I wonder how much of the net gain/loss of organic farms is either:

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?

I note the dismay in the author's writing when he reports that we in the U.S. have become a net importer of organic food. I wish to point out that the environmental benefits that accrue to the environment from the raising of organic food do not stop at the U.S. border. If we wish to purchase these benefits where they can do the most environmental good, we should encourage organic farming where it does the most good in terms of species saved or acres of environment protected, etc. I don't know if these areas would be in the United States or not, but the environmental benefits are achieved when demand for organic food increases, not when the acres of organic farm increase in one particular country.

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.

Considering that the government subsidizes lots of farmers to not grow certain crops, and to grow others in conventional and factory farm type ways, I am wondering just what kinds of farm subsidies organic farmers are getting?

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

You're really comparing apples (dollars of sales) to oranges (acres of production). Even in California, most of your acres are going to be field crops, like cotton and rice, where there's little demand for organics.  A better comparison would be to compare the percentage of organic fruits and vegetables sales and the acreage of organic fruits and vegetables.

IMAGINE
All the people, sharing all the work, I mean world.  Hmmm

The organic farmer gets a minuscule share of the price of a loaf of bread. The solution to this is for the organic farmer to become a producer of food, not just organic agricultural commodities. But the local zoning people tell me that if I grind my grain into flour and bake bread with the flour that these are "industrial processes" and that they will take whatever action it takes to stop me. I cannot pay the taxes on the farm with what I can get from selling organic grain. But I can take in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year if I sell the grain as bread. And the farm can support more people working to bake bread than with only growing grain. I feel I am up against a brick wall in my effort to make progress.

Is'nt there something inherently wrong with eating food that was grown in China when you live in say New York? Mass produced "organic" is missing the point. Jane Goodall had a good term for organics grown by major corporations like Kraft--shallow organic. They may not be spraying pesticides or using chemical fertilizers but they are still mono-cropping and using wasteful irrigation systems. Buy local and do what makes sense. Deep organic builds fertility and sustains land and people.

I have to ask the question, just how organic are the products being imported from China, Mexico and other countries, especially imported grains. How rigorous is the organic inspection process in China? The treading water of organic production in the U.S. seems to coincide with the USDA becoming involved, many producers dropped organic certification at this time. The constant bombardment of the organic standards by  giant "organic" agri-business could likely spell doom, large organic dairies resisting grazing requirements is but one example.

"research," that is.

I have always thought that the label "organic" was fundamentally inaccurate and unhelpful.  The two main concerns that people who tout and buy organic food are:

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.

I agree with Roz that many farms that drop out of organic certification aren't dropping out of organic farming -- they're just opting out of all the paperwork involved with maintaining certification.

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.

Thanks -- good article, good posts, good discussion here!

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 ...)

Julie Guthman in her book Agrarian Dreams which is about organic in California and how it has moved toward an agribusiness style, discusses most of the points Pollan makes in his book a really in-depth way with lots of research and data.  Personally, I think it is the best recent book published on organic in the U.S., and Pollan, I imagine, has drawn a lot of his thinking from people like her and other folks at UC Santa Cruz studying alternative ag.  

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.

>> "According to the USDA, the U.S. spends about $7 million annually supporting organic agriculture -- and that encompasses research, support for transition, everything."

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.

I read in the current issue of Vegetarian Times that the 2006 Farm Bill contained a rider allowing the use of FIVE HUNDRED additional substances - read chemicals - during the production of organic foods.  (The number, prior to the passage of this ill-intended piece of legislation, was 38.) Since organic no longer means organic, does any of this really matter?

I think the key is that the premiums are in the processed food and unfortunately the meat and dairy, which have the weakest organic requirements. There is also no doubt that the imports, most of which are likely not truly organic, are cutting into market share. Another issue is risk- farmers may take a small hit during the transition and many are not willing to do this especially if they are unsure of how the market will develop.

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.