Melanie Warner at the NYT reports today that Wal-Mart is about to dramatically increase its organic food offerings.
In very understated fashion, she says, "Wal-Mart's interest is expected to change organic food production in substantial ways."
Um, yeah, it sure will.
Wal-Mart's plan is to sell organics ~10% over the price of non-organics -- a much closer premium than you can get elsewhere. It's also getting brands like Pepsi, Rice Krispies, and Kraft Mac 'n' Cheese in the game.
There's good back and forth in the article about the pros and cons of further industrializing organics -- availability and expansion of the market in the pros, weakening standards and increased overseas production in the cons.
I'm torn about this. On one hand, it hints at a possible tipping point whereby agriculture might adopt organics much more widely; on the other, it raises the specter of complete corporate domination of organics. There's an ongoing fight to weaken organic standards, and Wal-Mart's entry may enable agribusiness to erode organic's validity.
Another issue, tied up with this one, has been bothering me lately. It comes up in a lot of enviro writing, especially related to food: an unquestioned tangling of values and goals. I'll take it up more fully in a later post, but wanted to mention it here.
In Warner's article, a Wal-Mart exec is quoted as saying, "Organic agriculture is just another method of agriculture -- not better, not worse." The advocacy group Organic Consumers' Association is described as being concerned that "Wal-Mart did not care about the principles behind organic agriculture," and that outsourcing will lead to "dubious organic standards and labor conditions that are contrary to what any organic consumer would consider equitable." I imagine many Gristmill readers will agree with the OCA's position, but I'm not so sure.
In my mind, organic is an agricultural practice, not a cultural norm. There's nothing inherent in organic agriculture that prohibits industrialized farming. There are important issues about protecting standards, but if we agree on standards for organics, then it's inevitable we're going to see industrialized versions of them.
That's a good thing, right? Organic foods are healthier, and organic practices better for the environment. So I want to see more people eating organics. The goal is organic food production, but the unquestioned value tangled up with that goal is small, locally owned farms. Organics may have evolved in small farming practices, and we may feel an attachment or preference for that approach, but for me that's not really the goal.
A bias against industrialized food production itself, based on the past behavior of agribusiness or our desire to see more small farms, is counterproductive and marginalizes our arguments. Vigilant protection of organic standards and oversight of organic practices is more valuable, and allows organic food production to grow and benefit more people. Our stomachs may turn at the prospect of organic Pepsi, but it's important to examine what about that upsets us -- and not assume it's inherently a bad thing.
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 Threaded
Chris Schults Posted 2:09 am
12 May 2006
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:29 am
12 May 2006
I would love to see our food production systems move to a local, Earth-friendly emphasis, and I think that will happen eventually (whether we like it or not). But in the meantime, isn't it a good thing to encourage more large industrial farms to convert to organic? Even if standards are diluted (which is nearly inevitable, IMO) it will still be better than the status quo. Organic can become the new "standard" and "beyond organic" or "local" or "pure food" or whatever other label we want to develop will become the next, higher standard of healthy, eco-friendly food production. I think the most important thing is to develop that "alternative" food label quickly, so that small, independent organic farmers are not driven out of business with a price point at which they simply cannot survive.
If we can get that label out there, people will be willing to pay more for it (as they are now for organic) and everything will continue, more or less as it is now, but everyone farming will be just a little bit more eco-friendly.
Seems like win-win to me.
Permalink
OutdoorsPro Posted 2:30 am
12 May 2006
While most greens see the adoption of their stated goals as a good thing, there is an strong element that is so self-righteous about their shopping habits that the idea of being able to buy organic foods at a place like Wal Mart offends them.
I'm all for buying locally produced foods, but sometimes it's just not possible or affordable. I can't always afford the co-op and frankly, i sometimes tire of the attitudes there, not to mention the "spare changers" that always hang out near the entrance.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:41 am
12 May 2006
"There's nothing inherent in organic agriculture that prohibits industrialized farming."
That may be true under what's become of organic standards under the USDA--which, for example, sanction the dreadful act of feeding confined cows corn in "organic" milk production.
But it's not how Sir Albert Howard, the British agronomist who developed the modern idea of organic ag while studying in India, conceived it. Large-scale organic ag is nearly as reliant on off-farm inputs, often shipped from far away (note petroleum going up in smoke), as industrial ag. Sir Albert imagined closed nutrient loops--small farms building their own soil. Small farms only make economic sense selling to a nearby market. I still consider it an ideal worth striving for. Why? Well, as Michael Pollan shows pretty convincingly in his new book, industrial-organic ag is ""floating on a sinking sea of petroleum." I fear that Wal-Mart's entry into to market will only increase that pressure -- and greens who support it are getting played.
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:12 am
12 May 2006
Tom,
So what do you propose as an alternative to "getting played?" Wal-mart is not going away any time soon. Wal-mart is not going to stop selling food, I suspect. I already have never shopped in one, and have no plans to, so it's not like I could remove my (paltry) dollars from their coffers. Yet should I truly protest against Wal-mart's selling of organic foods, simply because I know it is not a sustainable system? Certainly it is better than their selling of non-organic foods, another non-sustainable system?
