19
Aug
Certified Organic Principles and Practices Embraced by Farmers and Consumers; Fed Standards Eroding
(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2024) As a local news outlet in Virginia covers a local farm receiving organic certification, Beyond Pesticides launches an action this week to “take back organic” —in response to prominent agricultural forces and industry interests attempting to weaken organic standards and blur the line between certified organic and “regenerative” practices that are not organic-certified. In an article, VMRC’s Farm at Willow Run is certified organic [VMRC is the Virginia Mennonite Retirement Community], Rocktown Now quotes the farm manager in Harrisonburg, VA, Nate Clark, saying, “This milestone demonstrates our dedication to providing high-quality, healthy food to our residents and community while also prioritizing environmental sustainability.” The article reports that as a certified organic farm with detailed records of the farm’s field and harvest activities and materials, subject to annual inspections, “VMRC is committed to regenerative farming practices that promote soil health, energy conservation and fair working conditions.”
“Regenerative” agriculture or land management that is not certified organic raises a series of questions about its lack of a standard definition that is enforceable under a compliance system. Beyond Pesticides’ piece on the subject, “Regenerative” Agriculture Still Misses the Mark in Defining a Path to a Livable Future,“ explores the departure from the underlying principles, standards, allowable substances, and enforcement of certified organic practices. As a result, organic practitioners and advocates have taken the position that to make regenerative meaningful, it must require organic certification as a starting point.
Organic agriculture in the United States started in the 1940s as a movement of concerned citizens, environmentalists, and farmers. The organic movement in the U.S. was spearheaded by J.I. Rodale, founder of Rodale Press and Rodale Institute (originally Soil and Health Foundation), who was influenced by earlier pioneers including indigenous peoples, George Washington Carver, Lady Eve Balfour in England, Sir Albert Howard in India, and Rudolf Steiner of Austria. Rodale’s interest in promoting a healthy and active lifestyle that emphasized organically grown foods led him to establish the Rodale Organic Gardening Experimental Farm in 1940 and start publishing Organic Farming and Gardening magazine in 1942.
Interest in organic food and organic farming grew in the 1960s after the publication of Silent Spring increased public awareness of the dangers of toxic pesticides, promoted by Rodale’s belief that farming practices focused on cultivating healthy soil would lead to healthier foods, and ultimately, healthier people as well. Since then, organic practices have been shown to also have beneficial impacts on biodiversity and climate. The notion of building soil, which is foundational to organic and certified organic production to this day, replaced the reliance on toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.
During the 1980s, momentum grew toward codifying principles of organic to not only protect organic consumers, but also reverse pesticide dependency and its resulting impacts from toxic chemical contamination. That momentum culminated in the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). That “organic” belongs to the movement of organic farmers, consumers and public interest organizations, environmentalists, scientists, handlers, retailers, and certifiers, was recognized in the guiding role OFPA gives to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) consisting of representatives of those groups. While the foundation of organic is strong in rejecting materials and practices that are harmful to biological systems, there are ongoing efforts regarding organic standards and certification at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and large agricultural interests that have the effect, whether intentional or not, of undermining public trust in the organic label.
National Organic Standards Board and key issues. Just as the NOSB shows that organic belongs to the organic community and is not just a premium brand, it is the disempowering of the NOSB that marks the theft of organic. Although members of the NOSB are meant to represent various sectors of the organic community, it is USDA, not the organic community, who selects members of the board. When USDA redefined the requirement to reevaluate allowed synthetic substances in organic production and processing—the “sunset” provision—it weakened the default assumption that synthetic substances (on a five-year review cycle) are removed from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances unless a supermajority of the board agreed on its relisting. It redefined “sunset,” defying its common meaning, to retain a listing unless a supermajority votes to remove it. USDA denies the primary principle of organic agriculture—the critical importance of soil health—by allowing hydroponics to be certified organic. It has also allowed certified livestock producers to confine animals for extended periods of time, without showing necessity, in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
Certification of organic practices. A less obvious way that organic is being stolen is the way certification is currently managed. OFPA allows USDA leeway in the structure of the certification system. USDA’s approach results in inconsistency and “certifier shopping.” Certifying agents are private businesses who collect fees for the service from the certified producer or handler and have an incentive to give their customers (producers) what they want—hence, some certifiers (but not all) certify “organic” hydroponic or CAFO operations. Other ways of structuring organic certification that have been suggested by the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association and André Leu of Regeneration International have not been adopted in the U.S. In the short-term, one way of offsetting the costs of certification is the Organic Certification Cost Share Program. In the long-term, it must be recognized that organic agriculture performs a social good in saving the earth and therefore certification must be subsidized.
