[Scpg] TRANSITIONS

[scpg-admin at arashi.com]

T R A N S I T I O N S

January 2002

By Steven Sprinkel
in ACRES,USA


The recent, government-mandated changes imposed upon the organic community in 
the US can’t really be characterized as ‘growing pains’, even though 
maturity could be one of the results of the federal National Organic Program. 

Our ‘news brief’ is that nearly one hundred private and state organizations 
applied to be accredited as organic certifiers by the US government. Surprise 
was noted in the number of formerly unknown entities applying, foreign 
agencies and as well the number of familiar acronyms that did not meet the 
deadline. However, in light of the communications problems arising from 911, 
the final number may increase. Many in the organic community are gratified 
that greater uniformity-and believability-are on the horizon, no matter if 
brought on by the United States Department of Agriculture.

USDA is not exactly famous for fostering improvement, hence the need some 
decades ago to re-invent agriculture based on pre-chemical era knowledge, 
which has grown incredibly over the years as we learn more about nature while 
we work with and study it. We call it organic farming.

Now the same folks we turned our backs on once upon a time are set to tell us 
how its done.

Precisely, how to certify foods and fiber as organically grown.

The "national organic law" and its manager, the Department of Agriculture, 
offer an opportunity for scattered and homespun organizations to get their 
ducks in a line, amid the sighs and dire oaths taken "agin’ the gubment". 

One area where we were much in need of revision concerns ‘conflict of 
interest’ and how those conflicts undermine the credibility of the organic 
certifier. Many a time have farmers gathered together to review the 
certification of one of their peers, fudging occasionally when ‘giving the 
Johnsons the benefit of the doubt’, and at times merely postponing a decision 
because a majority did not have the courage to decertify a bad actor. Like a 
big farm enterprise whose contributions to the organization helped make it 
financially viable and provided prestige. Or a board member who invented his 
own way to get around a crop rotation standard and was never called on it by 
his certifier.

Been there, seen and done that myself. But I did criticize our inaction, and 
was not alone when complaining. Finally in 2002 we have an authority 
overseeing the activities of the certification community, and while sometimes 
mistrustful of and critical of that authority ( USDA), we have to submit 
ourselves to that master. Some do so gladly, other grudgingly, and some plan 
to not do so at all. The majority, though they do not speak, may agree that 
supervision with muscle is required,  because farmers in the past, when 
certifiers acted with whimsy and without oversight, were the ones that were 
most severely harmed.

A few scattered voices here and there want to ‘ go beyond organic.’ But this 
incipient movement away from government definitions and control can only 
appeal to horticultural growers involved with direct marketing, for example 
in Community Supported Agriculture or Farmers Markets. 

Specifically, it will be difficult for the Kleinsmids to pour 1360 gallons of 
raw milk a day into the required number of homes under an alternative label, 
or for the Winston’s to grow 250 acres of wheat, bake bread from it, and then 
overnight it across the country, every other day.  Sounds intriguing though. 
Do the math. You may end up paying for the big oven faster than you could pay 
for the new combine.

I don’t think we will find many farmers refusing to use the word ‘organic’ 
until that term is so ill defined that we can not live with it. While under 
continual attack, organic still represents farming practices that we should 
be proud of. Consumers now identify the nature of product quality with the 
use of that one word. So instead of looking backwards at what one thinks 
organic meant at one time, perhaps we need to look into the future to see 
what we can assure it means then. 

You may remember that all sorts of measures were proposed for the federal 
definition, ideas that were meant to indicate qualities other than that a 
product was produced on land three years away from chemicals and to which 
nothing synthetic has been applied before during or after its harvest. Issues 
regarding scale of production, family farming, sustainability, ethics and 
mores were nominated and then shut out. They were eliminated because the 
label was meant to create uniformity for consumer protection…not meant, at 
that time, to limit, but instead to raise the standards that we knew were 
being used at that time ( 1989-90).

Now of course, that uniformity is now seen as the lowest common denominator.
But I think one may be able to affix labeling that speaks to other issues 
than standards of production. Has it been proposed that manufacturers 
discontinue those ‘bird friendly’ labels ( picture a toucan at this moment) 
on certified organically grown coffee? Allowing a little devil’s-advocacy, if 
the toucans and parrots remain, then what stands in the way of me stating 
that my farm is 1000 feet from the nearest conventional farm ground? I could 
even rename my farm " Thousand Foot Buffer Farm" or " Sprinkel’s Happy Valley 
Farm-Home of the Quarter-mile Buffer". Probably not, because my claim is 
specified in the National Organic Program, whereas tree canopies meant to 
provide food and shelter to wild birds is not dealt with in the NOP.
The argument involving corporate versus family farming ( or manufacture), is 
heard more often than any other, and also provides much controversy. It is 
natural to empathize with a sixty acre organic family operation which has 
seen its marketshare  evaporate because of  the entry of some huge 
conventional potato king named Johnny Come Lately. 

