Published in LiP Magazine
[http://www.lipmagazine.org]

Organics: Meaningful or Market Niche?

by Ariane Conrad and Erin Wiegand
05.10.06

onsumers have demonstrated that they're willing to pay more for organic foods that they think are better for their health and the environment, as well as for farmers, workers, and livestock. The $30 billion question is: Is it true?

The organics business is small but flourishing. While it garners only 2% of US food sales, it is the only sector that enjoys sustained growth: According to the Organic Trade Association, sales of organic foods in the US have increased about 20% since 1997, as compared to the 2% to 4% growth of total US foods sales in the same time period. Total organic sales are over $15 billion, and are projected to reach $30 billion by 2007. More than half of us—about 58% of all US households—have purchased organic foods and products.

According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), certified organic cropland in the United States grew nearly 75% between 1997 and 2001, the last year for which figures are available, and accounted for more than 2.3 million acres by 2001. By 2010, it's estimated that organics may constitute 10% of all US agriculture. Prepared and packaged foods, produce, baked goods, dairy products, eggs, health and beauty products, pet food, and household cleaners that proudly bear some stamp of organic certification are available not only at your local natural foods store, but increasingly at the nearest Safeway or Wal-Mart as well.

But is this growing sector staying true to the intentions of the holistic organic movement: a movement that encompasses worker and animal welfare, energy efficiency, social justice, and the ideal of smaller farms producing foods for local communities? Or is organic farming being incorporated into the systems of intensified production, finance, management, and distribution typical of conventional agriculture? Is organic agriculture just replicating the conventional model that it so fiercely opposed?

Vital to organics' commercial success have been the national certification standards codified in the US at the beginning of the 21st century. They have successfully bolstered people's trust in (and appetite for) organic products, which consumers regularly cite as safer and tastier than conventional products.

The standards forbid the application of materials such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and sewage sludge for three years prior to certification and as long as a farm holds an organic license. They prohibit genetic modification and irradiation of plants, and hormonal and antibiotic injections for animals. They also require outdoor access and pasture for livestock, 100% organic animal feed, and recordkeeping of all operations. But contrary to what many consumers may presume, there are no provisions—or even suggestions—for worker protection, soil or energy conservation, crop rotation, or for reducing the overall distance that food travels from farm to plate.

The history of organics is a history of the leap-frogging advances of marketing and regulation.

Until the mid-20th century, all agriculture was pretty much free of toxic pesticides, if not always sustainable. The 1920s and '30s brought philosophies like Rudolf Steiner's Biodynamics in Germany and Mokichi Okada's Nature Farming in Japan. Both rejected Cartesian-influenced dualism dividing human beings and nature, embracing instead a holistic view of the living world that linked pure food from healthy soil to good physical and spiritual health and agricultural sustainability.

In the post–World War II era, farming moved towards mechanization and homogenization. Larger and increasingly automated farms proliferated and, with them, the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, as well as the practices of mass-breeding, all of which had been developed in the '20s.
In the 1960s, the back-to-the-land movement placed renewed value on smaller farms and vegetarianism. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring helped to encourage the use of fewer chemicals. This trend continued into the '70s, prompting farmers and organic activists across the US to form regional groups and develop organic standards.

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) was the first organization to certify organic farms in North America. Their standards, outlined in the California Organic Foods Act of 1979, became the model for the federal Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. The OFPA required the USDA to set federal standards and established the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB) to guide the process.

In 1997, the USDA finally drafted an official set of standards. These permitted genetic modification, irradiation, use of metal-laden sewage sludge, and confinement of livestock. Organic farmers and consumers responded with over 275,000 letters and comments in protest, forcing the USDA back to the drawing board. In 2001, the USDA passed the National Organic Program (NOP), reinstating prohibitions on irradiation, sewage, animal confinement, and genetically engineered crops.

Meanwhile, larger companies vying for organic labels pressured the USDA to loosen its requirements. In April 2004, the USDA responded with a series of directives that created enormous loopholes benefitting big agribusiness. Organic certifiers, the USDA ruled, must err on the side of the farmer (and the organic label) when the chemical makeup of a particular pesticide was uncertain. Since pesticide companies rarely list the ingredients on their products, this meant it was extremely likely for potentially dangerous chemicals—even those already banned by the USDA for organic agriculture—to be used on organic food. Another directive permitted cows to be treated with antibiotics and growth hormones, as long as milk from that cow wasn't sold for at least 12 months following the treatment.