Were I speculating in the stock market, I would not purchase Wal-mart stock (well, for many reasons) because I do believe that all of industrial agriculture will be faced with a major revolution when the realities of peak oil hit. But for the moment.... I don't think that local, sustainable farms can support the volume of a Wal-mart. So in the face of Wal-mart's continued existence, and Wal-mart's continued selling of food, what do you recommend?
Kaela
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 3:56 am
12 May 2006
Chris writes "doesn't industrialized food production imply that the amount of food produced exceeds local demad....Thus, while the production might be environmentally friendly, the distribution (at least within the current system) is not."
Tom echoes this with "Large-scale organic ag is nearly as reliant on off-farm inputs, often shipped from far away (note petroleum going up in smoke), as industrial ag."
I don't see sustainable transportation as intrinsic to the organic label. That's asking quite a lot of a food label. If as Tom points out the original intent of organics was to address the sustainability of the production methods then by all means (as I said originally) fight for the standard to include that. But you can't bundle into organics all sustainability issues just because you want it that way.
I agree that industrial ag are "floating on a sinking sea of petroleum", but that's a problem for all small and large industrial systems and has little in my mind to do with organic labeling per se. Currently small local farmers use plenty of oil and gas in their tractors and delivery vehicles, so they're floating on the same sinking sea (although to less of a degree).
If industrial ag sinks anytime soon the least of my worries will be greens "getting played". I'll be much more concerned with food availability at all. Without a whole scale return to agrarian society, even under the most optimistic scenarios, I believe we're going to need to move food hundreds of miles to effectively feed a nation this size.
Industrial does not by definition mean ugly polluting and unsustainable. It has meant that, it may gravitate towards that, but that comes back to the standards issue - if we can define the terms of business conduct to be sustainable then by all means bring on the big companies. There's much they do well and we're kidding ourselves to think they're just going to go away.
I also agree with OutdoorsPros comments on snobbery and I'll go one step further. Organics are principally an affluent option in this country. If you believe organics are indeed healthier (as I do), then getting them out of upscale markets and into mass markets is a public health issue I support.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 4:05 am
12 May 2006
Well, it's a complicated question. We're all getting played by Wal-Mart. The global economy has been set up, by specific people making specific decisions, to facilitate Wal-Mart's model of buying from far-flung places where labor and resources are cheap and shipping them great distances, where a small profit can be made. Multiplied many times, these small profits add up to Wal-Mart's gargantuan annual profit. When Wal-Mart does something slightly less egregiously than it was doing it before, critics of this system get hit with the "don't let the ideal be the enemy of the good" line. I won't play along.
To not get played on industrial organics, I would a) refuse to participate Wal-Mart's greenwashing effort; b) demand policies that invest in, not extract from, local food sheds everywhere; and c) plant a vegetable garden, if possible, and seek local sources for your calories. There's a start.
Permalink
Paul Andrews GreenforGood Posted 4:06 am
12 May 2006
This story about conversion of rice paddies to organics, if accurate, represents a significant finding.
"The yield of 2.5 tonne per acre is equal to that of the paddy cultivated using the conventional method since there was no drop in productivity as has been commonly believed, M.V. Rajendran, President of the Adat Farmers' Cooperative Bank, told Business Line."
We're constantly told, with no data whatsoever to confirm, that yields are higher with pesticide and fertilizer-treated soil than with organics. One reason the assertion has been difficult to challenge is lack of data. The petroleum industry has distorted the situation so effectively that the default assumption is to discourage farmers from switching, because they won't make as much money. So few farmers have been willing to take the plunge, historically. With organic sales booming, however, that's starting to change. If you've noticed produce marked "transitional" in Whole Foods or Puget Consumers Co-op (or equivalent), you are witnessing a switchover.
The killer point with this story is that farmers actually stand to make more money with equivalent yields from organics, because organics traditionally fetch higher prices at market. As I've written before, I expect that to change (or at least narrow to insignificance) with many items, but for now it's pure gravy.
It takes time to collect data through this process, however. Which is why this story is so telling.
So the next time you see a reference in a news story or TV show about reduced yields with organic farming, follow up asking the source what they're basing their information on. Don't expect the corporate media to report it any time soon, though. It's not something their advertisers would like to see.
-- Paul Andrews, GreenforGood
Check out GreenForGood.com's wide array of organic and sustainable products!
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 4:15 am
12 May 2006
Cheering on what will inevitably be Wal-Mart's price squeeze on farmers is one way to broaden the availability of healthy food. Here's another that involves investing in a local food shed.
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 4:20 am
12 May 2006
Second, I didn't mean to suggest that food distribution should be incorporated into organic certification/labeling. I was commenting in general on the "bias against industrialized food production itself," regardless of how it was grown.
On the topic of the cost of organics ... while I agree that organic food should be more accessible, which, today, most likely means lowering the price, I often wonder if our perspective on food is out of whack. Perhaps we should value food more, and thus be more willing to pay more for healthy, local, organic, wholesome grub that was grown, harvested, packaged, shipped by people making a fair and livable wage. But this still doesn't address people's ability to pay more even if they wanted to. Sigh.