For example, in early January National Public Radio interviewed Gene Kahn, a 
vice president of General Mills and founder of Cascadian Farms, and 
counterposed his comments on scale of production with the responses of Warren 
Weber. Mr. Weber served for a number of critically important years as the 
statewide president of California Certified Organic Farmers.

While I emphatically abhor the trend to consolidate, and acknowledge the 
harmful results of corporate control over any food and farming system, 
conventional or organic, I have to say that we are misusing our energy to 
pursue the argument as framed.

 Those who first helped bring commercial scale organic potatoes to the 
marketplace, or milk, soybeans or asparagus, labor under the misapprehension 
that we had a plan when we invented organic. And we pretend that Simplot, 
Tanimura and Antle, William Bolthouse, General Mills and Gallo were not part 
of that plan.

But we had no plan. First we grew a garden and then it got out of hand. Or 
Daddy never used chemicals to grow corn and then I started selling it as 
Organic back in ’79.  Or,  " She started taking stuff to that farmers market 
over in Sebastopol and everyone wanted to know if it had been sprayed so we 
stopped spraying ( chemicals at least) and then when this idea of Certified 
Organic came around it looked OK to me, so we went for it."

As a matter of fact, if there was any plan at all, that plan actually 
included Simplot, Tanimura and Antle, William Bolthouse, General Mills and 
Gallo. The Plan that I remember back in 1969 was that we should stop using 
chemicals to grow food, that chemicals were not good for the planet, not for 
the people who consumed them on their lettuce nor for the people who lived 
downwind of the Dow chemical plant. 
If it were not so, then why do we amplify our successes, measure and proclaim 
our growth in acres and dollars, feel gratified when our neighbor finally 
wises up and begins a transition to organic?

Why shouldn’t we feel just as good about Winston’s neighbor going organic 
out in Nebraska as we do about our own, or all the neighbors everywhere, 
especially the lemon grower where the helicopters fly on chlorpyrifos next to 
the elementary school?

No, the Hippies do not run this deal anymore, Moonsong. Mistrust their 
motives if you like, but  Simplot and Gallo still have to produce organic 
food and fiber according to lawful standards.  But you better pay attention, 
Moonsong, or the Sharpies will pull a fast one. 

Did you offer a comment to the USDA on the proposed animal feed ingredients 
prior to the 24th of January? As tedious, as seemingly ineffectual as it 
might seem, your consistent comments to USDA and ongoing communications to 
your certifier and other grower organizations is a better use of our energy 
than fretting over things we can not change.

Take some cheer instead that for every acre of ground that goes organic 
another bottle of poison goes unused, or Monsanto’s share of the seed market 
just dipped a bit more. If there must be a plan, lets include those kinds of 
things in it.


The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI)  < omri.org> has just 
introduced its new OMRI Generic Materials List. The 135-page document, 
extensively annotated, includes information on over 800 materials for use in 
crop, livestock and processing sectors of organic production. The revised 
list also includes: 
· An OMRI Status column that codes each material as Allowed, Regulated, or 
Prohibited 
· A National Organic Program (NOP) Rule column that cites regulatory text for 
each material listed 
· An OMRI Annotation column that includes restrictions on use and additional 
information 
· Cross reference listings to materials included in the International 
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Basic Standards 

Is organic food more nutritious than conventional? The world wide web is 
replete with answers to the question. It is odd that, though ample, credible 
research evidence now exists, major media has denied the fact that organic is 
better for you for so long that it taken as the reality. Chrys, at Chrysalis 
Farm at Tolstoy in Davenport, Washigton put together this list . One site 
critical of the idea that organics are more nutritious is: < 
http://www.consumeralert.org/issues/food/organicfood.htm >
A good site for studies favoring the view that organics are more nutritious 
is:                               < 
http://www.edenfoods.com/info/09192001.html>  and it has links to several 
studies. One of the best resources that compiles information from various 
studies revised in May 2001is from ATTRA and can be found at: < 
http://ncatark.uark.edu/~steved/food-quality.html> . Conscious Choice 
compiled research in  Oct. 2001 that can be found at: 
http://www.consciouschoice.com/food/organicmatters1410.html