With Whole Foods continuing to dazzle Wall Street with its growth and Wal-Mart vowing to become the world's No. 1 organic grocer, now would seem to be a wonderful time to be an organic farmer -- particularly one with enough acreage to supply the corporate giants.
According to classical economics, when demand jumps, supply should follow, pulled up by the good's rising price. But a funny thing is happening in the certified-organic fields and orchards of California, home to about 40 percent of the nation's organic-vegetable acreage: produce is shriveling unpicked on the vine, choked by weeds and neglect.
Ripe for the pricing.
Photo: iStockphoto
A labor squeeze has gripped California's farm operators. Simply put, not enough undocumented Mexican workers are sneaking across an increasingly militarized border, and the ones who do tend to be drawn to higher-paid, less-demanding urban jobs. While the labor shortage affects all of the state's fruit and vegetable farms, organic ones bear the heaviest burden, according to a recent Associated Press report. That's because human hands, often wielding a hoe, must do work that's done on conventional farms by herbicides and other chemical inputs.
The AP article focuses on one prominent California organic farmer who "has been forced to tear out nearly 30 acres of vegetables, and has about 100 acres compromised by weeds." The farmer figures this season's dearth of workers has cost him $200,000 so far -- "worse than anything he's seen in his 31 years of farming," AP reports.
Under perfect free-market conditions, a simple mechanism would remedy the shortage. As farmers abandoned rotting vegetables to the weeds, supply would drop. Since demand is robust, the price of organic veggies would rise -- allowing farmers to raise wages without compromising profitability. Higher wages would then lure more Mexican workers to brave the U.S. marshals, minutemen, stiff "coyote" fees, and brutal desert conditions that characterize the border crossing. And then California's large-scale organic farms would hum again, ready to stock the shelves of Wal-Marts and Whole Foods the nation over.
Yet I doubt this scenario will play out. The organic produce market once relied on direct sales between small-scale farmers and consumers -- think farmers' markets and CSAs. That meant that buyers were a diverse and numerous bunch, giving farmers some power to set prices at a level that reflected labor and cost. At the farmers' market, I know that if one person gawks at my $3 per pound yellow heirloom tomatoes and walks away empty-handed and flummoxed, I can count on a food fanatic dropping by a minute or two later and snapping up a few pounds with a smile. We nurtured those tomatoes from seed, and staked, strung, and harvested them by hand; $3 per pound seems like a bargain to us.
Now, however, the produce market is increasingly the territory of a few big retailers. In short, a market once characterized by many buyers is transforming into one controlled by a few. And the power to name prices is being wrenched from the hands of farmers by the likes of Wal-Mart and Whole Foods. As those two titans battle it out for the title of the nation's top organic grocer -- a position Whole Foods currently owns by a wide margin [PDF] -- expect them to compete over who can deliver the cheapest organic tomato. And that means large-scale organic farmers can expect to see a price squeeze even as they're struggling to find enough workers to pick their fruit.
Sound far-fetched? Consider that while organic vegetables typically fetch prices 20 to 30 percent higher than conventionally grown fare, Wal-Mart has already announced plans to squeeze that premium to 10 percent. Most likely organic farmers, and not Wal-Mart's profit margins, will feel the pinch more painfully.
Wal-Mart can perform this feat simply by playing large-scale U.S. organic farmers against their counterparts in Mexico and even China -- a strategy that would not be completely at odds with the retail giant's historic business model. According to AP, "Some [California] growers are moving parts of their operations to Mexico." A few months back, BusinessWeek reported that Cascadian Farm, General Mills' "natural" subsidiary, "buys its organic fruits and vegetables from China and Mexico."
Some optimists see in these trends the "democratization" of organic food. As its retail price drops compared to conventional food, more people will buy it, benefiting public health and the environment alike. But I see the process of commodification at work. In commodity markets, distinctions fade. A given product's history disappears into history's dustbin. An organic tomato from Mexico equals an organic tomato from Chile equals one from the farmer down the road. The goal becomes not to maximize flavor or bolster local economies, but to minimize price.
Even small-scale, locally oriented farms like my own Maverick Farms have felt commodification's pressure. Just two weeks ago, the chef/owner of a nearby posh restaurant, one that had loyally bought produce from the family who started our farm 20 years ago, called to complain about our prices. It seems Albert's Organics was quoting him prices 20 or 30 percent lower than ours. Albert's -- a subsidiary of United Natural Foods, the self-proclaimed "largest publicly traded wholesale distributor to the natural and organic foods industry" -- is evidently opening a distribution center nearby. That's bad news for Maverick and other local farms.