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
meander Posted 4:25 am
12 May 2006
Also, a huge company like Wal-Mart is probably not predisposed to dealing with small farmers -- they would rather sign one or two contracts for organic lettuce than one hundred.
Permalink
CowsEatGrass Posted 4:47 am
12 May 2006
I also agree that "if we agree on standards for organics, then it's inevitable we're going to see industrialized versions of them." I've said this for awhile--reducing any complex, holistic, systematic notion to a set of legalistic principals is the first step to destroying the original system and its intentions (noble or otherwise). Of course, if we don't reduce these systems to "objectively verifiable" principles, the same forces that race to the bottom in the above scenario will undoubtedly cheat and push the subjective verification past its intended limits.
So I guess where I don't follow in the original post is where it is said that "That's a good thing, right? Organic foods are healthier and organic practices better for the environment." I'll give you that USDA Organic is better for the environment than conventional practices, but it is nothing compared to the restorative power of Sir Albert Howard's organic that Tom mentioned, or the delicate and subtle practices being implemented all over the country on small farms (whether certified Organic or not). For that matter, it's not even close to what we associate the word "organic" with (other than "carbon containing" or simply "living").
Further, and I think I've harped on this elsewhere, we're not just talking about environment when we say "sustainable." Sustainability is by nature a comprehensive term; it includes everything that would enable a practice or entity to continue into the future indefinitely. The major omissions here are not looking at the economic and social impacts of industrial farming, including "industrial organic."
Industrial farming funnels money out of rural areas, and out of the hands of farmers, and into exurban estates of the wealth agribusiness owners. In fact, when you buy food wherever you live, you are almost certainly sending your money off to some far off corporation who will do what they please with it, which is very unlikely to benefit you in any significant way. Local food systems are a certain way to re-enliven local economies (rural, urban, and otherwise) that create meaningful economic ties between people and their place. When your money stays in your community, you reap the benefits of it over and over again.
Also, when you buy from local farmers, you create a bond with a real person working to sustain their livelihood by sustaining your life and health. Places like farmers markets are also more than just places of commerce, they are places where communities meet and share with each other the bounty of the land that is their community in a very real sense.
If "a bias against industrialized food production itself, based on the past behavior of agribusiness or our desire to see more small farms, is counterproductive and marginalizes our arguments," then I stand marginalized. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm making a values-based argument here. I think that anyone who says their goals are not based on values is either lying or has seriously lost any real sense of why they had the goal in the first place.
Thanks for the post--you point to some important issues, even if I disagree with the analysis a bit.
Andy
Permalink
kmp Posted 4:58 am
12 May 2006
Would you really say "no?" Would you deny access to inexpensive organic produce to people who may not otherwise be able to afford it? Would you support hundreds of industrial farms not converting to organic farming methods?
I support local farms. I support local farms even over organic farms (i.e., given the choice, I will buy convential tomatoes from Long Island rather than organic tomatoes from Holland). However when I have the choice between local conventional and local organic I will always go with organic. I would be seriously pissed if Wal-mart selling organic food put one of "my" farms out of business. But how likely is it? I was surprised to learn, just now, that there is a Wal-mart in Danbury (where I work) as well as several more in my general area. Had no idea - didn't even know we really had them in the Northeast.
So if the Wal-mart in Danbury starts selling organic frozen peas... is that going to change the way I shop? No - because I believe it is important (and more importantly, I have the money to back up my convictions) to support independent businesses as much as possible, including where I get my daily bread. I suspect that among the people who are already buying organic, there are many like me, who are invested in their community, who buy organic and/or local because it is healthier, fresher, better for the environment, better for the local economy, etc. But what of those who are not already buying organic? Perhaps they would like to, but financially it is simply out of reach. So they try to buy organic milk for the baby, and organic veggies when they are on sale, but that's about it. Suddenly the local Wal-mart starts offering organic food at only 10% more than regular, as opposed to the typical 50-100% markup. Wouldn't it be great to broaden the organic foods market? Isn't this one of the things greens have been fighting for? I just don't see all the Westchester Moms dropping their allegiance to Stew Leonard's, cancelling their CSAs and running off to the nearest Wal-mart. But it might make some inner-city Danbury folk really happy.
Permalink
CowsEatGrass Posted 5:00 am
12 May 2006
Perhaps we should value food more, and thus be more willing to pay more for healthy, local, organic, wholesome grub that was grown, harvested, packaged, shipped by people making a fair and livable wage. But this still doesn't address people's ability to pay more even if they wanted to. Sigh.
Yes, value food more!
Secondly, I think you have part of the answer in your own quandary. If more people are makiing living wages growing, processing, and (maybe) packaging food in their own communities for local consumption, those same people will be more able to purchase more expensive food (i.e. priced at what it is really worth).
Food prices are also bound to drop with less transportation and more competition, both a result of diversified, small, local production.
