From barth@ncatfyv.uark.eduTue Feb 6 14:22:57 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:35:25 -0600 (CST) From: Bart Hall To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Organic-Sustainable The two terms are most decidedly *not* interchangeable. As an agronomist who has inspected over 100,000 hectares for organic certification in half a dozen countries, I have seen a considerable number of organic farms that are not sustainable. Row crops (maize, soya, vegetables, and such) are almost always the core of the problem -- or rather, production of row crops to the near exclusion of essential (IMO) sod-crops. Because of their wide spacing and frequent cultivation (especially in organic systems), row crop production usually has a very negative impact on soil organic matter, with all that entails for sustainability. Sod crops reverse and heal that trend, but too few farmers (organic or conventional) have any significant area in these soil builders. The usual reason is financial. The rub, of course, is that an unprofitable farm (almost by definition) isn't sustainable. In the US, the average net income for farms with under $50,000 in gross sales is a *loss* of $2,600. Only a handful of organic farms gross over $50,000, so things aren't terribly optimistic on that front, quite apart from the agronomic issues. And what's more, sometimes the most ecological/sustainable approach does involve judicious application of chemicals. For example, in extreme dryland areas where wheat is alternated with fallow (to conserve moisture) the farmer who seeds a cover crop and subsequently kills it with herbicide (to make a mat) will conserve more moisture, more soil, and more organic matter than the "organic" farmer who black fallows with a disc harrow... Organic certification standards are increasingly requiring some degree of agronomic responsibility towards the soil. Things are evolving amongst the various programs, but a new risk has appeared here in the US. The USDA will soon be imposing nationwide standards for organic production and certification. When government involvement was originally sought by some sectors of the industry, the intention was that national standards would become a *floor* defining the minimum level of organic standards. Current USDA statements, however, make it clear that such national standards will become a *ceiling* and certification programs will be prohibited from developing higher standards -- including in such areas as soil management and sustainability. On the other hand, substantial numbers of US farmers and university types contend that "what we're doing already is sustainable -- there's no problem." Clearly that is not the case, so what we have is nearly self-definition of sustainable -- "what I'm doing *is* sustainable" -- on the one hand, and an increasingly dumbed-down, Pablum definition of organic (to be kept that way by the USDA) on the other. To my mind, it's really quite simple. Don't waste time with definitions. There are good farmers (organic and conventional) and there are poor farmers (organic and conventional). We should be rewarding the good ones and letting the poor ones suffer. Unfortunately, it seems we are too often doing precisely the opposite. From cfalk@nmsu.eduTue Feb 6 21:02:39 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:25:06 -0700 From: Connie Falk To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic-Sustainable " Because of their wide spacing and frequent cultivation (especially in organic systems), row crop production usually has a very negative impact on soil organic matter, with all that entails for sustainability." Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? What are the consequences for sustainability that you are referring to? Are you saying that sustainable farms are not financially feasible? I am very interested in your perspective. I think most people assume that if it is organic it must be sustainable. That on the spectrum of sustainability, organic is the pinnacle of achievement. Why wouldn't the national standards incorporate soil building requirements? Which certification organizations do or don't? Connie Falk From barth@ncatfyv.uark.eduTue Feb 6 21:08:17 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:49:05 -0600 (CST) From: Bart Hall To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic-Sustainable > From: cfalk@nmsu.edu (Connie Falk) > >> " Because of their wide >> spacing and frequent cultivation (especially in organic systems), row >> crop production usually has a very negative impact on soil organic >> matter, with all that entails for sustainability." > > Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? What are the > consequences for sustainability that you are referring to? Soil organic matter is the most important living reserve of carbon (stored solar energy) in temperate climates, yet because carbon is the stuff of living things -- particularly microbes -- soil organic matter is a tremendously dynamic system. Many microbes thrive in an oxygen-rich soil environment, and in the course of "earning their living" they break down complex organic molecules and release them to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (called 'mineralisation'). Oxygen itself attacks soil organic matter, "burning" it slowly. Both oxygen and microbes attack soil organic matter more aggressively when it is warm. In fact equilibrium soil organic matter levels shift about 2.5% for every 10 oC shift in *average* annual temperature. Warmer climates have less soil organic matter than cooler ones. In most row-crop situations a great deal of soil is exposed to both the