“authentic” is the new organic

Jump to Comments

This is a great piece by Eliot Coleman. There’s lot of talk about this issue — the take-over and subsequent watering down of organic, with the result that to some the term is now meaningless, or worse, misleading. Is there a need for an new certification that re-captures the original scope of what organic used to mean? Eliot’s suggested term is “authentic.” Others abandoned organic long ago and have adopted Certified Naturally Grown. It’s a real certification with nearly 500 farmers enrolled.

I have to comment on some of what Mr. Coleman has said. He says,…

“Now that the food-buying public has become enthusiastic about organically grown foods, the food industry wants to take over. Toward that end the U.S. Department of Agriculture-controlled national definition of “organic” is tailored to meet the marketing needs of organizations that have no connection to the agricultural integrity organic once represented.” [italics added]

The truth is a little more complex. Michael Pollan provides a great account of the whole process by which organic became a USDA-run program, in his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Because of the rapid growth of organic and the existence of multiple certification organizations, problems arose when people started shipping organically grown and processed products around the country. Not all the certification organizations were working under the same definition of organic. What was considered organic by one was not necessarily considered organic by another. A uniform definition and set of rules was needed to standardize organic across the industry. Those representing the organic industry at the time actually asked the USDA to do this — write one rule that they could all operate under. From what I’ve read, the USDA was not necessarily eager to take on the task. Finally though, the legislation was passed and the NOSB was formed to start writing the rules. This took years to accomplish, and there were many people at the table.

One of the big players back then was Gene Kahn. He started out as an organic farmer, and through skilled management grew Cascadian Farms into a very successful organic operation before selling it to General Mills. Now he’s a vice president. Kahn pushed hard for the organic rules to be written vaguely enough to allow industrial strength organic. He contends that if he had not succeeded, organic would have died a long time ago, instead of enjoying the massive growth in acceptance it now has.

So yes, the USDA does control the organic definition, but it was asked to so and it did so with the broad partnership of those involved with organic back in the day. And yes, the rules were written to allow large-scale organic, but that means many more acres not being treated with chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Isn’t that a good thing?

Another thing Mr Coleman says…

“Although getting toxic chemicals out of agriculture is an improvement we can all applaud, it only removes the negatives. The positive focus, enhancing the biological quality of the food produced, is nowhere to be seen. The new standards are based on what not to do rather than what to do.” [italics added]

Again, this isn’t quite the whole truth. In the rules (subpart A, 205.2) “organic production” is defined as…

“A production system that is managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.”

Though much of the rule is focused on prohibited substances, it’s not just about “removing the negatives.” At least it’s not supposed to be. How this plays out in the field is a different story, but that might be as much the fault of certifiers and inspectors as the government. I’m convinced there was the intension of retaining and requiring that organic production take a distinctly biological approach to farming. And many organic farmers approach farming this way. The issue now is that some don’t. They’ve figured out how to turn their land into an “organic” factory. The other issue is they are being allowed to do it! They are clearly not abiding by the spirit of the law, and that is bothering more and more people, like Eliot Coleman.

You can also count me among that group.

2 Comments

Filed under agriculture, natural, organic

Tags: authentic, certified naturally grown, eliot coleman, gene kahn