Also, it always works to spend some time growing your own food rather than spending that time working for someone else for the money to buy your food.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:23 am
12 May 2006
The fact that the demand for organic foods has grown so much that big bad Wal-Mart has decided to highlight them is a victory ... for the hippie and old-time farmer and old-timers who started the movement 30 or 50 years ago. And for all of us who have been pushing it since.
The next step is locally grown and low carbon (fewer fossil fuel inputs). Heirloom varieties. Better treatment of animals. Good conditions for the farmworkers.
There are still lots of angles for the small producers to use when competing against the behemoths.
Permalink
GulfAaron Posted 5:33 am
12 May 2006
Gulf Restoration Network United for a Healthy Gulf
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:39 am
12 May 2006
Permalink
Forrest Posted 6:43 am
12 May 2006
When I lived in the Bay Area (about five years ago), I had a friend who was a farmer turned computer programer. After about ten years of barely making ends meet on a rented piece of land in the northern central valley, he had given up, and now was earning money as a programmer, and gardening on the side. He told me that in his experience, small organic operations could rarely afford the kinds of crop rotation and soil building that he had idealistically believed were the core of organics. They tended, as his operation had done, to overwork their soil and die of exhaustion. Larger farms he knew were able to maintain comfortable profit margins, and thus had time and space to practice Albert Howard-like rotations.
In the context of the northern central valley, perhaps these large organic farms (Lundberg, for example), were much better for the environment. Perhaps better still would have been if the entire central valley had been returned to the verdant grassland that John Muir described. Then we could begin restoring some of California's many endangered species. Of course, it would be much harder to provide the yuppies in San Franisco with their local food without the central valley. But is the food really local when the farmer has to get up at 2 AM to drive four to six hours to the urban farmer's market (as most farmers at most Bay Area markets that I went to did)?
The problem I'm pointing out with this story is that it is extremely difficult to correlate agricultural practices as we know them with sustainability. I don't know the answer, and like many, I distrust Wal-mart. But let's be careful when we assume that "small farms are better." It may not always be the case.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:19 am
12 May 2006
I will adopt Allen, Tainter and Hoekstra's 2003 definition: "maintaining, or fostering the development of, the systemic contexts that produce the goods, services, and amenities that people need or value, at an acceptable cost, for as long as they are valued or needed." The authors' "concern is context, not outputs."
In truth, sustainability is purely a human value, one that changes every year, decade, century. How far back do we want to go? Where do we stop? Do we go back to the Ice Age, the time of Romans? Interesting tidbit, melting of lead ores to produce silver has created a much elevated lead deposition throughout the northern hemisphere 2000 years ago (Hong et al. 1994. Science 265:1841-1843).
Last century, agriculture as far as the eye can see was the 'sustainable' paradigm. As we have all moved to the cities, recreational forests are the new 'sustainable' paradigm. I do not presume that either are wrong, but write in terms of that which we are trying to achieve is not a goal, but a process. We, as environmentalists, want continuous improvement. It will never be green or good enough. It would be real nice if we could live off the sun and air, but that will never happen.
So, I guess what I am saying is that Wal-Mart organic decision is EXACTLY what we as environmentalists want. Because, if it didn't happen, then there would be no improvement, and we would be very unsuccessful as a movement. We don't want that, do we?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:30 am
12 May 2006
That is indeed a riddle. I think one answer is tapping foreign markets. I can envision mega monoculture Mexican (alliteration unintended) tomato farms switching over to organic fertilizers and pesticides (yes, such a thing does exist) in order to supply Wal-Mart with cheap organic tomatoes. The very threat of that will teach large-scale U.S. organic-veggie growers to follow suit, that is, lower their prices. What will arise is a "get bigger or get out" scenario. Farmers will try to make up on volume what they're losing on price--the devil's bargain of industrial agriculture. And with increasing pressure on prices, who will do the work on these bigger-and-bigger farms? Mexican workers who sneak over the border. That's how I think it will go down.
As for your's friend's experience: "in his experience, small organic operations could rarely afford the kinds of crop rotation and soil building that he had idealistically believed were the core of organics. They tended, as his operation had done, to overwork their soil and die of exhaustion. Larger farms he knew were able to maintain comfortable profit margins, and thus had time and space to practice Albert Howard-like rotations."
This is an extremely important point. Small-scale Sir Howard-style farming is what we call management-intensive; it requires loads of hard work and, I think, community commitment. To create a closed nutrient loop, communities have to compost their food and return to the farms from which they eat. There has to be wide diversity of farming--animal growers with a tad too much manure and vegetable farmers who need some fertilizer. There have to be markets and communities close to farms, so farmers don't have to wake at at 4 am and drive four hours to market. I'll be the first to admit that it's all a pain in the ass. But when I taste and cook with and nourish other people with fresh food grown in healthy soil, and when I look at the alternatives, I think it's pretty attractive.
Let Wal-Mart sell all the "organic" food it wants; cheer it on if you must (and I'm not addresing you here specifically, Forrest). But the mega-retailer's big push into organics doesn't relieve us of the need to recreate vibrant local food networks.