Once again, significant public response forced the USDA to scrap their policy. Consumers, environmentalists, and politicians (including the Consumers Union and the NOSB) criticized the USDA not only for degrading the integrity of organics, but also for changing policies without public participation or advice from the standards board. This uproar notwithstanding, in June 2004 the USDA reinstated one of the elements of the original directives: Non-agricultural products, including seafood, body care products, nutritional supplements, pet foods, and clothing, could be labeled "organic"—regardless of how it was produced. The USDA now claims that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—notorious for its snug relationships with cosmetics and drug companies—has legal jurisdiction in these sectors, effectively creating a regulatory void in a multimillion-dollar industry.

Given the makeup of the USDA inspection offices, with their top appointed officials hailing from groups like Monsanto's Calgene Corporation, ConAgra Foods, and the National Pork Producers Council, lapses in integrity regarding certification are hardly surprising. Neither is the interest of big agribusiness in setting organics standards: A national standard for organics production has helped to create a national market for organics. More people than ever before can buy organic foods, but their purchases weigh heavily in favor of large corporations over local businesses and farms.

Consumers are by and large ignorant of these realities of the organic food industry. According to a 2003 survey commissioned by Whole Foods and conducted by market research giant Synovate, 57% of consumers think that all organic food is grown on small farms. 60% believe organic food has "more nutrients." Many people also assume that organic production implies sustainability, independence from corporate agribusiness, better working conditions for farm laborers, environmental friendliness, a lower level of food processing, and a commitment to biodiversity.

When we assume that an organic label signifies all of these things, it's easy to feel absolved of a need to think about where our food comes from, or what it contains. For the companies that produce those products—and the chain stores where most of us buy them—this is great news: Increasing numbers of people concerned with living a healthy and "green" lifestyle can now do so without substantially changing their consumer habits or questioning any of the commonly held myths of organic food.

MYTH#1: If it's certified organic, it must actually be organic.

Mary-Howell Martens, an organic farmer from New York and frequent contributor to the blogs at The Rodale Institutes's www.NewFarm.org, observes, "It would be quite easy to get away with using prohibited materials or practices on our farm. The inspector is here for only a few hours one day a year.... We follow the organic standards because we want to, not because we have to, and certainly not because the government, our certifier, or the inspector is looking over our shoulders. We still believe that the vast majority of organic farmers feel this way, [yet] unfortunately there are exceptions." An inspector quoted at NewFarm.org confirms this, reflecting on "an increasing level of sneaking non-compliance."

The biggest problem, maintains former organics inspector Jim Riddle, is neither the farmers nor the inspectors—it's the certifiers. He has dedicated several years to creating a formal curriculum for training inspectors, and believes that the same must be done for certifiers. (While training programs for certifiers do exist, they are neither standardized nor mandatory.) Riddle points out that the 97 different certifiers accredited by the USDA have extremely uneven interests in, and knowledge of, organics: "Some are state [run], some are private companies, some are not-for-profit. Many of them have not had a formal inspection [training]."

Furthermore, organic certifiers are paid by the companies they're certifying—an all-too-obvious conflict of interest. Certifiers are in hot competition with each other to keep clients and keep costs down; they can easily decide not to punish clients for non-compliance (which, in some cases, could lead to de-certification) for fear of alienating them. In the interest of preserving "neutrality," NOP rules also prevent certifiers from consulting with farmers, or providing information about overcoming barriers to certification. This has led to even less understanding and awareness of the reasons behind the standards, which some predict will lead to greater non-compliance.

Some farmers, including many who practice sustainable methods that go well beyond the USDA requirements, choose to avoid certification altogether. It's an expensive process and many are philosophically opposed to the bureaucracy and the paperwork. They also resent the clause in the USDA standards that forbids one certifier from having "tougher" standards than another—something that would provide an extra ounce of organic credibility in an industry fraught with lax inspectors and unaccountable certifiers.

Of the farmers polled in the 2001 Organic Farming Research Foundation's (OFRF) Fourth National Organic Farmers' Survey, 5% indicated that they were practicing organic, sustainable farming but were not certified. A recent survey conducted by the Rodale Institute's NewFarm.org, asked farmers whether organic certification was worth it. The top two answers: "No, it's not worth the trouble" and "Yes, because I believe in it" were tied.