Starting in the 1930s, the U.S. food system succumbed to commodification at a blistering pace. The result has been, to paraphrase T.W. Adorno, "disaster triumphant" -- flavorless institutional food, declining public health, wrecked rural economies, and untold environmental wreckage. For the corporations that dominate the food industry, though, it's just been a triumph.
And now the organic movement, which emerged as a critique of the idea of food-as-commodity, is itself hurtling down the path of commodification. Some greens, embracing a binary worldview not unlike the one prevalent in the White House, insist that everyone declare it a "good thing" that corporations are embracing organic. I respond: let's not surrender our power to analyze just because some slick CEO talks a good game. Let Wal-Mart do what it wants. I'll remain part of the movement to rebuild locally owned food-production institutions that benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment alike.
With GoodGuide scanner, PC food shopping goes point and click
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Threaded
PBrazelton Posted 5:16 am
23 Aug 2006
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:54 am
23 Aug 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:53 am
23 Aug 2006
And is there an Albert behind Albert's Organics?
But I guess there is the First Amendment to consider. And no less important, advertisement is (or at least has been called) the "great American art form."
I applaud the direction you are going in, regarding undocumented immigrant farm-workers. From your mouth to God's ear.
Permalink
axis42 Posted 7:45 am
23 Aug 2006
I am ALL in favor of the little guy. I hate Wal-Mart, don't go into Whole Foods and shop at a local food co-op and am proud of it. When I remember on the right day, I go to the local weekly farmers market. I believe in eating locally produced foods as much as possible. I do all that because it's good for me and the planet and because I have a disposable income that allows me to do so.
But you know what? The folks that shop at Wal-Mart because it's cheap and that's what they can afford, they're the little guy too. And because what they can afford right now is generally twinkies and frozen dinners chock full of fat and sugar, they have a higher incidence of diabetes and weight problems then the rich people like me who read Grist do (we're all rich compared to most of the country and you know it). Those folks should be able to afford to eat organicly (healthy) too.
It's not a perfect world and I don't want my co-op to be overrun with organic tomoatoes from Chile since being shipped by massive boats spewing diesel hardly conforms to my idea of organic or my politcial ideals. But you guys, the price of organics has to come down. If not for my pocketbook (which is hardly bottomless) but for the health of the industry in the long term. And if the little, local guy can't do that, you've got to find another reason to charge the prices you feel you deserve and convince me and all the other people like me to do so.
Your bottom line isn't going to do it for me, since I need to look out for mine at some point.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:28 am
23 Aug 2006
This is a great post, and the responses, particularly axis42 point to the current American dilemma.
On the one hand, we have organic farmers who need to charge high prices to be able to pay for the intense labor needed to produce their goods. (Even though that labor is poorly paid, and it is not clear how much they would have to charge to pay a decent wage with benefits.)
On the other hand, we have workers who can't afford the high prices that organic farmers need to charge, so are forced to seek lower prices at retailers who will drive the market price of food lower by delivering it from places that can produce it cheaper still.
We need to be clear on what happened. For the last 30+ years, both major parties have tended rightward (towards favoring large corporations at the expense of the small workers and farmers).
This means that two things happened without much of a squawk from the American public. One, manufacturing moved to other countries. Two, service jobs were eliminated primarily through a massive wave of mergers (not outsourcing) between large corporations.
So, the rich get richer, and the rest suffer from lower real wages. The rise in housing prices has covered this up somewhat by making people real estate rich, even though they are income poor.
(None of which addresses the fairly miserable plight of farmworkers (and I am not picking on Tom personally here, I have not reason to believe he treats his workers poorly, it's not the individual, it's the system!)).
Isn't this just the free market at work? Actually, not. As Tom points out, the two large corporations that dominate the market "fix" the prices through their size. (One of the reasons progressives have traditionally opposed monopolies).
Ironically, despite Tom's complaints about cheap food shipped from overseas, the farmers in those countries face the same dilemma he does. Their prices are set not through a true market, but are forced on them by the same monopolies that force prices on Tom.
The basic problem is not really globalization, but rather monopolization.
Monopolies are able to fix not only prices (Tom) but wages (axis42) so that the wealth always stays at the top (them).
They have been remarkably successful at convincing Americans that this is just the way things are, and that this is somehow a fair and just system.
If we buy into that, Tom can watch his profits disappear (eventually ConAg or someone will buy his farm), and Axis42 can keep shopping at Walmart.
