{"id":36111,"date":"2024-08-19T00:01:30","date_gmt":"2024-08-19T04:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=36111"},"modified":"2024-08-19T12:23:53","modified_gmt":"2024-08-19T16:23:53","slug":"certified-organic-principles-and-practices-embraced-by-farmers-and-consumers-fed-standards-eroding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/08\/certified-organic-principles-and-practices-embraced-by-farmers-and-consumers-fed-standards-eroding\/","title":{"rendered":"Certified Organic Principles and Practices Embraced by Farmers and Consumers; Fed Standards Eroding"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, 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 \u201ctake back organic\u201d \u2014in 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\u2019s Farm at Willow Run is certified organic<\/a> [VMRC is the Virginia Mennonite Retirement Community], Rocktown Now<\/em> quotes the farm manager in Harrisonburg, VA, Nate Clark, saying, \u201cThis milestone demonstrates our dedication to providing high-quality, healthy food to our residents and community while also prioritizing environmental sustainability.\u201d The article reports that as a certified organic farm with detailed records of the farm\u2019s field and harvest activities and materials, subject to annual inspections, \u201cVMRC is committed to regenerative farming practices that promote soil health, energy conservation and fair working conditions.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

\u201cRegenerative\u201d 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\u2019 piece on the subject, \u201cRegenerative\u201d Agriculture Still Misses the Mark in Defining a Path to a Livable Future<\/a>,\u201c 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<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

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<\/a>, founder of Rodale Press and Rodale Institute (originally Soil and Health Foundation), who was influenced by earlier pioneers<\/a> including indigenous peoples, George Washington Carver, Lady Eve Balfour in England, Sir Albert Howard in India, and Rudolf Steiner of Austria. \u00a0Rodale\u2019s 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<\/em> magazine in 1942.<\/p>\r\n

>> Tell USDA that organic agriculture must require practices that build soil and raise animals on pasture, so hydroponics and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) should not be certified. Tell Congress to support increased funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

Interest in organic food and organic farming grew in the 1960s after the publication of Silent Spring<\/em> increased public awareness of the dangers of toxic pesticides, promoted by Rodale\u2019s belief<\/a> 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<\/a> and climate<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\r\n

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<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(OFPA). That \u201corganic\u201d 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.<\/p>\r\n

National Organic Standards Board and key issues.<\/strong> 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\u2014the \u201csunset\u201d provision\u2014it 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 \u201csunset,\u201d defying its common meaning, to retain a listing unless a supermajority votes to remove it. USDA denies the primary principle of organic agriculture\u2014the critical importance of soil health\u2014by 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).<\/p>\r\n

Certification of organic practices.<\/strong> 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\u2019s approach results in inconsistency and \u201ccertifier shopping.\u201d Certifying agents are private businesses that collect fees for the service from the certified producer or handler and have an incentive to give their customers (producers) what they want\u2014hence, some certifiers (but not all) certify \u201corganic\u201d hydroponic or CAFO operations. Other ways of structuring organic certification that have been suggested by the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association<\/a> and Andr\u00e9 Leu<\/a> 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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\r\n

Solving existential crises.<\/strong> Chemical-intensive agriculture is a major contributor to climate change<\/a> and biodiversity loss<\/a>. Its dependence on toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizers results in human disease<\/a> and contamination<\/a> of air, land, and water. Organic agriculture can reverse or mitigate all these problems\u2014as long as it is the organic as originally conceived, embodying the four principles of organic agriculture, as stated by Regeneration International<\/a>, that are essential in determining whether practices are regenerative or degenerative.<\/p>\r\n