MYTH #2: Buying organic supports small farms.

Cascadian Farm's website features pretty pictures of a 20-acre berry farm nestled in an idyllic valley in western Washington state. "At the Cascadian Farm Home Farm, we grow our crops and protect the local ecosystem using sustainable organic methods," the site claims. "We harvest our berries by hand, at the peak of ripeness and flavor, and run a small processing line to sort and pack them."

The Home Farm, though, is by no means a model by which Cascadian Farm as a whole actually operates. Those lovingly cared-for berries might well be farmed using sustainable methods and sold at a roadside stand, but not a single one of them goes into a jar of Cascadian Farm Strawberry Jam—many of those berries are flown in from Chile and trucked across the country to processing plants.
Many organics giants like Cascadian Farms started as small farms, their idealistic, environmentally conscious owners struggling to promote organics not only as a consumer choice, but as a way of life. In expanding production, they found they were unable to retain a commitment to locally grown, sustainably farmed ingredients while creating products that could be sold on the national market. Inevitably, they had to make use of the economies of scale offered by large business. Fewer and fewer of their products (or their products' ingredients) come from the original farm, and soon their factories were accepting deliveries from all over the world, combining various components to produce, say, an organic teevee dinner. At some point, one or more multinationals invest in or buy out the company.

The structure of the organic sector reflects the state of US agriculture in general: A huge number of small or family farms produce a very small percentage of the food supply. The 90% of all US farms characterized by the USDA as "small" represents only 40% of all food sales. The other 60% of our food is produced by only 10% of all farms—and those farms belong to multinational agribusiness. The web of ownership connects many organic brands to a surprising owner, and very few of those connections are listed on the label.

ShariAnne's Organics and Walnut Acres are both owned by Acirca, Inc. Acirca is owned by the Hain Celestial Group, a conglomerate that also owns Arrowhead Mills, Imagine Foods (makers of Rice Dream and Soy Dream), Westbrae, Westsoy, Celestial Seasonings, Garden of Eatin', and Health Valley, among many others. And Hain Celestial? Their primary investors are mutual funds and holding companies—a common phenomenon in the organics industry—and their stockholders are such sustainable, healthy, and environmentally friendly companies as Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, Citigroup, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and Monsanto, the giant of genetic modification. At the top of the Hain Celestial food chain is the $13 billion H.J. Heinz company, which owns between 16% and 20% of Hain Celestial stock and has two officers on its board of directors.

As for that idyllic Cascadian Farm: Along with Muir Glen, a company that primarily makes tomato paste and sauces, they're owned by Small Planet Foods. Small Planet is the organics division of General Mills, the third-biggest food conglomerate in North America.

Although you'd never know it from looking at their packaging, Silk and Sun Soy are both owned by Dean Foods—a huge conglomerate that also happens to be the leading American milk processor, controlling 35% of all milk, 70% of all organic milk (mainly through its Horizon Dairy), and a whopping 90% of all soy milk sold in the US. They operate more than 120 plants in four countries, with a workforce of almost 30,000.

At the same time that successful organic farms are being gobbled up by multinational corporations, small farms trying to remain loyal to a definition of organic that goes beyond the minimum USDA requirements are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Small farmers simply can't compete with the resources and widespread availability of organic products from giants like Seeds of Change (M&M Mars) and White Wave (Dean). When your customer base can buy a can of certified organic tomato paste at their local Wal-Mart—for a low, low price—the organic tomato farmer has little leverage in securing a share of the organics market.

Small farmers are finding it much harder to compete because of the cost of certification as well, which can run from several hundred to several thousand dollars. And while the price does vary according to farm size and gross income, a $500 certification for a small farmer just making the transition to organic is much, much less affordable than a $1,500 certification for a 3000-acre corporate-owned farm. Transitioning to organic is a lengthy, time-consuming process that requires learning both new skills and cost management. The first few years after transitioning are usually marked by crop failures and a decrease in production, especially because organic farming is so much more reliant on weather conditions.

The only selling point the small local farmer has—a true commitment to sustainable agriculture that supports the environment, workers, and animals—is rendered all but useless in a marketplace based on labeling.

Small health food stores, too, are also quickly being pushed out by chains like Whole Foods and Wild Oats (which together control about 17% of all organic sales in the US), as well as the increasing availability of organic foods at chain supermarkets. The number of wholesale distributors supplying food co-ops with organics has decreased dramatically: from 28 in 1982 to three in 2003.