The alternative would be to have different values, values that seek to give everyone a good life (this is where we bring the farm workers back into the equation!).
It would mean rejecting the myth of the free market (what I call the manipulated market).
There are tendencies in this direct with the living wage movement, but they are local, and don't really touch the global giants that cause most of the problems. Nor do they address the ability of monopolies to manipulate prices and wages sheerly due to their size.
At one time, there were farmer-worker alliances in this country that worked against monopolies. We've lost that perspective.
Things will not change unless we regain it.
patrick
Permalink
MichaelStraus Posted 9:53 am
23 Aug 2006
This isn't an issue of big organic v. small organic, local organic v. imported organic, small retailers and wholesalers v. large / corporate players.
We have to start from the assumption that the entire food / agriculture production system (from the perspective of the small, mid-sized players) is screwed, and it's going to take a LOT of work, from all sectors (including not only enlightened individuals at corporations and enlightened corporations, but also a tremendous amount of creativity and flexibility from the farming community) to develop and implement a vision that will meet many (and often conflicting) needs.
/ Michael Straus
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 109';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 99';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 109';l[32]=' 111';l[33]=' 67';l[34]=' 115';l[35]=' 117';l[36]=' 97';l[37]=' 114';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 83';l[40]=' 64';l[41]=' 108';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 97';l[44]=' 104';l[45]=' 99';l[46]=' 105';l[47]=' 77';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='
Permalink
CarlF Posted 11:22 am
23 Aug 2006
Besides supporting sustainable farmers we each need to bring new people into this discussion- we need to do more than grow healthier food, we need to grow the movement!
CarlF
Permalink
MooreHavenGardens Posted 3:30 pm
23 Aug 2006
My condolences to those that I've just pissed-off, I may have been out in the sun pulling weeds too long today.
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:29 am
24 Aug 2006
In response to axis42, one of the reasons that organic food is so much more "expensive" than conventionally grown food is that conventional food prices are completely artificial; driven by "market" forces and with absolutely no relationship to how much it costs to produce the food, how much it costs to ship it to it's final destination, etc. All Americans "pay" a portion of conventional food prices when we pay our taxes, which (in part) go to support billions of dollars worth of farm subsidies. Unfortunately, when buying organic and/or local, we are screwed because we pay the full worth of non-subsidized food, while also paying the conventional food subsidies. This system is unfair and it sucks - but what are our choices? We could abandon organic/local food, and opt for the "cheap" conventionally produced food. Of course, we would also abandon taste, freshness, supporting our local economy and keeping damaging chemicals out of our soil, water and air. We can choose to pay the price for organic/local, knowing that we are also subsidizing conventional agriculture and accept with Taoist serenity that it is simply "the way things are." Or, we can advocate and agitate to change the system.
To MooreHavenGardens, I think it is wonderful that your customers are educated enough to distinguish between fresh, local produce and organic that has been shipped from Chile. I would imagine that a produce manager who loves his or her job would be just that type of discriminating customer. However, you may be over-estimating the knowledge and the palate of the average consumer. Give people a real tomato - fresh, local, organic, heirloom, plum or cherry... fresh from the farm and quite literally bursting with flavor, and they are truly amazed. Same with lettuce, cucumber, peppers, squash. People are thrilled and come back for seconds, thirds. But do they then seek out such local farms? Do they hear me when I tell them it is not my skill as a chef, but the farmer's skill that ensures the taste? Quite rarely, unfortunately. They go back to the supermarket closest & most convenient to their house (apt, condo, etc), back to tasteless watery pink tomatoes. lettuce like soggy tissue paper, potatoes that taste like they come from a box.
Convenience is a key thing. Habit is another. Price is yet another. All of these factors will overwhelm the "fresh is best" argument for most, if not all, consumers, unless we start factoring in the real costs of shipping food thousands of miles.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:00 am
24 Aug 2006
And fund university research into labor saving, water saving, organically fertilized ways to farm. Even on large fields, with renewable energy powered electric robots instead of diesel tractors.
A small produce operation of a few acres could be manually weeded, planted, fertilized, watered, and harvested with one person and run PC connected robot, of the right design.
In a mass production effort, all of agriculture could be unchemicalized and still remain every bit as productive. And organic soil, built up with carbon storing, CO 2 removing organic matter, year after year helps stave off global climate disaster.
Permalink
christa Posted 5:06 am
24 Aug 2006
I think it's unfair to lump Whole Foods with Wal-Mart, since Wal-Mart is, in environmental circles, the equivalent of Darth Vader.
