I hate to enter this debate again, since I think much of it should
be postponed until the rule comes out. But I re-enter it because I am
worried that the debate playing out on SANET in the last few months is a
microcosm of what is going to unfold on an increasingly visible, national
stage in the months ahead.
Everyone who cares about the future of organic farming and organic
farmers should step back a moment and ask how this "friendly discussion"
among the converted is likely to play in the broader media/public.
Will Sal and other organic farmers really be helped if the Pure Food
Campaign, and/or other hard-edge activist groups, generate 40,000 letters
condemning the purity of organic food and making various versions of the
case that USDA is incompetent and sold-out?
What if a vocal few, motivated by all sorts of tangential agendas,
are successful in getting a host of major stories placed in magazines, on
TV, and in newspapers asserting that the USDA has blown the rule-making
process, has sold consumers out, and is destroying the integrity of organic
food? And that as a result, everyone and all groups working in the
certification field cannot be trusted, and will have their programs ruined
by the feds/regs. And the final straw -- will we read in Reader's Digest
next fall a headline answering the question raised in the "Self" article's
title -- "And now you can't even trust organic..."
Look at the "Self" article and what it says. (And there are more
major articles in the mill in other widely circulated magazines). The
average American consumer will likely read and hear more about organic food,
the implementation of OFPA, why some people are so upset and so shrill, the
consequences of food choices etc, over the next 12 months than they have in
the last 7 years since passage of the act in 1990. The future of the
industry -- and policies shaping it and people making a living within it --
are going to be impacted most by what is said about organics in the next 12
months, not what people have said or feel about water already under the
bridge. The past is past, and will not greatly influence how today's
consumers and the next generation of shoppers feel about organics, and
whether they decide to seek it out when it really matters.
The "Self" article basically says organic is doing fine, despite all
the confusing talk over what this or that label means. The article explains
the state of the rule making process accurately. It states that buying
"certified" organic is the surest way to go if consumers want clean food
produced in ways that conserve resources, help the environment.
On the big issue of genetic engineering, it states simply -- and
parenthetically -- that "(genetically engineered plants are ineligible for
such [organic] designation)." I doubt it will be that simple.
One remarkable passage in the article (page 164) states: "Most
surprisingly, the NOSB recommends that livestock farmers also get the chance
to use the 'organic' label. In the past, meat has been the only food
specifically banned from this label." How's that for a big communication
issue?
The article goes on to ask "IS organic food really better?" Jeanne
Goldberg, a PhD at Tufts and director of a Center on Nutrition
Communication, is quoted as saying "nutritionally speaking, there is
absolutely no evidence organic is better." She goes on to assert
you/consumers will not get any more vitamins or minerals from food grown
with manure (and organic systems) than food grown with conventional
fertilized and pesticides.
This is the conventional wisdom, a safe position that most
nutritionists cling too. Dr. Goldberg must have missed the meeting Willie
Lockeretz organized at Tufts in the spring of 1996, and not seen the summary
of papers published in a recent issue of the Journal of Alternative
Agriculture. Or she heard a different message from the papers than others
in attendance. Most agree the science base is thin to prove organic food is
"better" nutritionally, but there is too much evidence in the literature,
and practical knowledge to assert "there is no evidence." Those that argue
"there is no evidence" are making a political and/or value statement, not a
scientific one.
I respect those "experts" who continue to judge, on the basis of all
the evidence (and a resoanbale grasp of it), that the differences are modest
and/or inconsistant, and do not explain much, if any of the differences in
health outcomes. Still, I think they are missing some important signals in
emerging science, and that there is much evidence supporting the hypothesis
that the American public would be healthier if organic food production
systems accounted for 90% of the food supply instead of just a few percent.
Indeed, more and more people are seeing in data on human health and
diet the suggestion that there is something going on with human health and
development trends and outcomes that cannot be explained. There is so much
we collectively do not understand and cannot explain on the general topic of
-- why are some people healthy and others not? Why do some babies get born
with functional deficits, and others do not? Are we, or our health, indeed
a reflection of what we eat and drink? Must be to some extent, it seems to
me. If everything is all roses with food, why is the incidence of diabetes
at record levels and rising, especially Type II (the kind strongly
correlated with diet and obesity)? Why are some cancers increasing,
especially those that are correlated with diet and exposure to chemicals?
And why is the incidence of many birth defects and related developmental
problems rising, especially in affluent communites/regions?
There are bigger issues that need to be debated as the organic rule
moves forward. Look at the tone and substance of the debate on SANET over
the last 2 months. Is this what we hope plays out in the national media
over the next 12 months? I for one hope not.
I see great risk ahead if opportunistic newcomers (people and
organizations) decide to engage organics as the latest "hot issue", entering
the fray as they are skilled at doing and generally stirring things up
exponentially with the help of stubborn old-timers and/or those with vested
interests. As they do so, the rhetorical heat will be turned up another
notch, and then another notch, and so on (a dynamic Sanet readers have come
to know all too well). As this unfolds, only the shrill will get quoted,
they are the ones who will set the tone. The mature, reasoned and informed
voices -- like Bob Anderson's quotes in the "Self" story -- will get drowned
out if not cut entirely.