Solving existential crises. Chemical-intensive agriculture is a major contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss. Its dependence on toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizers results in human disease and contamination of air, land, and water. Organic agriculture can reverse or mitigate all these problems—as long as it is the organic as originally conceived, embodying the four principles of organic agriculture, as stated by Regeneration International, that are essential in determining whether practices are regenerative or degenerative.
- Health: Organic agriculture should sustain and enhance the health of soil, plant, animal, human and planet as one and indivisible.
- Ecology: Organic agriculture should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them.
- Fairness: Organic agriculture should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities.
- Care: Organic agriculture should be managed in a precautionary and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future generations and the environment.
As organic is being attacked, it continues to help mitigate the crises in public health, climate, and biodiversity by providing:
- A definition of organic agriculture that defines health-biodiversity-climate friendly practices;
- A requirement for a systems plan that establishes baseline management practices to create resiliency and prevent pests;
- A rigorous process for an allowed/prohibited substances list with a mechanism for incorporating real-time data on hazards and alternatives into reevaluation of allowed list;
- A third-party certification and enforcement system;
- A process for public participation to ensure a feedback loop for continuous improvement;
- Funding to ensure elements are carried out in a robust way.
Taking Back Organic Principles and Practices. However, the problems identified above have prompted some in the organic community to “add-back” or “add-on” to current USDA standards by defining and certifying “real organic” or “regenerative organic.” And now, the same chemical-intensive agriculture interests are trying to hijack the term “regenerative,” which was coined by Robert Rodale “to describe a holistic approach to farming that encourages continuous innovation and improvement of environmental, social, and economic measures.” The word “regenerative” is now used loosely by many who promote minor improvements in agriculture, such as reduced tillage and cover crops. However, when confronted with a definition that allows use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, it is important to keep in mind what Jeff Moyer, emeritus director of the Rodale Institute who introduced Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC), has aptly stated, “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying, ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.'”
It is time to reclaim organic from the chemical interests that are in the process of stealing it—and prevent “regenerative,” integral to organic, from being stolen as well. Regenerative organic agriculture—and regenerative must always start with organic—is our hope for mitigating and reversing the damage inflicted on the Earth and her inhabitants by chemical-intensive agriculture.
For more information, on “regenerative” practices outside of an organic management system, see Herbicide Use in “Regenerative” No-Till Contaminates Waterbodies. Also, Mad Capital in March announced the growth of its Perennial Fund II (PFII), a loan fund “to provide farmers in the United States with tailored loans that help them transition to regenerative organic farmland while also increasing farmer profits.”
Letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and NOP Deputy Administrator Jenny Tucker
Organic agriculture in the United States began in the 1940s as a movement of concerned citizens, environmentalists, and farmers, spearheaded by J.I. Rodale, founder of Rodale Press and Rodale Institute (originally Soil and Health Foundation). Rodale’s interest in promoting a healthy and lifestyle emphasizing organically grown foods led him to establish the Rodale Organic Gardening Experimental Farm in 1940 and start Organic Farming and Gardening magazine in 1942.
Interest in organic farming and food grew in the 1960s as the publication of Silent Spring increased awareness of the dangers of toxic pesticides, furthered by Rodale’s belief that farming practices focused on cultivating healthy soil lead to healthier foods and healthier people. Since then, organic practices have been shown to have beneficial impacts on biodiversity and climate.
During the 1980s, momentum grew towards codifying principles of organic to not only protect organic consumers, but also reverse pesticide dependency and its resulting impacts. That momentum culminated in the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). That “organic” belongs to the movement of organic farmers, consumers and public interest organizations, environmentalists, scientists, handlers, retailers, and certifiers, was recognized in the guiding role OFPA gives to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) consisting of representatives of those groups.
Just as the NOSB shows that organic belongs to the organic community, the disempowering of the NOSB marks the theft of organic. Although members of the NOSB represent various sectors of the organic community, USDA, not the organic community, selects members of the board. USDA’s unilateral redefinition of “sunset”—so that, in re-evaluating synthetic materials allowed in organic, they are now presumed to be renewed, contrary to the meaning of “sunset” in every other legal setting.