sun and the air -- more heat and more oxygen. Cultivation increases oxygen levels even more, stimulating microbial activity. Heat, oxygen, and busy microbes will convert important amounts of soil organic matter to carbon dioxide, thereby reducing soil OM levels. Soil OM does things like improve soil tilth and resistance to water erosion (wet aggregate stability, etc), stores nutrients, retains soil moisture, and so on. All of these things are pretty generally agreed to be components of sustainability and to the extent that they are degraded by conditions common in row-cropping, sustainability almost certainly diminishes. Row crops, too, are notorious for having rather limited root mass to create *new* soil OM; in that respect they are different than cereal crops and VERY different than sod crops. > that sustainable farms are not financially feasible? I am very interested Nope, other way around. Farms that aren't financially viable aren't sustainable. The challenge of sustainable agriculture is to be profitable while *simultaneously* improving soil health and system biodiversity and reducing the need for off-farm inputs, particularly biocides. > I think most people assume that if it is organic it > must be sustainable. That on the spectrum of sustainability, organic is the > pinnacle of achievement. Most people *do* assume that. I just don't think it is a valid assumption. The best, most sustainable farms I have ever been on have all been organic -- truly inspirational stuff. I have also been on so-called organic farms with 1050 acres of soybeans out of 1100 acres total (organic beans have fetched a very nice price the last few years). Others have even less rotation than many conventional farms. The sustainability of organic farms runs across the entire range of sustainability, just like it does for conventional farms. There is a lot of "organic by neglect" agriculture out there -- 'yeah, it's organic, cuz I ain't put nuthin' on it.' is a comment I hear far too often. That kind of "organic" just isn't sustainable, and it does a major disservice to the majority of organic farmers who are making excellent progress in developing healthy and naturally resilient whole farm systems. > Why wouldn't the national standards incorporate > soil building requirements? At a very minimal level they try. There would be no problem with this if USDA standards were established as a *floor* not a *ceiling* But agronomy and the organic industry are evolving significantly faster than agencies have traditionally been able to respond; there's an awful lot we simply don't understand about farm systems and soil health. On the level of my strictly personal opinion, I think there is also a side to this that is somewhat disturbing. Building soil health and biodiversity on a farm while maintaining profitability is not easy. There are a number of major processors and traders of organic food who seem to want very low standards because they can get more ingredients, cheaper, and still slap an organic label on it and lap up a nice premium in the marketplace. Not of few of these folks have the ear of the USDA bureaucrats developing the regulations. It all strikes me as a bit like sex without love .... (-: > Which certification organizations do or don't? Of the major ones (with substantial amounts of food in the marketplace) the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA), Farm Verified Organic (FVO) and Oregon Tilth seem to be the most dedicated *in practice* to long- term system health, conscientious soil building, and such. From R.Sanders@ens.gu.edu.auTue Feb 6 22:23:32 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:06:13 +1000 (EST) From: Richard Sanders To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic-Sustainable Bert Hall wrote: >Sod crops reverse and heal that trend, but too few farmers (organic or >>conventional) have any significant area in these soil builders. >The usual reason is financial. The rub, of course, is that an >unprofitable >farm (almost by definition) isn't sustainable. Connie Falk wrote: >Are you saying that sustainable farms are not financially feasible? I have been doing substantial research on this problem. I am finding that the economic imperatives (as defined by our current economic system) of agriculture tend to contradict the ecological or biophysical imperatives of sustainable agriculture. Before giving examples, I wish to point out that the evidence of my work suggests that our current economic system promotes behaviour that is ecologically unsustainable. If you accept the premise that ecological sustainability, (i.e. maintaining life-support systems: maintaining the ecological basis of our existence; living within the carrying capacity of our planet) is a prerequisite for the existence of society or economy, then the implication is that our social and economic systems must adapt to ecological reality and the biophysical constraints of ecological sustainability. Only in that context is a truly sustainable agriculture possible. Examples: Competition and the need to survive economically pushes farmers onto an intensification of production/productivity treadmill and a chemical treadmill. Minimising costs is an imperative. Sustaining the resource base and surrounding ecosystems is a cost. If you pay this cost you cannot compete unless everyone pays it. If government forces everyone to pay, you cannot compete in the GATT/WTO environment. Discounting makes it economically irrational to invest now in sustainability measures where the benefits tend to accrue slowly over time and well into the future. Economic rationality is not ecologically