What all this amounts to is an overall increase in corporate control over what foods we're buying—and over our unwitting support of companies we might otherwise avoid. Even those of us aware of organic brands' parent companies and product lines face tough choices at the supermarket, or even at local, worker-owned co-ops, where our options for tomato paste might be a conventionally grown brand flown in from Italy, or an organic can of General Mills–owned Muir Glen. When it comes to processed foods, the choice is often one among several objectionable options.

MYTH #3: Organics are good for the environment.

Organic agriculture, according to farmers and corporate PR reps alike, is more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than conventional farming not only because it usese no hormones or toxic chemicals, but also because it is more likely to rely on composting and crop diversity to ensure that land will remain fertile and keep producing a good yield, year after year.

But the demand for organic products (in particular, highly processed convenience foods) has fostered the birth of a new type of organic farm—one that looks an awful lot like its conventional neighbors. In 2004, Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association told a CorpWatch reporter, "After a certain size, [a farm] cannot be ecologically sound anymore. In California, there are huge organic farms that produce organic lettuce and carrots in large monocultures, using large energy inputs and receiving subsidized water—three elements that are anti-environmental and unacceptable for those who want ecologically sound farming."

When the crops from these farms—and from many smaller, family farms as well—are harvested, they're more frequently traveling not to a farmer's market or a local grocery store, but to a processing plant. In a 2001 OFRF survey, producers indicated that 47% of organic livestock products were sold over 500 miles away from the farm of origin.

The problem, of course, is not organic food itself, nor the drive for sustainable agriculture. The problem is that once organics becomes an industry, one that relies on processing and trucking food across the country, its environmentally friendly nature takes a nosedive. Processed foods require imported foods or foods trucked across large distances, chemical preservatives, packaging, energy-draining factories, and a reliance on larger and larger monoculture-driven farms. As Rich Ganis of the Center for Informed Food Choices wrote in a 2002 Informed Eating newsletter, "Adding organic Twizzlers to the Safeway snack aisle may result in a little more acreage being put into organic production, but those modest ecological benefits would be off-set by the tremendous amount of fossil fuel, packaging, and other resources expended in the production and distribution of these 'value-added' products."

MYTH #4: Animals are treated more humanely on organic farms.

Another myth propagated by the organics industry is that animals—whether raised for milk, meat, or eggs—live healthier, happier lives than their non-organic counterparts.

Dean Foods' Horizon Dairy, for instance, is far from an alternative to the factory farm model. The Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute filed complaints with the USDA in 2005 after conducting several studies of Horizon's larger dairies, which included independent interviews with dairy experts and farm management as well as an extensive review of farm records and photographic evidence. Mark Kastel, senior farm policy analyst at the Cornucopia Institute, concluded that Horizon's operations at these dairies "differ little from conventional confinement dairies other than having their high-producing cows fed certified organic feed."

Journalist Michael Pollan reported in a 2001 New York Times Magazine article that on Horizon farms, "Thousands of cows that never encounter a blade of grass spend their days confined to a fenced dry lot, eating (certified organic) grain and tethered to milking machines three times a day." Four years later, a report from Rebecca Clarren in Salon confirms that little, if anything, has changed: "Long silver barns that hold 4,000 cows are linked like barracks.... Cows laze in crowded pens atop the brown hardpan of the Idaho desert. Just outside the milking barn, more cows are jammed into an outdoor corral...lined up, their bodies touching." On many of Horizon's dairies, cows get to graze only a few hours a day for a few months out of the year. Horizon's PR claims that their cows get lots of "fresh air," but as Clarren points out, "That's because the barns are open structures. Their cows can see the fields but mostly aren't walking around in them." On some of their larger farms, cows are periodically trucked out to a field to fulfill the USDA "access to pasture" requirement.

While cows are at least granted this vague promise of pasture, chickens enjoy no such protection under the USDA; according to the government, pastures are only for ruminant animals. Organically raised chickens are not required to receive continuous or even partial outdoor access, and many of them spend the same lives of confinement as their non-organic cousins.

MYTH #5: Organic food is better for you.

Many studies show significantly lower levels of toxins and higher levels of nutrients among organic products. Organic fruits and vegetables have also tested at reduced pesticide residue levels. However, many scientists have found the evidence to be contradictory, and no final conclusions can yet be drawn about the health benefits of organics vs. conventionally produced foods.