Addendum: There's a health food chain, presumably soon to be snapped up by Whole Foods (or, who knows, maybe Wal-Mart) in my area called Earth Fare. The place provides year-round access to mega-California organic greens (Earthbound, I believe). Know what? Not only do these feeble leaves burn up a couple thousand calories of fossil fuel for every food calorie they deliver (see Pollan's new book, or my review of it on Grist), but they also have no flavor. What's more, I seriously doubt they deliver much in the way of macro- or micronutrients. Know what else? My farm could theoretically sell our amazingly delicious greens to Earth Fare, but that means meeting the California price -- with all of its hidden subsidies such as undocumented migrant labor and the world's cheapest gasoline. Earth Fare isn't promoting organic agriculture in any meaningful sense; it's marketing a sad (and profitable) simulacrum of organic ad . What's being peddled here isn't a real vision for restoring the earth or nourishing bodies, but rather an (I'm guessing) rather fleeting sense of self-satisfaction.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:45 am
12 May 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:06 am
12 May 2006
Farmer's markets are great, when I lived in the states, I loved doing as much of my shopping there. At that time, I was making enough money that the somewhat higher prices were irrelevant. And the fresh organic veggies and fruit were lovely.
But, something for the local food folks to consider.
One of the complaints that developing nations have against the developed world is that there are many barriers to agricultural imports.
Poor nations in some parts of the world (the African nations have been especially vocal on this issue) need to find something to export to attract the money they need to pay for oil (energy) and the capital to build their societies.
Wealthy nations (Big Eight) have things like advanced machinery and medicines that poor nations cannot produce on their own at this time.
What can they sell? Raw materials (they do when they have them) which tend to put money in the hands of big corporations locally. Food is one of the things they would like to sell.
But America and Europe have huge barriers that make this difficult. We subsidize our farmers in a variety of ways. Which makes it harder for poor people in the developing world to get out of poverty.
This is a problem for environmentalists.
If we believe in thinking globally, then what should we do to address this issue?
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:13 am
12 May 2006
While I am not sure what organic Pepsi will consist of, certainly anything that helps tilt the balance towards more agricultural practices that benefit health and the earth should be applauded.
If we say we don't like Walmart because of it's practices, we should applaud it when those practices improve.
At the same time, we should not allow it off the hook for it's ongoing bad practices.
patrick
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 10:14 am
12 May 2006
For the record my heart is with many of criticisms that have been leveled against the industrial side, and there's some great arguments being made about equity (thanks for the link to your inner city article Tom). I also agree that values, principally here protecting the environment, must underlie goals. But as Andy says reducing those goals to workable sharable principles is a neccesary evil, one that I think makes it important to clarify values and objectives.
One more wrench in the works though. If it were possible to break down the national food system to food systems with real narrow radii - say 200 miles. What happens when individual local food systems break down from drought, pestilence or whatever else nature brings along? Do you let nature take it's course? Do you let other systems collapse?
I think we only can imagine a local food system with the cushion of a national food system in the unstated background. But a real local food system could be very isolating and precarious at times. Is this the end goal? If not, then it seems there's a place for national scale food systems.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:50 am
12 May 2006
Of course not! Right now we have a global food system bolstered at its margins by local ag. Why not the opposite? Not eliminate long-distance trade, just stop propping it up with subsidies. Not legislate only local food consumption; rebuilld local food-production facilities that have been disappearing under pressure from consolidation, etc., for 50 years.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:51 pm
12 May 2006
If you are serious about a local food system, do you stop eating fish unless you live in a coastal city, and then do you stop eating it if it comes from the other coast?
What does a national food system have to do with the environment? In San Diego, Tiajuana is part of "local" as much as Los Angeles.
Communities along the various borders?
What about island communities?
It is interesting how strongly people feel about food. Food is important (if you saw my belly, you would know I think so), but it is also one more resource that is traded.
Are people serious about local food? How will that affect companies like McDonalds? How will people who eat processed food be able to determine where their frozen peas come from?
Or is this just something for a few people to engage in, leaving most people out of the picture?
As someone who is skeptical about how this whole thing is possible in our modern world, I would love to see people address the practicalities of local food, as opposed to the romantic angles.
In China, most people don't eat much pre-processed food (except flour and grains). The industry is still relatively small. That said, food does come from quite a distance sometimes...
If you go to the local farmer's market is there a way to be sure that the fruit and vegetables were not bought from a wholesaler up the road?
patrick
Permalink
juddfranklin Posted 4:00 am
14 May 2006
Should we, as environment advocates, celebrate and promote a move in which a group of gigantic companies move to include organic food in their libraries of food prodcuts (which are currently universally non-organic)?
Or should we treat this move with skepticism and targeted advocacy to try and ensure that the organic standards that have made organic food better for the environment and for human health are upheld?
From my standpoint, the answer is obvious. We Need to do both: we need to educate the executive who says that organic is no better than any other form of agriculture by simply making it abundantly clear to shoppers and to businessmen how organic farming with strong standards is better for American, for Americans, for the Earth, and, yes, for their pocketbooks.