rational! Agricultural economists define a viable farm as one that can grow its assets faster than the rate of inflation. This means that the farms assets must grow exponentially as they must grow over time at the inflation percentage. Farm debt has the same effect. Since the resource base of the farm is fixed at best and in the majority of cases degrades over time under the pressures of competitive industrial agriculture, attempts to grow the assets at an exponential rate can only be achieved at the expense of liquidating the resource base - which is what we have done and is why most agriculture is unsustainable in the long run. The exception to these examples is where farmers can carefully husband and sustain the resource base and be profitable through meeting a niche market where supernormal profits can be achieved. Cut flowers, herbs, medicinal plants, organic produce are some examples. However, as more players enter a given niche, competition emerges, this cuts the supernormal profits, and competitive treadmills and cost cutting come into play and we are back to where we started. The implication is that the survival imperative is to redesign our societies in ways that make our social, economic, and technical systems, ecologically rational. This means giving ecological imperatives priority over economic imperatives. I would welcome support and criticism of these findings. Yours for a sustainable future, Richard Sanders Ecological Economist Environmental Sciences Griffith University Nathan QLD 4111 AUSTRALIA Tel: 617 3875 7683 Fax: 617 3875 7459 Email: R.Sanders@ens.gu.edu.au From nag1@cornell.eduThu Feb 8 12:53:27 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:17:23 -0500 From: "Norman A.Gundersheim" To: SANET-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic-Sustainable R. Sanders wrote: I wish to point out that the evidence of my work >suggests that our current economic system promotes behaviour that is >ecologically unsustainable. If you accept the premise that ecological >sustainability, (i.e. maintaining life-support systems: maintaining the >ecological basis of our existence; living within the carrying capacity of >our planet) is a prerequisite for the existence of society or economy, then >the implication is that our social and economic systems must adapt to >ecological reality and the biophysical constraints of ecological >sustainability. Only in that context is a truly sustainable agriculture >possible. Given that the economic system promotes behavior that is ecologically unsustainable what is the solution (short of some kind of eco-revolution?) Yes I vehemently agree that the above is true but that is not news to me. The question becomes how do we as a society collectively facilitate a paradigmatic shift that prioritizes eco-logical imperatives above or on par with eco-nomic imperatives. Is this possible or even desirable given the structure of the current system. i personally struggle to develop a clear vision of how our world could look if we as a species got it through our thick homo-sapien skulls that we are not alone on this planet and that what we do as a species effects all life on this glorious planet. I personally am willing to live experimentally. It may be, that part of the solution lies in our being willing to individually commit ourselves to a life style that is ecologically sound(whatever that means). If we can do this in small groups throughout the world this might create a field of influence(Sheldrake) that makes it easier for others to do the same. I would like to hear your thoughts and dreams about how to facilitate a non-violent ecolution. Norman A.Gundersheim Dept. of Fruit & Vegetable Science 162 Plant Science Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 607-255-3033 Fax 607-255-0599 From gsmiller@cet.comThu Feb 8 12:55:20 1996 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 22:35:55 -0800 From: Gregory Miller To: SANET Subject: Re: Organic-Sustainable: a vignette >After pointing out by several methods that hay grossed more per acre >than corn, for substantially lower cost of production than corn -- >quite apart from the obvious benefits to the soil -- he was still >resistant to the idea of broadening the rotation to include hay. > >Eventually, in frustration, he blurted out the *real* reason he didn't >like the idea, even though he understood it was more profitable and >better for the land: > >"But real farmers don't grow hay, dammit!" he sputtered, and in a >moment I understood the dimensions of the challenges we face. > >I have felt, ever since, that the most difficult frontiers of >sustainable agriculture are social and human, not agronomic. Well stated. I used to look with some puzzlement on farmers that would spend more incrementally on fertilizers and herbicides than increased crop yields would return. The above example hits on the fact that farmers are every bit as human as the rest of us, and that in their local community, being able to "brag" about "the best" yield per acre was a source of pride; cost (bottom line, whatever) never really entered into it. Although this may have been more prevalent in the past, farmers are getting smarter about "economic" analyses of their practices. Just as it's the problem, it's also insight into the solution. If one farmer notices that his neighbor maintains soil and production and profit by incorporating some organic means, the word will get out. Farmers do notice things, especially what the neighbor's up to, whether they admit it or not. Cynically, it might be in a time frame that produces turmoil in society, but not necessarily. Farmers will evolve under market