And then there's the issue of contamination by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A US consumer buying organic produce can't be sure it's free of contamination from GM content unless the label explicitly says so. (In the European Union, GM content in organic food is limited to 0.9%; some particularly strict certifying groups, such as Britain's Soil Association, permit no detectable GMOs.)
GMO contamination is widespread; the air itself can bring genetically modified pollen to organic farms. In a 2001 OFRF survey, just under half the respondents indicated that the risk of contamination of their organic farm products by GMOs is moderate, high, or very high. Contaminated seed stock was rated by 48% as a moderate to high risk, making it their greatest feared contamination risk, followed by GMO pollen drift, rated by 42% as a moderate to high risk. 90% felt that the steps taken by the government to protect organic farmers from GMO contamination were inadequate. Additionally, such nationwide surveys fail to adequately represent those farmers most at risk: corn or soybeans farmed in parts of the country where GM versions of those crops are common. Erica Walz, the coordinator for that OFRF survey, told The Non-GMO-Source Newsletter in 2004 that between 70% and 80% of farmers in the Midwest (where most GM corn and soybeans are grown) report negative effects, or the fear of negative effects, from GMOs.

Former farmer and inspector Jim Riddle agrees that GMO contamination is a major concern, particularly for "promiscuous wind- and insect-pollinated crops like corn (which is air-pollinated) and canola (air- and insect-pollinated)." Riddle also cites the danger of unclean equipment or storage facilities, both of which can harbor residues of GMO-derived manufactured agricultural products, like inoculants, animal vitamins, or medications.

Furthermore, USDA guidelines contain a loophole about seed supply, allowing organic farmers to purchase conventional seed if they can't find the variety, quality, or amount they need in organic seed. Most certifiers require farmers to approach three likely sources for the organic seed, although it's unclear just how strict the enforcement is. GMO contamination is not a cause for decertification, as long as the farmer can prove she did not knowingly use any products of transgenic technology.

MYTH #6: Workers on organic farms are treated better than on non-organic farms.

There are often no major differences in living conditions or labor practices between organic and conventional farm operations in the US. The USDA guidelines say nothing substantive about labor. Poor working conditions in the agriculture industry are well-documented: cripplingly repetitive tasks, subminimum wages, unsanitary housing and toilet facilities, and a lack of basic benefits like workers' comp insurance and paid sick time. (As with GMOs, the US lags behind other countries on labor issues: The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements has adopted broad social justice principles; the IFOAM Congress, held every three years, devoted significant space in its 2002 agenda to the issues of worker justice for rural communities, campesinos, and small-scale producers.)

Marc Grossman, a spokesperson for United Farm Workers (UFW), the union and organizing force for farm laborers, notes, "Well-meaning consumers pursue organic products in part because they believe that organic farms treat their workers better. Unfortunately, this is not the case."

"A lot of the growers who are organic today used to use conventional practices and pesticides," he adds. "They switched to organic for the financial opportunity it represented. They never changed anything about their labor policies in their transition."

Grossman could cite only one unionized organic grower: Swanton Berry Farm, near Santa Cruz, CA. The first organic farm in the US to carry the union label, its contract assures employees the best pay scale in the industry, an hourly rate rather than a piece rate, a medical plan, a retirement plan, vacation and holiday pay, and other benefits. Grossman attributes the contract to Swanton's co-owner Jim Cochran, who took it upon himself to contact UFW about a potential union for his workers. (Since 2004, Cochran has also been experimenting with an employee stock ownership plan, a model to allow aspiring farmers to enter the profession without capital, and to alleviate the problem of waning interest among successive generations of families owning and operating farms.)

Other organic farmers complain that what little profit they make—often they are making less than minimum wage themselves—is threatened by cheap foreign producers governed by fewer labor regulations. Labor is often the only area in which they can cut their costs in a pinch.

Grossman laughs when asked how many farmworkers have access to organic foods for their own consumption. "It's all they can do to keep themselves and their families fed. They're not eating organic, at those prices."

