A fine feature story in Business Week this week -- The Organic Myth, by Diane Brady. "As it goes mass market, the organic food business is failing to stay true to its ideals," the cover proclaims. 
When I first glanced at the mag, I expected rah-rah boosterism for corporate organics and spite for old-school purists, but the article actually struck me as a pretty fair assessment of the culture clash between the organic ethos and the Big Biz model -- the gist being that the two are remarkably ill-suited. Corporate enthusiasm for organics notwithstanding -- and there's plenty of enthusiasm out there, from Wal-Mart to General Mills to Kellogg and beyond -- these two approaches to comestible commerce look increasingly irreconcilable.
None of this is new, of course -- our own Tom P. has written about the issue (and I'm interested to hear his assessment of this story). But this is the first article that's made me think the organic juggernaut is really about to blow up into a big ol' mess. Not just organic getting watered down, as is already happening, but the whole system breaking down, unable to support the new model of globally sourced organic items pouring into processed foods and mega-stores. Demand is outstripping supply by huge margins, corporations are demanding lower prices, production is being offshored to unreliable suppliers, individuals are growing even more confused about what "organic" means.
The article starts and ends with Stonyfield Farm, long a respected producer of organic yogurt, and now a corporate-owned company that's lost the respect of purists even while failing to live up to the profit demands of its parent firm.
Stonyfield's organic farm is long gone. Its main facility is a state-of-the-art industrial plant just off the airport strip in Londonderry, N.H., where it handles milk from other farms. And consider this: Sometime soon a portion of the milk used to make that organic yogurt may be taken from a chemical-free cow in New Zealand, powdered, and then shipped to the U.S. True, Stonyfield still cleaves to its organic heritage. For Chairman and CEO Gary Hirshberg, though, shipping milk powder 9,000 miles across the planet is the price you pay to conquer the supermarket dairy aisle. "It would be great to get all of our food within a 10-mile radius of our house," he says. "But once you're in organic, you have to source globally."
Hirshberg's dilemma is that of the entire organic food business. Just as mainstream consumers are growing hungry for untainted food that also nourishes their social conscience, it is getting harder and harder to find organic ingredients. There simply aren't enough organic cows in the U.S., never mind the organic grain to feed them, to go around. Nor are there sufficient organic strawberries, sugar, or apple pulp -- some of the other ingredients that go into the world's best-selling organic yogurt.
Powdered milk from New Zealand? Ew.
I wonder if corporations will find over the next couple of years that they simply can't make the organic model work. That would be the good outcome. The bad would be that they use their massive clout to officially undermine organic standards. They've tried already, and surely won't give up easily.
Anyway, here's my favorite bit from the article:
The volatile supply [of organic ingredients] forced Heinz to put dried or fresh organic herbs in its organic Classico pasta sauce because it wasn't able to find the more convenient quick-frozen variety.
Heaven forbid!
GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click
Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event
Ask Umbra’s video advice on making lunch matter
Comments
View as Flat
Tom Philpott Posted 12:13 pm
13 Oct 2006
More soon.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:51 am
14 Oct 2006
Organic is a value at its heart. It was supposed to mean more than just inputs. Again, appropriate scale is the key. At some point being big becomes a liability. We need to learn to recognize when that is and then exercise the will to stop at that point.
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:20 am
14 Oct 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:58 am
14 Oct 2006
My question is can we really feed the world organically, and what does that mean? Or are we merely advocating "niche" food for a very few middle class American consumers?
If we want local food to feed New York City, what does local mean? How much land is required, where is that land going to come from?
It seems to me that we are talking about two seperate issues. One is the laudable desire to rid the earth of as many poisons and excess chemicals as possible.
The other is the desire by people to live "locally". Reading articles like this, and thinking about it, I wonder if this option is possible for more than a very few?
And what does that mean in terms of something we advocate?
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:03 am
14 Oct 2006
Jonathon Rosenthal says some interesting things about "organic" right here in Grist!
http://grist.org/comments/interactivist/2006/10/09/rosent...
patrick
Permalink
farmer Posted 7:27 pm
14 Oct 2006
As far as I know Stonyfield, is not buying milk powder from New Zealand, although they did look into it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:48 am
15 Oct 2006
If corporations shifted from mass producing food to mass production of renwable energy powered organic farming devices, organic fertilizer cycle systems, and greenhouses that actually harvest energy to heat, cool, and power buildings they are attached to.
Well then mass production of food products using chemicals and international shipping would become obsolete. Small farm markets in every shopping center would supply fresh food.
And even commodity food products could be farmed profitably by small producers, without the huge energy, chemical, and capital costs of present agribizz corporate farming.
The multilayers of shipping,distribution,lobbyist corruption,and monopoly ownership in the present food production system leave farmers broke, consumers choked with toxins, and taxpayers with huge long term national debt funding agribizz corporate welfare.
