil, or bugs that will eat the pests on their plants because the
land they've developed already hosts a natural organic ecosystem.
They also don't chlorinate their salad greens or use sodium nitrate,
practices that are acceptable by the new USDA standards.
And there are other issues beyond pests and soil conditions. "Most
of the original organic farmers are out of business. Nobody is thinking
about what cheap prices means to the farmers," said Knoll.
Paying workers a livable wage and offering affordable healthcare
is often unheard of in agribusiness, but is another important goal
of sustainable farmers. Food miles or how far a product travels
before it reaches the retailer and eventually the consumer is another
major concern. If an organic banana has to travel from one side
of the country to another, what kind of an impact is that having
on the environment? Why aren't we buying food locally instead of
having it imported at the expense of our air quality? These are
questions the Knolls and others are asking.
Because Knoll Farms have been around for 27 years, they've taken
the risk of dropping the organic label and instead are promoting
the idea of "Sustainable Farming." This is a problem though,
when bringing produce to market. They've been dropped by several
organic distributors and most grocery stores because they only have
two cagetories: organic and commercial. Because Knoll doesn't carry
the USDA organic label, they can't sell their products in the higher
quality category, but to call their produce "commercial"
would do them a serious disservice. Some markets are developing
in-store labels that mark produce was grown with sustainable or
ecological farming methods.
Other organic farmers don't that luxury however. Although the USDA
standards exempt small farms that bring in less than $5,000 in income
from going through the certification process (they must still adhere
to the law and submit to inspections), those that make slightly
more must pay certification renewal fees and in many cases must
purchase new equipment that is more suited to factory farming. And
because larger factory farms will now have the options to label
their food organic, it further drives prices down and the smaller
farmer out of business. Zea Sonnebend, a CCOF inspector and member
of the EcoFarming Association, also acknowledged that the rising
costs may be driving smaller farms out of business.
To the USDA's credit, they've set aside several million dollars
in funds to defray the costs of certification, as well as funds
for competitive research grants which "will focus on determining
desirable traits for organic commodities; identifying marketing
and policy constraints on the expansion of organic agriculture;
and conducting advanced research on organic farms, including production,
marketing and socioeconomic research." Although Knoll and several
others expressed concern over the cost of re-certification, Helge
Helberg of CCOF, optimistic about the new standards, explained that
costs may actually decrease for smaller farmers. Certification costs
are based on the size of the farm; larger businesses pay higher
fees. "But it's ridiculous that these people must pay to certify.
Here they're trying to do something good for the earth, and they
are the ones that have to pay extra, while the ones who use pesticides
don't have to pay any fees at all." This statement underlines
the bitter irony of the organic standards game.
The Independent Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA) commended
the USDA on publishing stronger standards with their revision, but
they also presented the NOP with a list of 20 specific problems
with the rule. In some cases the new standards clearly cater to
large agri-business by requiring practices and equipment that are
not suitable for smaller farms. In other cases, the rule allows
for the use chemicals which are questionable by international standards
as well as by traditional organic practice. According to the IOIA,
"Chemical inputs are considered by existing CBs (Certifying
Bodies) to be a band-aid approach to greater problems of soil imbalances..."
The Organic Consumers' Association, an organization that developed
in 1997 when it looked as though the USDA was poised to downgrade
the organic label to an all-time low expressed clear dissatisfaction
with the new federal rule: "The USDA Organic standards ignore
or downplay important issues such as social justice and equity for
farm workers; consideration of "food-miles" as an impact
on the environment; the importance of local and regional organic
production; preservation of biodiversity and diverse crop and animal
varieties and breeds; and a consistent and specific delineation
of what constitutes humane treatment of farm animals." Like
Rick Knoll, the OCA agrees that organic farming goes beyond methods
of pest control and soil content. In fact, the National Organic
Standards Board adopted this definition of organic back in April
of 1995: "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management
system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles
and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm
inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance
ecological harmony."
While it is clear that the implementation of these standards and
the increased demand for organic food will make it less and less
enticing for large agri-business to use harmful pesticides, toxic
sludge, GMOs and irradiation during food growth and production,
the new standards require little in the way of creating a true ecosystem
that naturally promotes the growth of healthy plants and animals.
Demand for pesticides and antibiotics may decrease, but the demand
for off-farm inputs will increase, which is counter to the original
philosophy behind organic farming.
Although Helge Helberg seemed content with the new standards and
confident in the new methods for enforcing them, he warned, "We
need to watch that they don't get watered down. They're a solid
base to build from, but now we need to think about how we can include
social aspects." Zea Sonnabend clarified the role of the NOSB
in relation to the Secretary of Agriculture. "They're a nominal
policy body. What they suggest doesn't have to be binding."
That leaves the Secretary of Agriculture, now Anne Veneman, with
the power to add or delete legislation at will. "Yes, but she
has lawyers and politicians breathing down her back..." as
well as lobbyists and big business.
Although many consumers may feel relieved that there's one consistent
standard for organic, small farmers and activists are concerned
as big businesses interests get involved. Sonnabend emphasizes,
"It's important to stay vigilant. Corporate interests keep
hammering away. If you stop watching for an instant, something changes...
You've got to write letters at the appropriate times and stay watchful
of growers' needs. It may mean paying a little more for your produce,
but it will help the small farmers keep going."
|