Whole Foods is at least making an attempt to mitigate the big problem Philpott is talking about: they've started a new local foods initiative. You can read a fairly nuanced discussion of it here:
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles/2006/whole_foods...
On the home page today is an article by Auden Schendler called "Coming Clean," in which he asks people not to castigate those businesses who have good intentions and are making a difference, but aren't 100% there yet. That's exactly what Whole Foods is doing in terms of Philpott's commoditization of food--getting there. And castigating a business that's getting there is exactly what Philpott is doing to Whole Foods by placing it next to Wal-Mart, a national whipping-boy for corporate evil.
And not to defend corporate evil, but I'd like to add to the point made above about making organic affordable to lower socioeconomic classes. What about simple availability? Wal-Mart is a fact of life in rural Texas where organic food has mostly been absent from the radar. That's just an example from close to home.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:15 am
24 Aug 2006
Bienvenue, Christa, and thanks for the research.
You are absolutely right that Whole Foods and Wal-Mart do not belong in the same ethical category at all. And I think Tom is expecting most of us to know that already. Or, I hope so.
Anyway, I know we Gristmill writers and readers have talked about Michael Pollan's book, and other contributions, in the recent past. So I suspect many of us know he has some serious misgivings about Wal-Mart going with selling organics, but has had a productive discourse with Whole Foods on the basis of his criticism. Your "not 100%" seems to represent his position. Of course, 0.005% is not 100%, and is far from it. But, rhetorically, you have the positive slant on your side -- i.e., "not 100%" means "oh, let's say, 90%" -- , so I agree with you, and expect that Michael Pollan himself more or less agrees with you too.
On "lower socioeconomic classes": Pricing is a hugely important issue, which has not been addressed adequately in Grist thus far. The latest Grist wisdom seems to be: "We want to support organic growers and local growers; but, given their circumstances, they cannot help but charge non-competitive prices; and so they sell less and less; and so they will die out and fade away." And write up their memoirs, as farmers of great virtue and zero profit.
So tell us, dear Christa, something encouraging. We have this class gap in this country, at the same time as we have this quality-of-food gap. But the producers at the high-end of the quality-of-food gap feel a terrific responsibility for the folks toward the low end of the class gap. So how in the world do we build a serviceable bridge?
Permalink
Jean Siracusa Posted 1:13 am
25 Aug 2006
The issue is a combination of things such as advertizing, media, and misunderstanding what the actual cost of shopping there is. For example, Walmart depends on those who think that they are getting the best prices because the shoppers buy everything at Walmart whether it is something they need or not - they buy because it appears to be cheap. As a consequence they spend more, stay poor, eat bad food, and fill up their houses with junk they do not need and seldom use.
Box stores like Walmart take everything out of a community and put nothing in - although they would have you think they support local people - another way they scam trusting shoppers. We have somehow allowed an entire generation - nearly two to become uneducated (even those who have a college degree are often truly uneducated)with no skills to understand what they should have learned when they were in school and college. Their educator is television, movies, and "reality" news.
If people truly were aware of what is in the food they eat, most would change immediately. Food appears to be so cheap, that it is "cheaper" to go to "fast food" family resturants who purchase prepared products from the ubiquitous Sysco Systems. If they calculated what they spend on going out all the time, organic food would seem like a bargain.
I have approximately 100 students a semester and encourage them to get an education AND a degree. Quite often I see students after they completed classes with me and they often remark that they learned more in my class than in any other they took anywhere!
It is so sad that true learning cannot happen in the classroom, that people have few real life skills, that they believe everything they see on television, that they never save money and instead shop Walmart because they think they cannot afford to shop elsewhere. They are the true consumer who willingly turns over their hard earned dollar into the pockets of the multinational corporations who have been given the license to steal by our government.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:33 am
26 Aug 2006
Dear Jean,
You make some good points about the real cost of food and the flaws in our educational system. The problems is, how many more students a semester can you handle? (smile). Seriously. It is part of the problem that most poor people don't have good access to the information you are providing. It would be nice if there was a television channel that carried this kind of information, but there isn't.
The problem of dissemination of available knowledge and information is a serious one. I don't honestly have many ideas, but would welcome yours.
There are two issues with places like Wal-mart. One is shopping by working class folks, who fit into the category Jean is talking about. The other is the real poor (say the bottom 20%) who don't even have access to Wal-marts, and shop in expensive inner-city markets (I am leaving out the rural poor here, I know).
These groups face different issues in terms of their access to high quality, reasonably priced foods.