There is a better way. Here's another project needing billionaire philanthropist support. Integrated local renewable energy and organic agriculture, food and energy independence.
Regional areas all independent and free of corporate control over food and energy but then participating in larger commerce and power grids by choice. Halliburtons of this world are trying to gobble up all regional power companies and agribizz has already done that to most farming.
It's the "Iraqification" of the US economy. They'll do for US what they did for Iraqis.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:56 am
15 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:26 am
15 Oct 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:48 pm
15 Oct 2006
Are we beginning to seperate the two? Should we?
(I have no access to the money WWI wants for its reports, so have no comment on the reliability of their information, pretty opening paragraph, useless otherwise!!)
If we decide we can feed the world organically, then what role does local farming play in this? How realistic is it going to be, or is it just that niche I was talking about.
Have any local advocates tried to eat only locally?
(I would have to give up coffee and tea to name a few, and am not particularly interested in doing so).
Even if we talk about buying local farm goods, will those farms make their own machinery? Or use none? Mine their own ore?
One of my primary interests is global warming, and I don't (at this time) see how the concept of "local" (which isn't very local) plays much of a part in stopping global warming. (We are talking about a fairly small time framer here.)
But I could be wrong. If anyone can make the case, please do so.
patrick
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:30 am
16 Oct 2006
That's a lot of planes, trains and automobiles.
They will have to rip chocolate & coffee from my dead, cold vice-like grip.... but I believe that if I eat "mostly local" I:
Spare the environment many hundreds or thousands of food-miles (and related CO2, etc),
Put money in the pocket of a small business owner and a neighbor,
Re-connect with the seasons, and feel a deeper appreciation for the bounty provided by sun, soil, water, and TLC (thereby fostering an even more urgent care for the environment, weather, etc).
Can we feed the world this way? I'm not sure, but I don't see why not. I'm not so concerned with feeding the world, anyway - I'd rather provide them the tools they need to feed themselves. After all, give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:07 am
16 Oct 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:53 am
16 Oct 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:09 am
16 Oct 2006
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:51 am
16 Oct 2006
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:50 am
16 Oct 2006
It doesn't need to be all or nothing.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:20 am
16 Oct 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:00 am
16 Oct 2006
Dear John,
I said I cannot afford the cost of the article at WorldWatch Institute. Do you think the world is only for rich people? But thanks for the insult!!
Dear Tom,
I always supported local farms when I was in the US.
My criticism of the local argument then, is that if often looks like nothing other than protectionism.
I have asked before (no one ever answers), let me try again. Some of the poorest nations (poorer than India or China) see food exports as their only hope of gaining the capital needed to rise out of poverty.
How can we combine protecting our local farming industry with addressing their needs?
Dear Kaela,
Thanks for you honesty when you say you're not concerned with feeding the world. I understand this point of view (and suspect others share it, but are unwilling to admit it!).
Let me suggest that since global warming is a global problem, you need to be concerned with how the rest of the world develops and feeds itself, if you want to prevent global warming.
A bit of (hopefully enlightened) self interest to the discussion.
Dear Jason,
From, the left, I agree with you in principle, so don't blame it on leftists!! I regard the people you regard as leftists as rightists, like yourself, so there!! (grin).
The details, though, are another matter.
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:27 am
16 Oct 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 10:24 am
16 Oct 2006
It makes sense to produce locally/regionally as much of what we need on a daily basis, especially with regard to food, as possible, using trade to fill in the gaps.
As far as bringing everyone in the world to "middle class", I'm not sure about that. The middle class in this country is fast diminishing as the disparity between the rich and everyone else increases. I'm not sure the planet can support however many billions of people living a middle class lifestyle. How many planets would that take, anyway? (The whole ecological footprint thing). I know this subject has been discussed in other places on Grist but I truely believe that those of us fortunate enough to live a middle class (or higher) lifestyle will be called upon to downsize because of the finite planet thing. (And I know this includes me).
Kmp is right on!
Can organics feed the world? Over time, I believe it could. After all, what did people do before the so-called "green revolution"? which, as you probably know, came about because US corporations asked the government's help in finding peace-time uses for chemicals developed during WWII. You could say, well, what about all those pesky insects and diseases? A major part of the problem has to do with the large scale of agribus farms and the total lack of diversity. When you plant many different crops and intersperse them with certain flowers and herbs you create a more natural environment with checks and balances for critters and diseases. Not to mention seed diversity etc., etc. Anyway, the "green revolution" was supposed to solve world hunger. Unfortunately it only made things worse. Now corporations want us to buy into biotechnology as the next big thing to feed the world. We're going from the frying pan into the fire. You can't just come up with one or two solutions and expect them to work everywhere. Each place is unique and solutions will differ. It's not simple. And I believe the place to begin looking for solutions is at the local level and then moving outward (rather than the other way around).