For what it is worth, I offer some opinions below re the raging
debates of the day. These are the opinions of someone who has closely
followed these issues/debates for almost 20 years. I have many friends in
the industry, and on most of the sides of the debate. I am not engaged
professionally in, or employed by the organic industry, and never have been.
At the national level of policy, I have worked in and with the sciences
relevant to organic farming and food safety all my career (the first
Congressional hearing I organized in 1981 was on Congressman Jim Weaver's
"Organic Farming Act of 1981." How many remember that bill, the role of
Gregg Skillman, the hurdles of that era and the good work or so many people
who have gotten us to here, but who are no longer in the debate).
1. USDA is not the enemy, is not evil, and has not been captured by the
"Dark Side of the Force."
The four-year or so delay in the rule-making process reflected the
need to work through divisions within the industry; the scope of the
education job; and a generally hostile political climate within USDA until
Clinton's election in 1990.
2. To the extent the law works, and the regulations improve, it is the USDA
that must "fix" it. They are the ones who must balance the competing
messages and pressures -- and there will be many.
USDA will respond most willingly to respectfully submitted,
factually based, and constructive criticism and suggestions. Comments that
are shrill, ideologically motivated, full of nasty allegations, ill-informed
and conspiracy-dominated will receive the attention they deserve, and could
poison the well for those inside the industry, the broader
consumer-environmental movements and USDA who sincerely want to address
glitches (there will be some) and unresolved issues -- $5,000.00 in sales,
or $50,000.00; gross or net, measured how? -- in as constructive a way as
possible.
3. OFPA genetic engineering issues are real and important, but should not
be blown out of proportion, as some are trying to do. The organic community
should not allow this issue to be exploited as a lever by others hoping to
scare consumers or open another "theater" in the war waged against
multinationals.
This could be the organic debate's pandora's box; once opened, many
innocent people could get hurt needlessly.
I believe GEM issues can be solved through a reasoned compromise and
ongoing process. The door should be solidly shut to Bt-transgenics and
plants expressing scorpion venom, and it surely will be under any imaginable
scenario. But it should be left open to some current GEM applications
already in the food supply -- i.e. yeasts among others. No one wants to get
rid of several such applications of GEM. Plus, other applications will
evolve in the future that are essentially 100% compatible with the basic
principles and goals of organic farming. Those who allege that such
applications "are not possible" are being closed-minded and dogmatic -- just
what we need to avoid on all issues in this debate if we are to move forward
(as opposed to re-fighting the old issues over and over). Those that say we
cannot keep that door "a little bit open..." may be proven right and pose an
important challenge to USDA and the community, but I am equally sure it
cannot and will not, and in my opinion, should not be forever "closed shut."
4. The big issues that will move consumer opinion and motivate greater
demand for organics are --
* confidence in the underlying integrity of the law and rule, i.e.
when people ask "Does it matter if food is produced organically", the answer
needs to be an unequivocal yes, despite uncertainty over whether a given
organic carrot has higher levels of vitamin A (or pesticides) than a
conventional one. (Indeed, there is growing evidence that the differences
are narrowing in many instances because conventional farmers are picking up
and applying more organic and biologically based practices. This is a good
and hopeful development, despite the fact it makes it harder to paint the
choice as black and white).
* confidence that buying organic can and will for many Americans
make a difference to personal health and well-being, especially for mothers
and kids, people drinking water with herbicides in it (at least 1 in 4
Americans), and for farmworkers and animals sharing agricultural landscapes
* confidence that buying organic animal products is a positive step
in dealing with water quality problems, managing manure, reducing
microbiological hazards, and treating animals humanely and giving them a
reasonable chance at an existence most people would not be ashamed of if
they witnessed it first hand.
5. The cost of certification is not, in general, excessive or a constraint
to the viability of even small organic farmers. There are cost and
accountability problems in some states, and the risk of additional
duplicative record keeping and costs. But in many states/regions and for
clients of many private certifiers, the certification process is working
well, is leading to the exchange of ideas and information, and is helping to
protect the integrity of the industry.
Certification cost/duplication and related issues should be resolved
inside the family, and can be if reason is allowed to prevail, and if the
spirit of organics can survive the changes going on in the industry and
marketplace.
6. The rule-making process will hopefully reinforce and highlight the
innovative spirit and ability of the U.S. food and ag industry to produce
increasingly high-quality organic food products, in all seasons, at
affordable prices.
This will help break organic and sustainably produced exports into
markets around the world, creating good paying jobs in hopefully enlightened
companies that invest in their employees, communities, and natural
resources, thereby growing the market for organic and sustainably produced
food. This need not undermine the CSA movement nor plunder the soils of the
heartland. And it will help build confidence around the world in the
ability of agriculture to move toward biologically based systems.
Note New Address!!:
Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".