USDA denies the primary principle of organic agriculture—the critical importance of soil health—by allowing hydroponics to be certified organic. It has also allowed certified livestock producers to confine animals for extended periods of time in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
OFPA allows USDA leeway in the structure of the certification system, and USDA’s approach results in inconsistency and “certifier shopping.” Certifying agents are private businesses who collect fees for the service from the certified producer and have an incentive to give their customers what they want—hence, some certifiers (but not all) certify “organic” hydroponic or CAFO operations. Other ways of structuring organic certification should be considered. In the short-term, the Organic Certification Cost Share Program may offset costs.
Chemical-intensive agriculture is a major contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss. Its dependence on toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizers results in human disease and environmental contamination. Organic agriculture can reverse or mitigate all these problems—if it is organic as originally conceived.
As the problems identified above have prompted some in the organic community to separate themselves from USDA by defining and certifying “real organic” or “regenerative organic,” chemical-intensive agriculture interests try to hijack the term “regenerative,” which Robert Rodale used to prioritize soil health. The word “regenerative” is now used loosely by many who combine chemical-intensive practices with minor improvements in agriculture, such as reduced tillage and cover crops. But such steps outside an organic system are not regenerative.
Please ensure that organic certification requires practices that build soil and animals on pasture, so hydroponics and CAFOs should not be certified.
Thank you.
Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators
Organic agriculture in the United States began in the 1940s as a movement of concerned citizens, environmentalists, and farmers, spearheaded by J.I. Rodale, founder of Rodale Press and Rodale Institute (originally Soil and Health Foundation). Rodale’s interest in promoting a healthy and lifestyle emphasizing organically grown foods led him to establish the Rodale Organic Gardening Experimental Farm in 1940 and start Organic Farming and Gardening magazine in 1942.
Interest in organic farming and food grew in the 1960s as the publication of Silent Spring increased awareness of the dangers of toxic pesticides, furthered by Rodale’s belief that farming practices focused on cultivating healthy soil lead to healthier foods and healthier people. Since then, organic practices have been shown to have beneficial impacts on biodiversity and climate.
During the 1980s, momentum grew towards codifying principles of organic to not only protect organic consumers, but also reverse pesticide dependency and its resulting impacts. That momentum culminated in the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). That “organic” belongs to the movement of organic farmers, consumers and public interest organizations, environmentalists, scientists, handlers, retailers, and certifiers, was recognized in the guiding role OFPA gives to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) consisting of representatives of those groups.
Just as the NOSB shows that organic belongs to the organic community, the disempowering of the NOSB marks the theft of organic. Although members of the NOSB represent various sectors of the organic community, USDA, not the organic community, selects members of the board. Another step was USDA’s unilateral redefinition of “sunset”—so that, in re-evaluating synthetic materials allowed in organic, they are now presumed to be renewed, contrary to the meaning of “sunset” in every other legal setting.
USDA denies the primary principle of organic agriculture—the critical importance of soil health—by allowing hydroponics to be certified organic. It has also allowed certified livestock producers to confine animals for extended periods of time in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
OFPA allows USDA leeway in the structure of the certification system, and USDA’s approach results in inconsistency and “certifier shopping.” Certifying agents are private businesses who collect fees for the service from the certified producer and have an incentive to give their customers what they want—hence, some certifiers (but not all) certify “organic” hydroponic or CAFO operations. Other ways of structuring organic certification should be considered. In the short-term, the Organic Certification Cost Share Program may offset costs.
Chemical-intensive agriculture is a major contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss. Its dependence on toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizers results in human disease and environmental contamination. Organic agriculture can reverse or mitigate all these problems—if it is organic as originally conceived.
As the problems identified above have prompted some in the organic community to separate themselves from USDA by defining and certifying “real organic” or “regenerative organic,” chemical-intensive agriculture interests try to hijack the term “regenerative,” which Robert Rodale used to prioritize soil health. The word “regenerative” is now used loosely by many who combine chemical-intensive practices with minor improvements in agriculture, such as reduced tillage and cover crops. But such steps outside an organic system are not regenerative.
Please ensure that organic certification requires practices that build soil and animals on pasture, so hydroponics and CAFOs should not be certified. Please support the Organic Certification Cost Share Program in the Farm Bill.
Thank you.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Rocktown Now