How can we communicate with and improve access to information, as well as access to the good food for these folks?
patrick
Permalink
axis42 Posted 5:18 am
29 Aug 2006
Now, it is important to know that food shopping is not a light affair in my life. In fact, shopping in general is about more than spending money. I look at every single thing I buy and wonder if I need it enough (or want it enough) to justify the additons to the waste stream. I notice also, the other people around me and how easily they consume without regard for the planet (or so it seems to me). So, when I go shopping, I am aware of my impact already.
Anyway, yesterday when I walked into the local Trader Joe's where they have pretty good quality staples for lower prices (because, unfortunately, I can not shop exclusively at my local co-op... it is just too expensive for me to do that) I looked even more closely at the packaging, the quality of the food and, more importantly at the origin of it all.
Then I went to the co-op, a block away, and shopped for the things I have to get there (produce for sure and bulk items) and looked at the same things... I noticed that there are a lot more local choices there (obviously) but, unfortunately, most of those local choices are much more expensive than the larger scale organics (and I am talking everything from porduce to ice cream to cheese to beer). It occurs to me that if we are really wanting to force the market to provide for us in a fair way (based on economics) we should support locally grown and produced goods. And yet you all contend that simmply buying local isn't going to do it.
Well what can I do then to make locally produced goods affordable for all because, dam it, rich white people like me are not the only ones who should have access to these goods, no matter how hard it is for small farmers to stay afloat. If not for their health, then for the health of the planet, because there are a lot more poor, folks at Wal-Mart than there are of you and me. And giving them the chance to eat well and locally will help the planet a heck of a lot more than if just you and me do it. no?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:38 am
29 Aug 2006
Dear Axis42,
You've hit it right on the head. Unless our solutions can reach many more people than the few, the well off, the white connected to the internet (at our fingertips) mostly males, we aren't going to save the planet.
And in America, if we propose solutions that are affordable to only a few, we are talking about solutions that make those few feel good, but don't save the planet.
So, is our goal to let the planet die but we feel okay, or is it to really, really save the damn thing?
patrick
Permalink
MooreHavenGardens Posted 10:00 pm
30 Aug 2006
Here's my take on this thread - you all want organic, you want local fresh, you don't want to shop at Wal-Mart, you like the idea of buying from your local co-op, but can't always find the disposable cash to pay the higher prices....oh, and you think the general population is ignorant of the issues.....
Let's take the last one first - Wrong!!! The general public would have to have been kept in solitary confinement for all of their adult life not to have some basic knowledge on the subject of organics and health. That debate is over, it's topic has saturated every media outlet for a few years now. That line of thinking tends to lend itself more to the "educated elites" who think the rest of us are just a little bit too country to know what's best for us.
You want your food to be organic. Cool, I'm all for it. Me too. But you gotta eat, so if you can't get organic, you'll have to make do with what you have access to. But if you hope to save the world from itself, organics by itself ain't gonna do it, it's too small a cog in a much bigger equation. Add all the other cogs to it, and you might make an impact.
You want local fresh. Duh!!! But fresh is a relative term. Fresh has more to do with getting the value for your food dollar than anything else. If it isn't as fresh as can be had in YOUR area, then you've been cheated. And you did it to yourself.
Wal-Mart. Get over it....they are here, and they are gonna stay. All because the buying public wants them to. Wal-Marts to some are like Vegas is to others; bright and shiny, Disneyland under one roof. Since my business is dealing with produce managers and store owners, here's a little in-site they are finding out: unless Wal-Mart is the only game in town, only a very small portion of the local buying population is buying "fresh produce" there. Statisticly in my area (Iowa) they tend to be the "flyer shoppers", those that will spend a dollar to save a dime, whether they need the "sale item" or not. The same is not true however for dry goods, there it's a pure marketing and pricing war. But I grow veggies, so where you buy your toilet paper is your business.
Co-ops. Let's throw in farmer's markets in here too. I'm all for supporting the local economic structure. But here's a little secret too: organics tend to be overpriced. Much of the "hype" about organics has been promoted to drive the prices up, mainly for corperate farming. That's gonna generate some hate mail-hahaha!!! And the reason they tend to be overpriced is because the guy gowing them wants what his 9 to 5, factory-working cousin has; the nice toys, the upwardly mobil lifestyle, a paid vacation, the "better" things in life. I live in the heart of the country where the death of the family farm is an in-your-face reality. You can put all the bankers and economists you want on the jury, but it still comes down to "trying to keep up with the Jones'". Only city folks and the educated elite ask me how much I make an hour growing fresh produce. There is no hourly wage, only what you get at the end of the day when you've sold a load of produce. It's farming, and the heart of farming isn't about how much money you've stashed in the bank, it's about a way of life and the enjoyment you derive from it. And if that statement bothers you, sell your dirt and tractor and go get a factory job, you'll be happier in the long run. And when you leave your little acrage, that you kept after the farm sale just so you can say you live in the country, on your way to your job in town, I'm gonna enjoy the sunrise with my cup of coffee, maybe catch a glimpse of the neighborhood fox chasing mice in the pasture, or the call of a quail to his girlfriends. The point is, organics don't have to cost more, they cost more because the consumer is willing to let them cost more.
