On a recent trip to Austin, I visited the flagship Whole Foods -- a vast space where people gather en masse to render financial sacrifice to that new god, organic food. From the depths of the parking lot, as you make your way up to the store, you're urged again and again by a sign that simply says, "Love where you shop." From the doe-eyed look of the supplicants making their way up, and the glazed-eyed look of those carrying their treasure down, most clearly do.
A puzzle to the core.
While few Whole Foods stores have the buzz of the Austin flagship, that veritable cathedral of gustatory virtue is emblematic of organic food's rising social status. According to the Organic Trade Association's most current figures [PDF], consumer demand for it leapt 16 percent in 2005.
That's a little lower than the 20 percent figure commonly bandied about to describe the market's growth, but it's by no means shabby, considering that the overall U.S. food market grows by just 2 percent to 4 percent per year. It turns out that the $34 billion the food industry drops on marketing every year doesn't inspire people to eat more -- it just gets them to shift around their food dollars from one product to another.
No wonder corporate giants from Wal-Mart to McDonald's are groping for a slice of the organic pie. Generating 16 percent annual growth for a given product normally requires a massive marketing budget; organic foods fly off the shelf just by being labeled as such.
But if consumers are snapping up organics and corporations are scrambling to give them what they want -- if not always exactly what they want -- a funny thing is happening down on the farm: growth in organic acreage isn't coming even close to keeping up with retail-sales growth. That is, existing farms aren't transitioning acres to organic -- and new farms aren't being rolled out -- at nearly the growth rate of organic-food demand.
This is an important point. One of the great motivations of "buying organic" is protecting the land, water, and air from the cascades of poison sprays and artificial fertilizers dumped on farmland each year. Shouldn't booming demand for organic food translate to a proportionate boom in organic land under cultivation?
California Dreams ... and Realities
In the U.S., organic food accounts for [PDF] about 2.5 percent of all food sales. But out in the field, just 0.2 percent of farmland is under organic production. In Europe, by contrast, organic food accounts for a just-higher percentage of all food sales than in the U.S., but organic agriculture is more pervasive -- E.U.-wide, it occupies nearly 4 percent of farmland.
Indeed, New Farm reports that Italy alone, not quite as large in size as New Mexico, has more land in organic agriculture than the entire United States!
Why is organic a more popular concept on our supermarket shelves than in our farm fields? The California Institute for Rural Studies released a study [PDF] recently addressing that very question. It raises some bracing facts. If any state would be expected to boast a bounty of land under organic cultivation, it's California, the nation's fruit and vegetable basket and source of 40 percent of all farm-level U.S. organic produce sales.
But even in California, organic ag represents just 0.63 percent of farmland. Organic acreage did double between 1998 and 2003, but growth has leveled off and acreage now just holds steady. Total acres transitioning into organic are now nearly balanced by the acres transitioning out. Evidently, many farmers aren't making enough money growing organically to remain certified, despite the booming retail market.
One reason could be an import boom. The USDA reports [PDF] that although the U.S. was until recently a net exporter of organic food, "the value of U.S. imports now exceeds exports by a ratio of approximately 8 to 1." The USDA reckoned in 2002 that the country imports between $1 billion and $1.5 billion worth of organics each year. Taking the higher number -- since the willingness to import organic has presumably increased after Wal-Mart jumped into the market -- imports represent a little over 10 percent of total U.S. sales. That's about a dime of every dollar you spend on organic food.
It's not inconceivable that all of that organic streaming in from Mexico and China is lowering organic prices at the farm level, making the transition into organic -- and the prospect of maintaining certification -- less attractive.
Another possible explanation for the dearth of organic acreage arises from looking more closely at how the retail market is growing. Yes, it's growing at a robust 16 percent annual clip overall. But some segments of the market are growing more briskly than others. The Organic Trade Association, breaking down [PDF] the growth rates for each segment of the organic market in 2005, found that growth rates for highly processed foods like "sauces/condiments" (24.2 percent growth) and packaged/prepared foods (19.4 percent) far outstripped the rate for homely old fresh fruits and vegetables (10.9 percent).
What does that tell us? Well, the big processors like Kraft -- which are barreling into organics both by snapping up small independent health-food companies and by rolling out organic versions of established products like ketchup -- wield a lot of clout when it comes to negotiating prices with suppliers. Farmers make a lot more money per pound by selling organic tomatoes at a farmers' market than they can by selling them to Heinz for organic ketchup. But the prospect of big payoffs from grabbing high-volume corporate accounts has inspired many organic farmers to scale up and industrialize as much as possible -- sacrificing some of organic ag's core principles in the process.
The California Institute for Rural Studies documents that trend: California's organic farmers are steadily getting bigger. But that's a losing game. As growth in the fresh-produce market cools and the processed market heats up, the big players will gain more pricing leverage, squeezing organic farming's already razor-thin profit margins. Seen from that view, it's no wonder imports are booming and domestic acreage has leveled off.
The Answer is Growing in the Wind
What, then, is the answer? How can consumers leverage their rising willingness to buy organic to significantly decrease the amount of poisons used in growing food?