forces, as they have done for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Some will fail, as has happened for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I don't mean to imply that farmers should be abandoned to fend for themselves; they are every bit as important as "organic" resources. Providing information to farmers is optimal use of existing resources. Farmers may be slow to change, but I have confidence in their ability to eventually get things right. Maybe, eventually, "real farmers" will grow hay as part of their rotation. As the referenced entry notes, there are some practices that combine organic goals with economic goals, rather than an inevitable spiral toward eventual failure. We should recognize that it's going to be a step-wise process at best. I recognize inherent value in nature, but in business, selection is geared toward profit (survival), not "inherence." Those things that nature does "for free" or at lower cost (toward increasing assets, cash or land) will be incorporated into practices, where artificial means do not provide a comparitive profit IN THE LONG TERM. Successful farmers--that means over the long haul--will be those that guard important assets like soil, moisture, and disease/pest/weed resistance. If organic means are best, they will be incorporated. If "artificial" means are best, they will be incorporated. Selective "artificial" means can be worked into a rotation or practice along with organic methods, based on sound management practices (e.g., *what works best* by time tested methods.) Although nature's margin may be thinner than a casino's, it *will* dominate in the long run. Any method that is too contrary to nature will eventually lose through exhaustion of material, funding, or manpower. The target of current efforts should be to experiment within economically allowable limits to try and figure out just what it is that fits nature best. Organic, artificial, or both? Could be any of the three--bet it's not number two. ;-) Regards, Greg Miller From FQUESNEL@lrs.uoguelph.caThu Feb 8 12:56:37 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:41:41 EDT From: Francois Quesnel To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Richard Sanders' comment Greetings everyone, I found Richard Sanders' comment on the profitability of farm most interesting. It seems to me though that the problem of economic viability, as he described it, is not at all restricted to organic farming. In Quebec (eastern Canada) where I spent most of my life, the agriculture in general is in bad shape. I am a soil scientist so my knowledge of economics is not all that great (so please correct me if I am way out in left field) but it seems to me that most of Quebec's agriculture problem are pretty much linked to the impossibility for farmers to have their assets grow at the inflation rate. For a farmer in Quebec, producing one tonne of wheat will cost almost twice as much as the price he receives for it. This is why there is a program called 'revenue stabilization' that compensate for this in many different areas of production. The dairy, eggs and poultry sectors are protected under a system of quotas, so that the 'extra income' comes from the consumers pockets. When considering GATT/WTO pressures to eliminate any trade barriers plus the fact that our governments are bankrupt, how sustainable can any form of agriculture be in that context? It seems to me, in this type of economy, to be truly economically viable farmers need to be the best on that market (i.e. producing at the lowest cost). Even the very best producer of small grain in Quebec cannot raise a profit on his own. This is why I totally agree with Richard Sanders when he says that the survival imperative is to redesign society in a way that makes the different systems ecologically (I would add 'humanly') rational. As a starting point I think we would be wise in trying to understand exactly what the economist E.F. Schumacher wanted to say when he wrote: "Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered", back in 1973. Regards Francois Quesnel Land Resource Science University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 CANADA E-mail: fquesnel@lrs.uoguelph.ca From guya@ncatfyv.uark.eduThu Feb 8 12:59:35 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:08:39 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Ames To: SANET-MG@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: the word sustainable Sustainable has a more-or-less precise dictionary meaning: for perpetuity; able to be maintained indefinitely. It's a perfectly serviceable word. If others misuse it, we can point it out. After all, tyrants and murderers have always proclaimed their peacefulness. So should we trash the word peace because these liars and double-talkers misuse the word peace? No. Let's just keep the word sustainable, and when the corporate pirates invoke the word, we'll know the truth and laugh. As for the word organic...well, its meaning has to be put to a vote. It has a precise legal meaning in some states and may soon have one at the Federal level. But it does not mean the same thing to everyone. If you look it up in a dictionary, you probably won't find any meaning with a direct connection to an agricultural production method. Many seem to think that there is a Real and True Organic Farming, an archetype of some ideal agriculture, first brought to light by the prophets Rodales. But it has not been a divine gift; it is very much a human creation and has been subject to our desires, foibles, ignorance, hopes, etc. In other words Organic is not equal to the Truth. The debate that has