Okay, you're wondering who the hell I think I am to make such bold statements like these. I'm the guy who doesn't bother with co-ops, farmer's markets, or direct selling of my produce. I make a living off 5 acres ( 4.999999 actually ) selling to common, every-towns-got-one grocery stores. I don't "sell" organic, but the relationships I have with my produce managers is that they trust me to provide them with a quality product that their customers can readily identify as a superior product compared to what they can offer in my off-season. Produce managers don't really care if it's organic or not, they care about shelf-life. Shelf-life means money to them. They will sell whatever the public wants to buy, and if and when they can, the public wants organic, for whatever their personal reasons. In my area, produce managers at the store levels would rather not carry "corperate" organics. The fact is that they have an even shorter shelf-life than conventionally grown, thus more is thrown away at the store level, thus helping to drive up the cost to the end consumer. And that right there is why I make a living doing something I like doing. Local fresh is what I sell. Vine-to-plate time. True value for the money spent. To get into a store, first I build a relationship with the produce department, I note the items it sells that I do or can grow, and I prove the quality of the product I present. I ask what I can grow for them that their customers are asking for. Spend a day in a produce department, watch how much is thrown away as soon as it comes off the warehouse truck, and you'll understand why produce departments are crying for local growers to approach them about doing business. Ask your store's produce manager how much he buys locally, and the most common answer is that they don't know who's growing locally. They can't go out and find the growers, the growers have to go to them. And growers have to understand that you can't have a substainable business if you can't accept that you aren't going to get paid co-op or farmer's market or direct sales prices, but that you also didn't spend nearly as much time marketing your produce to a grocery store - drop off your delivery, pick up your cash, and down the road you go, back to what a "farmer" really wants to be doing; growing stuff that somebody wants to pay for. Unless you really like gabbing half the day away with people who mostly complain about your pricing, under-pricing to out-sell your neighbor, and complaining how life's not fair. Stop and think about the consumer traffic thru a conventional grocery compared to a farmers market or a co-op, both who tend to cater to a very, very small portion of the food buying dollars in this country. If you went to collage to get a degree in agriculture, and I didn't, and you took a course in marketing your finished goods, you'll remember the teacher telling you that without a customer base, there was no point to your endevores. My customer base, the poor, uneducated consumer that you all think doesn't know the smell and slime of rotten produce when they walk by it, has always been there.
Hmmmm..sun's coming up, think I'll grab a cup of coffee.....can't wait to see what this stirs to the top of the kettle....
Permalink
kmp Posted 4:49 am
31 Aug 2006
I'd hammer in the evening,
and allllll dayyyyy lonnnnngggg.
OK, enough singing. I'm scaring the guy down the hall.
MooreHaven, you said:
oh, and you think the general population is ignorant of the issues.....
Let's take the last one first - Wrong!!! The general public would have to have been kept in solitary confinement for all of their adult life not to have some basic knowledge on the subject of organics and health. That debate is over, it's topic has saturated every media outlet for a few years now. That line of thinking tends to lend itself more to the "educated elites" who think the rest of us are just a little bit too country to know what's best for us.
I find this a bit unfair. Firstly, I did not see anyone make the statement "if only those dumb hicks would learn that they need to eat organic." I think your assumption that the "educated elite" are the ones who buy organic and think that the rest of the country are too stupid to know that organic is good for you is elitist in and of itself. In the comment I made earlier, the people I refer to who, even after marveling at the wonderful taste of a fresh, local tomato, go back to their local produce store and buy tasteless, mass-produced produce from all the world, are, arguably, the "educated elites." These are upper middle-class white folk, most with quite high levels of education. They admit that organic is "probably better for them," and they fully enjoy the flavor of local organic produce when I serve it in my home, but they go back to their old, easy habits of buying conventional food at the most convenient grocery store. That was my point - even people who are fairly convinced that organic is better for their bodies, and better for the planet, are not necessarily buying organic because of the expense and/or inconvenience of doing so.