One way, of course, is to buy whole food from nearby farmers whose practices you know and trust. A fraction of the cash you drop on organic mac 'n' cheese goes into supporting a conscientious farmer, as opposed to nearly all of the money you spend at the farmers' market or in a community-supported agriculture program.
As for the policy level, consider this: According to the USDA, the U.S. spends about $7 million annually supporting organic agriculture -- and that encompasses research, support for transition, everything. Compare that to the research budget alone for chemical-intensive farming, which stands at over $1 billion per year, to say nothing of the $20 billion or so per year going into commodity supports.
In Europe, the USDA reports, the public sector supports organic farming to the tune of 70 million to 80 million euros per year. If the U.S. wants to make organic agriculture a real environmental asset, not just a marketing tool for corporations, it might have to be more like the Europeans.
Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event
Ask Umbra’s video advice on making lunch matter
Ask Umbra’s video advice on making lunch matter
Comments
View as Flat
solarkismet Posted 5:30 am
22 Mar 2007
a) Small organic farms find established local buyers and purchase sources and don't need to keep up organic certification on an official basis?
b) Small organic farms that never get certified but are essentially organic?
Permalink
danb635 Posted 6:03 am
22 Mar 2007
Beyond that, some third world countries allow much more damaging pesticides and conditions of use than than do most developed countries so that encouraging organic in those third world countries might reap greater environmental benefit than encouraging organic in Europe or the U.S.
Both of the above 2 arguments also apply when the concern is focused on human health instead of environmental protection.
Permalink
solacdncs Posted 6:10 am
22 Mar 2007
I would bet and I am not a gambling sort of girl, that they get little or no money for subsidizing a transition to organic or for being organic, or for the kinds of crops they do or don't grow. In order to form a more perfect, balanced and sustainable culture don't we need to help it along a little?
I would venture to guess that there is no great farm subsidy movement out there with powerful lobbyists intact fighting tooth and nail for some tax dollars toward organic farming. And can it really be called organic farming with all of the pollutants in the water and air? Sure, we might have less on an organic tomato, but there is still heavy metal playing on more than the radio...it is wafting down on those lovely little plants and also through our windows! Not to mention, the plants and all that consume them are soaking up those unfiltered antidepressants out of the water table. And we wonder why everyone has gone mad!
Blessings, JJ
Permalink
bharshaw Posted 7:32 am
22 Mar 2007
Permalink
MaryAnn Brewer Posted 8:54 am
22 Mar 2007
All the people, sharing all the work, I mean world. Hmmm
Permalink
RanchoVerde Posted 9:57 am
22 Mar 2007
Permalink
jcbflowers Posted 10:33 pm
22 Mar 2007
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 11:56 pm
22 Mar 2007
In both Colorado and Virginia, the cost for certification rose by as much as 10 times (from something like $100 to something like $1000, depending on the farmer) for many farmers who were once organically certified. These two states in particular put a lot of the costs back onto the producers, which explains the sudden drop in participation in both Colorado and VA post-2002 (see the USDA stats on this at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/organic/ and look at the data for certified organic farm operations from 1992-2005)
Remember, certification is a proxy for trust--small scale producers selling face-to-face essentially don't need it, although many small true believers remain certified.
On the larger point, until the U.S. government ponies up some cash to encourage and support the conversion to organic, I don't think the chances for conversion are all that great. The point about what is growing most in organic--processed foods--and that it is, of course, cheaper to import organic from Chile and China does not bode well for the large-scale transition. Which, at this point, leaves the movement caught in an interesting paradox: It's grown big enough to "sell out" in many people's views, but, at least in the U.S., has not actually grown big enough to be making a significant difference in the ecological impact of the still widespread industrial-style agriculture US producers practice.
Permalink
LeadByExample Posted 12:40 am
23 Mar 2007
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 1:04 am
23 Mar 2007
Some farmers are seeking an alternative to organic certification. An example of this is The Farmers Pledge, which is, in essence, pledging to continue to employ organic practices and be open to inspection by fellow organic farmers, but not - as I understand it - the expensive inspection process necessary for regular organic certification by an official certifying organization. You can find out more about this by going to the NOFA (Northeast Organic Farmers Association) website: http://www.nofany.org/dbapplet/fpregistry.html
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 1:37 am
23 Mar 2007
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 1:38 am
23 Mar 2007
Permalink
PDXOutdoors Posted 5:45 am
23 Mar 2007
The First main concern is Consumer Health - Pesticides are bad for you, as are other chemicals that enter into or are present on foods grown in large industrial or monocrop productions. Organic foods are grown with time-tested and (mostly) chemical free methods, and are both absent of actively harmful agents, but also tend to be, as a result of a more hands-on practice, more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.
Something to think about here is the effect that buying less processed and more local foods has on consumer health. First, and most saliently, due to the shorter field to store distances, the foods can be picked closer to their natural ripeness and therefore taste better and have more nutrient value. Second, less food-miles equals less fuel burned equals less pollution in your local air and water. Third, foods need not be coated or treated with necessary agents for long-distance shipping and pest-control in such conditions.