been raging within and without the National Organic Standards Board over the Federal certification standards, especially the acceptable and prohibited substances, is especially illustrative of this fact. Is black plastic mulch organic? What do you think? Well, a vote of the NOSB has decided that it IS organic. Does that make it so? It is reminiscent of the Privy Council of the Anglican Church which used to periodically vote on the existence of Hell--sometimes there was a Hell, sometimes there wasn't. If I haven't made my point yet, here it is: sustainable has a time-honored meaning; let's continue to honor it. Organic is whatever we decide it is; sounds pretty arbitrary to me. From shenkm@BCC.ORST.EDUThu Feb 8 13:01:29 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 14:21:25 PST From: Myron Shenk To: Guy Ames Cc: almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic is sustainable Thanks to Guy Ames for the reasoned discussion about pesticides. Guy, I like to open sessions on this topic by asking my audience if DDT is good or bad. Usually the less informed give a resounding "BAD" with all the environmental problems attributed to this compound. After resoundingly condemning it, I remind them that the World Health Organization estimates that in the first 10 years of its use for Malaria control, DDT was responsible for eliminating over 110,000,000 (one hundred ten million) cases of Malaria which would have resulted in 10 to 12,000,000 human deaths. I then ask, "now, would you say DDT is good or bad?" This is usually a good point to talk about misuse and abuse, and our decision making process. By the way, we can play the same game with automobiles, electricity, bridges, etc., etc. Thanks Guy. Myron Shenk, Oregon State U. Myron Shenk Integrated Plant Protection Center Oregon State University Cordley Hall 2040 Corvallis OR 97331-2915 Tel: (541) 737-6274 FAX: (541) 737-3080 email: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu From Danamx@aol.comThu Feb 8 13:01:49 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:38:07 -0500 From: Danamx@aol.com To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic is sustainable (fwd) Dear Myron, DDT. Too bad you picked that one! Other pesticides have less obviously bad effects. After the first ten years of DDT use (during which all those lives were saved) resistant varieties of mosquitos were created all over the world. To the point that now there is a world wide resurgence of malaria affecting a potential 250,000,000 people and DDT is now useless even as an emergency measure. For this we had to put up with the unfortunate "side affects" of species extinction and, as is now becoming clear, very serious human health problems that won't go away soon as DDT is still accumulating in the food chain. (Mexico still sprays it like mad in a futile attempt to control its malaria resurgence). As for organic agriculture, no standards anywhere define it in terms of the non-use of chemicals, but as a system for building long-term soil fertility. Chemical pesticides aren't evil (although some of them are extremely dangerous) they are simply unnecessary and not worth the obvious costs they entail. Ronald Nigh Dana Association Mexico From guya@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri Feb 9 11:39:02 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:32:48 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Ames To: Sal Schettino Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: the word sustainable > > > Organic farming was the only method of farming for 6000 years of history. > Is it sustainable? I would guess yes. I agree according to the dictionary Sal, you really need to get the book I suggested earlier on Sanet--Topsoil and Civilization by Carter and Dale (University of Oklahoma Press). We (humans) have despoiled the earth far and wide with overgrazing, over-cultivation, and just plain over-use. Topsoil and Civilization chronicles all these abuses and shows how the abuse of the soil by various cultures was linked to that culture's downfall. Much of Greece, the site of the cedars of Lebanon, Crete, North Africa, the American "Dustbowl", etc. etc. were all sites that have been severely damaged by non-chemical agriculture. All these places were once rich, agriculturally productive areas. Some of these places are now deserts. So, if that was organic farming, then it was certainly not sustainable. That's the style of farming Bart Hall would call "organic by neglect," which is the style of farming I fear many large scale operators wanting to profit from consumer paranoia and cash in on "organic" will employ. As Bart has pointed out, OCIA and other organic certification groups include soil building and prtection as part of their certification requirements. But, apparently, the as-yet-to-be- finalized federal standards are weak in this area, leaving room for abuse by those who might meet the letter of the law but not the spirit. All I'm really trying to say in my postings is that organic certification is not THE answer. In fact it may impede progress toward a more sustainable agriculture in two important ways: 1) By fostering a belief that it is THE answer and inherently sustainable (someone on SANET mentioned that they thought organic farming was the "pinnacle" of sustainable agriculture), the organic movement is fooling the public (and many farmers) into believing that we won't have to do anything else to insure agricultures sustainability and a safe food supply. That is, once everyone is certified organic (the fellow from the Dana Association in Mexico suggested that ALL farmers should be certified organic