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 11:03 am
16 Oct 2006
This is why I wonder if you're really interested in getting answers to the questions you ask or if you like arguing for the sake of arguing.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:43 pm
16 Oct 2006
Dear SMLowry,
It is certainly true that unless we find four other worlds quick, we can't afford to exactly replicate the American middle class lifestyle.
But, we also can't stop people from wishing to live in such a lifestyle, nor from wanting to. Certainly not until AFTER we have established a different example.
Jason is 100% right on this one (and I have also said it before, so you have the left and the right agreeing for once!). People in the rest of the world will not give up their dreams of a better life.
What Americans CAN do is
1) Offer an alternative dream (but this means walking the walk).
2) Provide technological assistance to help other people develop sustainability (and us) in a way that weakens the tipping point.
Meanwhile, what about organic/local? If organic can feed the world, what is the place of supporting local vs. global in the scheme of food and other things.
It seems to me that we need to be careful of not taking an ostrich approach.
Local cannot mean ignoring global issues (like global warming).
Local cannot mean merely buying the same goods from a different retailer, regardless of source.
(For instance, is it better to buy coffee from a local retailer (big name brand) than to buy fair trade organic coffee from Starbucks? If anyone thinks so, please make the case).
I will disagree with Jason on tariffs. I think that developing countries have a right to protect their developing industries from the ravenous global monsters that already exist in the developed world.
patrick
Permalink
willa Posted 10:43 pm
16 Oct 2006
There is one reason I can think of to buy the Folgers from the mom & pop store rather than the organic fair trade from Starchucks, and I'm not sure it's a good enough one to actually do it (on the rare occasions when we have coffee, it's generally both, organic fair trade from a locally-owned health food store, although the coffee itself still comes from far, far away).
Anyhow, the reason: Money spent at local stores increases the likelihood that those stores will not go out of business or sell out to Osco/Alberston's/Safeway/Stop & Shop/etc. For social reasons I believe in local businesses--more money in the local economy, less in the corporate pocket, better employment opportunities locally keeping the community a place you want to live, all that. But from an environmental perspective, the big stores have a very hard time selling locally-produced goods, because their way of doing business inherently revolves around lots and lots of the same things being available all the time, which is impossible without globalization. so aside from the social issues, there's a direct environmental benefit to maintaining the vitality of local businesses, and that is to provide a market for local farmers who might have a few truckloads of produce rather than a few hundred thousand.
I will add, though, that our nearest grocery store is a ginormous chain (Stop & Shop), and they actually have a fairly presentable selection of locally grown produce during the summer. Some of it's organic, too! So, this argument doesn't always work.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:17 am
17 Oct 2006
So by saying let's have global trade, and hope that the people will buy local is kind of like saying let's hope that I will get a good suntan in Wisconsin in October. It's not impossible, but the chances of that are pretty slim.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:44 am
17 Oct 2006
Organic feeding the world -- not large scale but rather local/regional organic feeding the world. Local creates the world. I'm not saying there should be no trade in food at all. There may come a time when circumstances are such that long-distance trade in anything is either virtually impossible or too expensive, but I hope not. Still, I think that it is possible, with effort and creativity and teaching skills, etc., that organics can feed the world because communities can make it work. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying I believe it's possible. I also believe that there will come a time when it will be an imperative.
I'm definitely not advocating an ostrich approach. I know too much for that.
Re: coffee. I would suggest that you ask your local store to source in some organic fair trade coffee.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:32 pm
17 Oct 2006
If we tax fuel with a carbon tax or raise the price due to global warming policy (as most economists believe we should) then this addresses the first issue you raise
We should support farmers who produce food cheaper than us- how else are they supposed to develop? there are not sufficient domestic markets in most developing countries
So according to you because people are too lazy to go to farmer's markets we should give in to protectionism and distort the entire global trading system- that's terrifying!!
J.S.
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:45 pm
17 Oct 2006
So, to get this straight, you are pro-local unless the locals cannot grow or produce at a cheaper rate than their global competition. If the global competition can produce at a cheaper rate to create a final product, which is comparable or cheaper than the local product, then you are pro-global. That's actually together pro-global, since pro-local would require that you would seek out local products to support the local economy, even if they are more expensive.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:07 am
18 Oct 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:26 pm
18 Oct 2006
When I was in America, I almost never went to supermarkets (after about 1993) and loved my local farmers markets.
So, I do support local.
But since we are not going to eliminate global trade (who is giving up coffee and chocolate), let's make room for agricultural imports by the poorest nations, which for some may be their only way out of poverty.
(Of course, we could just give them the money tp build a sustainable society, but that would be unAmerican, and besides we spent it all on polluting Iraq and Afghanistan).
patrick
PS: SMLowry, Thanks! my local markets (in Beijing) don't sell enough coffee to source it, and since I don't go to the giant chains, I am not sure what else is available. I won't tell you what kind of swill I drink...
Permalink