The general public may well believe that organic food is more healthy; but this does not necessarily change behavior. The general public knows that smoking causes cancer, and will likely end up killing you and/or your loved ones, but this does not necessarily stop smoking.
You also said:
The point is, organics don't have to cost more, they cost more because the consumer is willing to let them cost more.
I find this difficult to believe. Granted, I'm not a farmer, and really, couldn't be farther from one... I can't even manage to keep basil alive. However, there are several farmers and food writers whose comments I respect and who have noted the higher expense of organic farming; mainly related to human-labor hours of weeding, pest control, etc., as compared to the chemical management of same. In addition, as I noted above, current food prices for conventionally grown food are artificially low given the farm subsidies paid by our government. Given these two facts, I do not see how organic could possibly be priced on a level with current conventional produce and allow a small farm to produce without actually losing money.
And the reason they tend to be overpriced is because the guy gowing them wants what his 9 to 5, factory-working cousin has; the nice toys, the upwardly mobil lifestyle, a paid vacation, the "better" things in life.
Well, I am a city girl after all, because I don't really see what is wrong with wanting some of the 'better' things in life. The way I see it, the organic farmer is providing a service to me and to the planet; producing food that requires more manual labor, yet sparing the earth, and us her inhabitants, chemical pollution. Therefore, if the organic farmer gets to drive a nicer tractor, take a vacation, splurge on the latest solar panels for the barn... hell, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, I would guess reality is somewhat far from this... the small farmers I buy from seem to be happy people, in that they are doing what they love, but I tend to see rusted out Ford pickups in the drive, not shiny new SUVs, an old rowboat maybe, not a Skidoo, Wal-Mart flip flops not Manolo Blahniks.
Kaela
Permalink
narcysus Posted 3:15 pm
03 Sep 2006
i am a non-white, non-rich proponent of eating local organic food. i'll pay whatever i have to pay for it; my mantra is--pay the organic farmer, or pay the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance industry--take our pick. i'll pay the organic farmer.
however, i won't pay walmart. i'll starve first or eat grass. walmart is the devil, as is any corporate engagement in organic farming. once corporations get into the mix, there's not telling what will happen to the food. actually, several have made very valid comments. i particularly like the possibility that local grown will become the 'organic standard' as organics will become as rotten as conventionally grown produce.
who in their right mind could trust walmart to sell true, fresh anything. walmart in the organic food game only means they will figure out a way to sell sludge grown veggies with an organic label on them. if you haven't seen the walmart movie, before you buy organics from walmart, watch it. (can be purchased at http://www.wakeupwalmart.com. if after watching that movie you could possibly stomach eating anything walmart sells, well, ok--those beaten women in bangladesh are a damn far ways away, aren't they?
the whole point of buying organic for me was the buy clean food, hopefully locally grown, but not grown in sludge, chemicals, etc. from small farmers who cared about their products and the people who would eat them. there's no way, it's not in the corporate model, for agribusiness to produce such a crop. if they could do it, the small organic farmer would have never existed in the first place.
lord, what am i gonna eat now? guess if i want clean food, i'll have to grow it myself! wow, there's a thought! what if everyone just grew their own veggies and most of their fruit. recycled their distilled water, composted their own soil, grew the cleanest food possible, indoors even. now that sounds like a labor intensive, expensive, but fool-proof way to keep agribusiness from taking over the clean food (or local organic) market.
well, guess i better go get started.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:39 am
04 Sep 2006
Dear Narcysus,
Everyone doesn't possess the money, resources or knowledge to grow their own food. (smile). But if you wish, you will go ahead. Enjoy it.
If Wal-mart buys organic food internationally, a fair amount of it will come from small farmers. Large corporate farming is not the only farming model in the world.
Sorry, I haven't seen the Wal-mart movie, it's not available here yet, and I can't afford a copy. (Developing nation income and all that.)
As to Wal-mart being the devil, I don't believe in devils nor gods.
I have a number of complaints against Wal-mart, mainly labor, sourcing and wages (smile). But wish them to be as green as possible, since they are not going away any time soon.
We need to praise the good behaviour (to encourage more) and criticize the bad. We need the change now.
patrick
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:19 pm
04 Sep 2006
Many progressives continue to hail the global trade in agricultural goods as a way for "Third World" farmers to "pull themselves out of poverty." Meanwhile, global commodity prices continue their inexorable downward trend, pressured in part by the consolidation of buyers as represented by Wal-Mart's rapid growth.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:55 pm
04 Sep 2006
Tom,
Maybe I am wrong? People keep saying Wal-mart is buying organic in China (at least that is what I read here from you). As far as I know, the farms in China are generally small and thus non-industrial. I have never seen anything to indicate otherwise.