as a requirement for allowing them to farm), we will no longer have to worry about the sustainability of agriculture. (As many other posters to SANET have pointed out, there are many practices that are certifiably "organic" but clearly not sustainable. One of my favorites to point out is the use of copper fungicides in organic certification programs. Not only can copper build up to phytotoxic levels in the soil so that plant growth is practically impossible, recent research also indicates that much smaller amounts of copper interfere with the flora in worms' guts, effectively killing the worms.) I'm seriously concerned that the Federal standards will tend to end debate about and stifle further evolution toward a more sustainable agriculture. The existence of the Federal program will lull people into believing the problem has been solved. 2) The second major way the Federal standards may actually impede progress toward a more sustainable agriculture is by impugning the safety of food produced by farmers who can't or don't want to be certified organic but are seriously trying to farm sustain- ably. The simple existence of the FEDERAL standards will imply to consumers that the certified stuff is safe while the other stuff is suspicious. (In my climate and with my disease and pest complex, I sincerely believe that my low-spray apple production system is more ecologically sound than what I would have to do to produce marketable apples organically. I can and do educate my local clientele, but it's impossible to do if I can't meet the buyers face-to-face and explain the complexities of the situation. Consumer paranoia is mounting, and I'm afraid that the Federal standards will push me into becoming certified organic and I'll have to spray--and I'm not exagerrating here-- about 10 times what I'm spraying now, including sprays of copper, botanical poisons, sulfur, etc.) . From 71042.2023@compuserve.comSun Feb 11 15:19:31 1996 Date: 11 Feb 96 10:54:51 EST From: Bill Duesing <71042.2023@compuserve.com> To: Almanac Information Server Subject: Re: Is Organic Enough? The following article first appeared in the Winter 1995-96 issue of The Natural Farmer, the quarterly newspaper of The Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA). It might stimulate some interesting discussion on sanet-mg. Feedback from NOFA members has been positive. The Natural Farmer is available with membership in NOFA, or for $10 per year from TNF, NOFA, 411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005.(jackkitt@aol.com) Is Organic Enough? by Bill Duesing, C 1995, Bill Duesing, Solar Farm Education, 71042.2023@compuserve.com NOFA and its members have spent over two decades promoting organic agriculture, and learning how to practice it in this region. We have seen organic agriculture grow from being ridiculed by the agricultural and food establishment to being nearly mainstream. We know that a shift to organic agriculture is essential for the long term health of people, the soil and the Earth. But is organic, even certified organic, enough? In the early days of NOFA, before organic agriculture was codified in certification standards and widely recognized, the idea of "Organic Farming" meant many different things to different people. Its lack of specific definition allowed many of us to associate it with certain important characteristics of scale, locality, control, knowledge, nutrition, social justice, participation, grower/eater relationships and the connections with schools and communities. Anyone who attends a few workshops at almost any NOFA conference understands these characteristics. The "implied or hidden curriculum" of small scale, local eating, good nutrition, connection to community and consistency with social and environmental justice has been and still is very evident. Proper soil care and avoidence of toxic and synthetic chemicals are just part of what NOFA has seemed to represent for over 20 years. These desirable food system characteristics seem threatened as the definition of organic farming and food is narrowed to a set of standards which deal with growing and processing methods exclusively, and is acceptable to the food industry and government. It seems that in many ways organic food is slipping right into some of the most destructive patterns of the conventional, globally-destructive food system. The new giant, energy-intensive supermarket in a wealthy suburb nearby recently had a full page ad for organic produce in its weekly flyer. It prominately featured organic seedless grapes, which are currently in great excess in California. The peppermint tea sold at the NOFA Summer Conference was certified organic and imported from Chile. Peppermint! A recent issue of Organic Food Business News (OFBN) reported that representatives of Dole, a multinational food corporation which has caused much political, social and environmental damage in Central America and elsewhere, brought growers from Argentina to this country so they could learn organic techniques and grow certified organic garlic and other vegetables in Argentina for export to the U.S. Other corporate food giants are buying into the organic food business. Pepperidge Farm Bakery in Connecticut called to see about certification. General Mills is milling organic grains. And of course, because the USDA is getting increasingly involved, there will be higher fees for organic certification. Meanwhile, the conventional farmers just go about their thing, moving smoothly to the marketplace, especially if they are very large. Farms, input suppliers, distributors and retailers all are becoming larger with more concentrated