"Thanks for including us Wal Mart! You'll be glad you did."
"Now shoppers, this is what organic means, and this is how it helps you and the world."
--Judd
Permalink
juddfranklin Posted 4:25 am
14 May 2006
Also the book "Eat Here" by brian Halweill, which details the issue in a more pragmatic way (with plenty of charts and graphics). This book is put out by the world watch institute.
A major practical issue of organic farming is the benefits of retained topsoil.
So here is my take on the practicality of this: Right now, the majority of our farmed goods are produced with a similar mentality to the way that energy is produced and used: unsustainably. We are cutting through tons of topsoil every year, meaning that farmland will become decreasingly productive and more energy intensive. Part of the organic model is to produce more sustainable farming practices.
for more on this check out This page from The Organic Trade Association
Also supporting organic's claim to superior soil health is a 1987 paper from the scientific journal Nature by John P. Reganold, Lloyd F. Elliott† & Yvonne L. Unger.
Finally, some promotion ideas:
What if we got doctor Weill to write a wellness book about organic food?
What about organic's equivalent of Atkins?
Hope this helps.
--Judd
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:17 am
15 May 2006
The definition of organic farming from wikipedia, for example, is this:
Organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on ecosystem management and attempts to reduce or eliminate external agricultural inputs, especially synthetic ones. It is a holistic production management system that promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.
For comparison, wikipedia offers this on "sustainable agriculture:"
Sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of a farm to produce perpetually. Among other requirements, this means that any outside inputs employed for agriculture must be available indefinitely, so non-renewable resources are avoided. While air and sunlight are generally available in most geographic locations, crops also depend on soil nutrients and the availability of water. When farmers grow and harvest crops, they remove some of these nutrients from the soil. Without replenishment, the land would suffer from nutrient depletion and be unusable for further farming. Sustainable agriculture depends on replenishing the soil without using non-renewable resources, such as oil and natural gas, or deforestation. In some areas, sufficient rainfall is available for crop growth, but many other areas require irrigation. For irrigation systems to be sustainable they must be managed properly and not use more water from their source than is naturally replenished, otherwise the water source becomes, in effect, a non-renewable resource.
In my opinion, in terms of quality of food, envirnoment, economics and most every other category I can think of, sustainable trumps organic every time, especially when you consider industrial organic as opposed to small, local organic. However, the question posed above was not, say, whether tax dollars should go towards supporting industrial organic OR towards supporting local, sustainable ag. It was whether or not greens should support Wal-Mart selling organic food in their stores. Even though industrial organic may be, at this stage of the game, the lesser of two evils, it is still the lesser; still better than conventional industrial ag. While I would love to see a network of Joel Salatin-esque sustainable farms thrive and prosper in our country, I don't see that it is necessarily "either/or." Any progress that we make towards moving conventional industrial ag to organic industrial ag has to be a good thing.
Kaela
Permalink
abqbabe Posted 6:10 am
15 May 2006
Organic farming is more than simply not using [prohibited] chemical inputs or practices in order to charge a higher premimium at the store and attract more customers. Which, I suspect, is all that agribusiness will see it as.
Organic farming is foremost a commitment to protect, maintain and improve the health of the soil and ecosystem, as well as to provide your customers with safe, chemical and cruelty free food. It is a commitment to enhance the well-being of the environment through the use of nontoxic, humane and sustainable farming practices.
There are two parts to this mantra: "Feed the soil and it will feed you"; and "First, do no harm".
Of course there are large organic producers, who do a good job and respect the meaning of organic as a participant in the natural cycle: Arrowhead Mills and Organic Valley come to mind.
But I am extremely sceptical that industrial agribusiness ( such as Kraft Foods or Archer Danials Midland) either cares about or understands the neccessity of these concepts, or of sustainability.
Sure [synthetic]chemical-free agriculture is better than producing foods with a synergistic cocktail of pesticides, herbicides and petro-fertilizers, but these guys are not interested in sustaining the earth or us, as their track record clearly shows. They are just after your food dollar and whatever it takes to get it.
Calling it organic, even as their corporations press for relaxation of the rules and skate as close to the edge as they can, is to debase and prostitute what it means to be organic.
Permalink
abqbabe Posted 6:41 am
15 May 2006
Most farmers markets are "producer only", and require that people can only sell what they have personally grown or made. In some very large city markets, e.g., New York and Boston, this may not be the case, and it is good to inquire from the market management what their policy is.
Some established roadside markets serve as vendors for local farmers, dairy and egg producers, especially organic ones. However these will usually advertise that fact. None I know of would bother to buy from a wholesaler, because the way they make their living is to eliminate the middleman (the wholesaler).
Fish and meat markets can be an exception to this rule, but reputable dealers buy only from the producer or fishing boat.
Don't you want to know where your food came from?
It is hardly a "game for the few", and if it seems that way now, it is only because the "many" have not previously demanded accountability from their food suppliers or were too squeamish to ask, or just flat out didn't care.
We are now entering an age where local foods must eventually supplant those from distant sources, because of both transportation and production costs as petroleum and natural gas prices continue to rise.