Maybe people are just saying Wal-mart buys from China because they know people are prejudiced against China, and are throwing it in to take advantage of that prejudice.
I doubt Wal-mart buys direct from small farms, but the middlemen it uses would be doing so.
A web search doesn't turn up much about Wal-mart buying international foods such as organics. Here is what I found.
http://www.tdctrade.com/alert/cba-e0307h.htm
A general article, no real details.
Ironically, Wal-mart watch quotes your article above.
Here is a useful article from 2003 (not that long ago as things move slowly).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/June03/Features/Chinas...
It says that the average farm size in China is 1.6 acres. What I would call a small farm. Not an industrial farm.
Ironically, America (that's us, me and you , Tom) is trying to pressure China into allowing more private ownership of land. This would allow consolidation of small farms and the farm industrialization you speak of.
Perhaps you should call for the abolition of private property!
So far (as I have read), the Chinese government has resisted the calls for private property and so the farms remain small.
If I am wrong, please tell me.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:06 pm
04 Sep 2006
It is certainly true that companies like Wal-mart put downward pressure on prices, which has a negative effect on producers (of anything!).
Controlling Wal-mart and making it behave must begin not in the producing countries, but in it's home, the United States.
Saying that because Americans won't control their companies, then poor nations should not have access to their markets is disgenuous to say the least.
Wal-mart is the largest player in the United States because of the people of the United States. It is not the only player in the world.
Poor nations have historically had three ways up out of poverty. First, sell resources. This is the favored way of rich nations, since it allows them better control over jobs and prices. It has done very little to fight poverty. (An exception is the current regime in Venezuela which is trying to fight poverty, but it is an anamoly historically.)
Secondly, agriculture, which allows them to use their labor to produce suplus and get money back from well off countries to build schools, hospitals and the like. This is better in some ways, because it involves more people and some of the wealth is spread around. It is hardly perfect, since often farm workers are treated poorly (like they are in rich countries) in poor countries.
Finely, there are manufactured goods. As people sell more, they move up the ladder economically and go from producing cheaper goods to more expensive ones.
Are there other models of development? Maybe. So far, most of the American environmentalists seem to be mainly concerned about a model that freezes their wealth in place and says to the poor, sorry, you have to stay poor.
I will support any model that can eliminate poverty for as many people as possible. One of the interesting things is that in recent years, it is the policies of Communist China that have done the most to eliminate poverty, not the policies of the Capitalist West.
(Based on UN statistics).
My challenge to environmentalists is to find a way to eliminate poverty as part of protecting the environment. Not only because it is just, but because nothing else is likely to succeed in doing either.
patrick
Permalink
christa Posted 7:11 am
20 Sep 2006
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/19/134559/919
This development includes low-income housing AND a neighborhood organic garden. I want to live here! Somebody build one of these in Austin!
This is exactly the kind of solution we're looking for, I think, and I find it encouraging.
Permalink
juliaschopick Posted 5:20 am
23 Oct 2006
While I was reading this article, I was reminded of another article I read 5 years ago in "Conscious Choice" Magazine. I hunted for and found it. Written by another organic farmer, I think you will find it interesting, as well. You can find it at http://www.consciouschoice.com/2001/cc1410/organicmatters....
Reading that article was the first time I realized that "big/non-local organic" is very different from "small/local organic."
My website http://www.honestmedicine.typepad.com, contains some interesting postings (and one audio) addressing this topic. The audio is my interview with nutritionist, Dr. Elizabeth Lipski, in which she talks about this very topic, and comes to the conclusion that she would recommend locally grown produce, even if it is not labeled organic, because the organic label costs so much to obtain, and small organic farmers cannot always afford to pay for the label! To access her interview, please click on "PODCASTS/INTERVIEWS" on the right side of the page. Dr. Lipski makes her points extremely eloquently.
And, on the left side of my site, under "letters to editors and corporate executives" is the letter Dr. Lipski wrote to the President of WalMart, discussing all her concerns about "cheap organic." I am not sure if this letter was ever answered.
I hope you enjoy listening to the interview, and reading Dr. Lipski's letter to the editor.
"Grist" is amazing. Keep up the great work!
Thanks so much.
Julia Schopick
http://www.honestmedicine.typepad.com
Permalink