control. OFBN and The New York Times have carried stories about pesticide contamination of organic food -bananas from Central America, for example. It seems either nearly impossible, and/or very expensive, to assure freedom from chemical contamination, especially when there are thousands of miles between the grower and the eater, and while the world is still flooded with toxic pesticides and other detrimental substances. The transportation itself contaminates the produce and the rest of the world. While this expense may seem a pittance for well-to-do folks who spend only a small percentage of their income on food, it is significant for the growing number of people, especially in the cities, who are struggling to obtain the necessities of life. It is also expensive taxpayers who pay for school lunches and food stamps. Some local organic growers make up for any energy savings in transportation from distant farms by using lots of plastic and energy intensive greenhouses, irrigation and indoor growing systems. In some cases the "plastic to produce" ratio is very high. John Jeavons says that many of the large organic farms in his part of northern California are even less sustainable than some conventional farms. These energy -intensive organic growers fertilize their crops with manure from very large dairy operations in southern California* which feed their cows grain grown in the midwest. If the produce is then shipped to the east coast, it's not hard to imagine that, looking at energy use and its polluting effects, one could conclude that those same vegetables, grown locally with conventional fertilizer might be better for the planet. Since food is energy - our energy source - energy considerations are very important in any evaluation of the long term sustainability of our food system. To power a human being for twenty four hours takes the energy equivilent of about a cup of gasoline. The amount of fossil and nuclear energy it takes to deliver that food energy in the current system is enormous, often the equivalent of two gallons of gasoline are used to provide a cupful's worth of food energy. The global food system is rapidly increasing its energy use through such practices as building four new McDonalds every day for years at a time, selling Coke, Pepsi, Budweiser, Miller et al in aluminum cans in India, Mexico,Vietnam and China, genetically engineering a new strain of seeds for each year's crop and by erecting new, enormous, capital-and energy-intensive animal factories and food processing facilities. For our long term survival, it is important to measure efficiency according to the second law of thermodynamics (which describes energy's one-way flow toward uselessness). By this important standard, the food we grow in gardens and local small farms, especially if hand tended, is nearly infinitely more efficient than that delivered by the conventional food system. The rapidly-evolving corporate food system will probably be glad to deliver organic food to upscale consumers. And why not? The higher prices will mean higher profits. The energy-intensive, distant, large scale, corporate-controlled global food distribution system doesn't provide decent work, good nutrition, wholesome flavor, or knowledge. It will be happy to offer organic as an option, and will keep working to increase its share of our food dollars. ( Currently 78 cents of each dollar spent on food in the U. S. is taken by those who buy from the growers and sell to the eaters. And, the middlemen's take is increasing steadily.) For sure, in the short run, our nutrient and energy needs can be met with food from far away, but what about our other needs. For most of human history, gathering, growing, preparing and eating food has been an important and central activity. It provided useful work for the majority of people, a context for relating to ecosystems, and education in the processes of nature. If the organic food system falls into the same patterns of scale, distance and control as the conventional food system, human beings will have very little work to do as the scale of operations in increased, and as production is moved to regions with the lowest labor, land and energy costs. We will lose our connection to the natural processes and knowledge upon which we depend for our survival. With genetically engineered plants, animals and hormones we've seen that the larger the entity that produces or markets our food is, the less democratic control we have over its actions or products. It is clear to me, that if we are to have any hope of creating an ecological food system, with anything like democratic control, that food system has to be local and organic. We vote for the food system of the future with our actions and our money. If we understand what is really important about it, we will grow and eat more of our own and give less money to those who profit from economies of scale and by distancing us from our most important connection to the envrionment-the food we eat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- *Organic farms are being targeted as the disposal sites for otherwise unwanted manure from conventional farms. I've had quite a few calls from Texas and other far-away places offering "organic fertilizer" - really composted steer manure - to NOFA farmers. A letter from Brazil asked if we were interested in worm compost produce by small-scale enterprises there. Just this week I got a letter from the Philipines offering cocopeat, made from coconut hulls, and tauted as a mulch, soil conditioner and a subsitute for peat moss. A second-law efficiency check on any of these, shows a very inefficient system.