Our entire agribusiness production and supply network is predicated and dependent on cheap, abundant oil. Every conventional agricultural chemical from fertilizer to pesticide to herbicide is based on or made with oil or natural gas. The water for irrigation is pumped by gas powered pumps. The plows, tractors, harvesters, threshers, and long distance transportation systems are all driven by cheap oil.
Only oil isn't cheap any more and never will be again.
Support local farms and organic agiculture. Be ahead of the game.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:48 am
15 May 2006
Because the certification actually seems to be working against the local farmer: (s)he has to pay a lot to get certified, an investment which may not be returned. The certification actually only works for large farms, where the investment is worth due to the extra premium they will receive in the marketplace/have access to the marketplace (in this case Walmart).
You are absolutely right, every farmer that got into organic farming due to their want to protect the soil, do no harm, all that good stuff. The requirements are already fairly stringent: the compost has to be organic, etc. While I understand the obvious concern that goes along into it, there are caveats.
For example, suppose I have a friend (which I do) who farms locally, organically, and sustainably. His closest source of manure compost is from a horse barn, which is not certified, nor does it intend to be. But the manure is organic, as the hay isn't sprayed, etc. For him to find a source of 'organic' or certified compost, he has to travel 30+ miles, thereby not only decreasing the sustainability of the farm, but also nearly the feasibility of farming overall. And this is a small producer, fully organic in his practice and sustainable as to the output otherwise. Can you make a case for why he should attempt to get certified or how he would even go about it?
Sure he can try to start his own horse or cow farm, but that becomes even more capital intensive than previously and increases the risks of failure in the immediate future.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 10:25 am
15 May 2006
I've grown to accept that reality over the last few years, however. The key to the consequences of this move by Wal-Mart will be whether or not it primarily brings new buyers to organic foods by offering them at significantly lower prices or lures current organic eaters away from buying truly organic foods--ones that do more than meet the USDA standards, which are constantly under threat of being weakened--with lower prices. If the former, this will all be to the good because those folks weren't buying organic, anyway. Even industrial organic is at least a few steps better for the living world than conventional, and who knows? Maybe industrial organic will serve as a gateway for people to local, organic, relationship-based, community food systems. If, on the other hand, large numbers of current organic eaters switch to buying at Wal-Mart, the movement toward a sustainable food system will be damaged enormously, perhaps fatally.
What will make the difference? It's up to us, of course. While Wal-Mart becomes the biggest bully on the organic block, we must keep pushing for more local, small-scale, economically just, and place-based food systems wherever we are on the planet.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
yummyearth Posted 1:48 pm
15 May 2006
co-founder of YummyEarth, maker of delicious earth friendly organic lollipops.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:10 pm
15 May 2006
Farmers markets (the main current venue for "local" farming" supply about 2% of vegetables and fruits. Many of them are seasonable, and open only on certain days and at certain times.
They are wonderful, but are they a solution? Is there enough organically grown local produce to feed people (or is this something else only for the well off few?)?
Many people suggest we can transition from idustrial farming to local farming. Fine. How will it happen? Is it realistically possible in a timely manner (given the unknown impact of global warming on all farming practices)?
We will have another 3 billion people coming soon. Can we feed them this way in the time period we have?
Are any of the advocates of local farming eating ONLY locally grown fruits and vegetables, all year round? (This is not intended to attack people, but is intended to find out if this is possible or just a dream at this time.) For those who do, how is it?
Please don't misunderstand, I am in favor of supporting local farming, I am having trouble seeing it as a realistic practical alternative that is achievable.
Here is a study that I found interesting.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/VGS/Apr04/vgs30101/vgs30101.pdf
It concerned me because it raised issues (in my mind) of whether local farming can grow enough to be a major supplier of food, or will it remain a niche market (albeit, a very pleasant and lovely niche market).
patrick
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:55 pm
15 May 2006
But these conditions all arose from specific historical circumstances and specific decisions made by people, often working in more or less democratically elected governments. Are they working out? Does anyone here have real confidence in our current food system's ability to sustain itself? Do the policies that are in place--which work to extract fertility from the Midwest and increasingly far-flung places internationally, bolstered by cheap petroleum for transportation, mechanization, and fertilizer, all to produce pretty atrocious food -- work in any meaningful sense?
No one who agitates to rebuild local-based food production demands that all calories consumed should be from a 30-mile or any other arbitrary radius. What I argue is that we should reverse 50 years of policies that bolster industrial food production at the expense of small-scale artisanal production.
Industrial agriculture wobbles on the edge of failure. Our food is making us fat and sick; our reliance on immigrant labor is fanning right-wing demagoguery, forcing a war-addled president to mass troops at the same border from which flow that vast majority of our food-production workers; energy prices are on the rise, not likely to fall. Industrial organic methods may help with the first of those, but not the last two.
Let's try something different. Once again, I've been confronted with the extraordinary question, Can sustainable agriculture feed the world? My answer remains: I sure hope so, because logic teaches me that unsustainable agriculture can't.