The Second main concern is the overall environmental impact of the use of pesticides, oil-based fertilizers, and massive monocultures. These 'conventional' practices are widely seen as unsustainable and unhealthy for the ecosystem and us in the long term. I'll include in this concerns (very important ones) about long-term soil degredation. On sort of a tangent, soil health is incredibly important and the main reason to question biofuels as a large-scale option for energy.
The impact of food-miles to this overall concern cannot be overstated. The overall negative impact of an organic tomato shipped 3500 miles from Southern California to NYC, versus a conventional tomato grown in a hothouse in upstate NY and shipped 200 miles - there's a real argument to be made for supporting even conventional or at the least semi-conventional (Naturally Grown or other alternative labeling) local farmers over the distant "Organic" farms. Supporting local farms also has the long-term benefit of strengthening and diversifying the local food economy, which will be incredibly important when gas is $10 or even $5 a gallon.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:40 pm
23 Mar 2007
Likewise, many new organic farms -- like my own Maverick Farms, now entering its 4th growing season -- don't dive right into certification; it's hard enough to farm w/o having to go through a whole bureaucratic process.
Moreover, when you farm on a small enough scale that you're selling directly to the people who cook and eat your food, there's no real incentive to certification. At farms like Maverick, the people who buy our vegetables are our certifiers -- they can come by and see exactly what we're doing in the field. Certification makes sense when you sell to a distributor or other middle man -- it literally commodifies your growing practices so they can draw a price premium in a market of anonymous products.
But here's the thing: While projects like Maverick and thousands of other small-scale, uncertified organic farms across the country do add up to a significant chunk of food production, they probably don't sum to enough acreage to much change the numbers cited above.
If we really want to make a dent in the huge amounts of poisons entering our soils -- as well as reestablish truly robust local and regional food systems -- we'll have to think of ways to convince mid-size farmers to convert to organic methods. And its precisely that middle of the farming game -- between niche direct-makerting operations like mine and the mega farms with economies of scale (and, often, subsidies) -- that probably faces the most vexing economic conditions. And that's a topic for a future Victual Reality.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:28 am
24 Mar 2007
This all reinforces, for me, the importance of supporting local, modestly-scaled farms via our local farmers markets and/or other mechanisms. Even those farms that aren't, technically, 'certified organic' typically are practicing (as noted above) more sustainable and environmentally-friendly land management than mega-farms halfway across the country.
And even if they are using the occasional spray or chemical fertilizer on their crops, they are not transporting your lovely cantaloupe or strawberry by way of jumbo jet some 5,000 miles to your local Whole Foods Market. (C'mon, how sustainable is that?)
There is a wonderful discussion of these kinds of food issues (industrial agriculture vs. industrial organic vs. local sustainable farming) in the recently-published book The Omnivore's Dilemma, for any of you who haven't already discovered that well-written and engaging book. (However, given the level of discussion here, I suspect that many of you already have discovered it ...)
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 4:54 am
24 Mar 2007
Guthman's book is academic but very readible, and another good book on organic called Organic Inc., is another quick read, by Samuel Frommertz (sp?), that talks a bit in some chapters about the organic movement's internal debates. So there are some more reading suggestions!
I am VERY interested in the potential of middle-sized farming, and here at Yale where I study myself and a few other researchers (mostly geographers, some anthropologists and political scientists) are talking about this idea of the mid-sized farm and what its potential may be. Guthman writes about this some in her book. Small is beautiful but mid-sized might be functional and actually more revolutionary in some ways. I look forward to seeing what Philpott has to say about this, and think that both in the academic and activist spheres mid-sized is the next big thing to be discussed, and hopefully a good direction for the movement to go in.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:17 am
24 Mar 2007
i'll check out the Guthman book, thanks. Be sure and check out Fred Kirschenmann's work on "ag of the middle."
Permalink
Sean Jones Posted 1:22 am
25 Mar 2007
Another issue is that major retailers like Whole Foods are growing and cannot make the small supplier network efficient so turn to larger suppliers. This is clearly an opportunity for someone to create an efficient local food supplier supply chain for major retailers. Tom talked about the issue last August, "Eatin' Good in the Neighborhood".
http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2006/08/16/local/index ...
Permalink
barthanderson Posted 11:38 pm
25 Mar 2007
Right on the money (and lack thereof). Increasing organic acreage can't be a consumer-driven effort alone. The 2007 Farm Bill needs to address transitioning to organic ag.
But "increasing acreage" really means increasing the number of organic farmers. And that means training them how to farm organically, not just giving them the money to do it. As Faye Jones, director of Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Services (MOSES) has put forth, Farm Bill dollars have to be targeted at training systems like MOSES's Help Wanted:Organic Farmers and Land Stewardship Project's Farm Beginnings program.
Yes, those programs need more funding. But if we're going to increase organic acreage, we need more of those programs. Lots more.
Permalink
VLipski Posted 3:27 am
26 Mar 2007
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:57 am
26 Mar 2007
Solution?
Focus on the core of the problem- the ag subsidies, the energy subsidies, the water subsidies, and tax ag pollution- this is a long-time fix, but the only one that will lead to long-term transitions to more sustainable agriculture.
J.S.
Permalink