PS What if our vast lang-grant research university complex began seriously studying sustainability, rather than merely pimping the latest wares of the agri-giants?
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:43 am
16 May 2006
I try to buy as much local food as possible, but I will admit often that isn't much, especially in winter. As for the feasibility of eating a completely local diet... I've been toying with the idea of trying the experiment, but I can't quite commit. Farmer's markets are wonderful places, but around here they are only open from July-October; what I am supposed to do for the other 8 months of the year? Even at the farmer's market, there is no guarantee you are supporting small, organic, sustainable family farms, unless the market is actually at the farm and you have a chance to poke around. When I think of all the things that would not be in my shopping cart...coffee, tea, chocolate, maple syrup, bananas, raspberries, bread, crackers, oranges, spinach..... it's more than a bit daunting.
I wish there was a (small, independent) year-round market near me (or anywhere for that matter) than ONLY sold local foods, or at the very least, would be devoted to local, but carry a few staples (sugar, tea) from far away, clearly labeled as such. Simply adding labels (you always know where your wine came from, right?) would be helpful, and some stores are good about letting you know where produce is from, but the problem seems to be there is nothing driving the "local" market. Organic markets are all about organic, and will fly in potatoes from Vancouver if that's the best organic source. Regular supermarkets are all about the bottom line. I'm realizing as I do some research that if I really want to dedicate myself to eating even 50% of my food from local sources, I'm going to have to do a lot of driving to farms in the area, and going to have to give up a lot of Saturdays to do it. I wish there was an easier way.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:01 am
16 May 2006
"I'm realizing as I do some research that if I really want to dedicate myself to eating even 50% of my food from local sources, I'm going to have to do a lot of driving to farms in the area, and going to have to give up a lot of Saturdays to do it. I wish there was an easier way."
Here is where public policy could intervene, if the public demanded it. (Frankly, the lack of traction these ideas get even on a greenie site like Gristmill make me worry about the future of local ag.)
If there are really enough farms to provide 50 percent of your food in your area, and the bottleneck is distribution, why shouldn't the government step in and create some central local retail facility? Too socialistic? What about the upwards of $20 bill Uncle Sam drops annually propping up a disastrous long-distance commodity system--one that's causing untold misery throughout the quote-unquote developing world? If the government committed to creating a facility, maybe the farms would combine efforts and purchase a collectively owned truck to pick up and deliver their goods. And then more farms would be drawn in and more consumers and then more farms...
Permalink
Forrest Posted 5:00 am
17 May 2006
On the point about packaged salad greens, I again want to point out a different perspective. My parents, who are very "green conscious" vegetarians, love pre-packaged salad greens. Fifteen years ago, when they travelled outside of the leftie belts of the USA (and they travel quite a bit), it was almost impossible to buy any salad green other than pesticide soaked, dehydrated iceberg lettuce. Today, every supermarket in the entire country sells bags of pre-washed greens. While they may not be as high quality as the greens they grow in their own garden in the spring and summer, they are an enormous step up from what used to be accessible to most of middle America. In other words, while a small organic farmer like yourself might view Earthbound salads as a pitiful substitute for the real thing, for the vast majority of Americans, Earthbound lettuce may be much better than anything they've ever had access to. I don't think this is cause for despair - but rather I think it is an awareness that we should cultivate in our planning for local food systems. Local food systems that require people to entirely rework their lifestyles will be a failure. So will ones that are preachy. Food systems that find ways to market improved products in ways that fit into people's existing patterns (i.e. pre-packaged food in supermarkets in the Earthbound example) will be succesful.
I tend to think that the reason Wal-mart is threatening is not so much because Wal-mart is evil, or big, but that Wal-mart has traditionally sold cheaper merchandise through buying huge lots at reduced prices - and this may limit their interest in buying into these local markets. But what if you approached the produce manager at your local Earth Fare (or Wal Mart) and offered to sell him local organic greens?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:09 am
17 May 2006
Thanks Tom and KMP for your great replies to my questions.
It certainly seems to me that those folks who are in America and elsewhere should support local farming. For those of us in developing countries, we do support it, but perhaps in different manners (we are not likely to see the tracking and labelling very quickly, but buying cheapest veggies in season pretty much guarantees that they are as local as possible).
Local will have an important place to play, partly as an incubator for new ideas, and of course, in support of sound agricultural practices by those few able and willing to engage in them.
However, we should all be clear that unless something changes seismically, local will not be a major player in food delivery in the short term.
That being the case, we must applaud Walmart (and I am not a fan of the company for other reasons) for helping the market and consciousness about organic foods to grow.
A larger market for organics (even if it includes "industrial" farmed organics) means that there is less use of pesticides and harmful fertilizers overall. It is a way station on the way towards a greener future.
We need to get through the global warming and peak population eras (the next 100 years or so) with the world in as good a shape as we can manage.
(To be honest, I don't think America is going to get serious about global warming at this point, which means that there are some nasty times ahead).
I want to reward good behavior, even it if it is not perfect. We change by increments.
Good job Walmart!!!
(never thought I would say it).
patrick
Permalink