While it's undoubtedly true that organic produce is priced higher than most minimum (or less than minimum) wage workers can afford, the notion that organics are "gourmet" food bought only by those with money to burn is contentious. It's obvious that on average, organic products are priced higher than their conventional counterparts, and logic dictates that people with flexible budgets are the most likely to buy them. But surveys have shown that cost is less of a factor than availability—and that middle- and lower-income families may be purchasing at least some organic foods at a higher rate than one might expect. According to the Food Marketing Institute, a study of consumers buying at least one organic product a month found that 65% of respondents had household incomes under $50,000; a Hartman Group survey found that more than half of consumers buying an average of nine organic products a month have an annual household income under $50,000. Of course, the willingness of lower-income people to buy organic produce is not indicative of organics' affordability; instead, it signals the strong appeal of organics. And it's important to keep in mind that those organic shoppers surveyed were only purchasing a handful of organic products a month—when it comes to consumers who buy most of their food, or even just most of their fruits and vegetables—organic, the percentage of higher-income buyers is probably much higher.

But the problem isn't just the cost of organic food to the consumer—it's the entire image and branding of organic food as a luxury item. "Organic" has been steadily changing from a philosophy into a market niche; from a system of sustainable farming and locally based agriculture into a globally recognized brand. The organic label is promoted as a lifestyle that transcends mere food or agriculture: Check out the glossy pages of the 500,000-circulation Organic Style. The Hartman survey also found that more than 60% of the respondents couldn't name a single organic brand name—organic is the brand.

This sort of marketing obscures one of the main ideas underlying the organics movement: Clean, healthy food is a right, like clean air and water. After all, food was already "organic" until the onset of industrial farming in the mid 20th century; organics shouldn't be seen as anything new. If anything, it's non-organic farming—what today goes by the name of "conventional farming," in another clever turn of marketing phraseology—that should be seen as a fad.

Furthermore, the popularity of organic foods in wealthy countries has created a huge export market. North America and Europe account for 97% of the world's organic food and beverage sales, but nearly half of organic farmland worldwide is located in the global South. With most of their organic products grown for export, these poor countries gain little in the way of food security. And because farmers must rely on certification standards and practices laid down by the USDA and its European counterparts, "organic farming" often has little to do with traditional agricultural methods. Of course, most of these farmers and their families had been practicing sustainable (and de facto organic) agriculture for thousands of years, well before the European and American corporate colonization and the introduction of chemical pesticides and, more recently, genetically modified crops.

Major changes must be made in policies, institutions, markets, and attitudes in order to reclaim the organics movement and hold it to the ideals of environmental and social justice. We have to recognize that the most significant constraints on truly sustainable organic farming are the powerful economic and institutional interests that are trying to control the organics industry, its regulations, and its standards.

A crucial argument within the organics movement centers on the nature of organic labeling and certification. First, there are those who call for ever-stricter standards for the USDA organics label, and a more effective means of enforcing them; they argue that the existing label should be altered to take into consideration everything the organics movement originally intended. Others see a more feasible solution in the creation of new certifiable standards—with multiple labels—to cover things the USDA doesn't, like sustainability, local production, and animal welfare. Still others contend that more flexibility is required in the standards to help small-scale farmers succeed.

And then there are those that argue against labels altogether. Julie Guthman, in her 2004 book Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California, argues that the radical potential of organics has been destroyed by the creation of a federally regulated label: "So-called market mechanisms are favored in a neoliberal political climate precisely because they do not interfere with business as usual. To the contrary, they help create new markets." Uniformity—whether through federal certification standards or anything else—is a key element of modern capitalist success. Is it possible that by pushing the organics movement into the business sector, we're actually supporting the sort of agricultural economy we sought to create an alternative to? What's done more to destroy the organics movement, the systematic dismantling of the tenets of the USDA labeling system, or the creation of the system in the first place?

Many people within the organics movement (whether consumer activists, farmers, or CEOs) argue that it isn't the point of organics to create an alternative economy or an alternative diet, but simply to grow and sell healthy food, free from pesticides and other toxins. There's an element of truth to that: If organic food is healthier, the movement should help to propagate it and make it as accessible and cheap as possible. Health shouldn't be a luxury.

But there seems to be a disproportionate emphasis placed on the health factor. The organics industry has certainly been successful in marketing that aspect of organics: It's one of the top reasons cited by consumers for purchasing organic foods, second only to "taste." In an ideal world, organic food would be healthier. It would be fresh, and free of pesticides and genetically modified content. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the one aspect of the organics philosophy that's has been widely accepted as true...isn't. From the duplicity of the labeling process (on the part of farmers, certifiers, and corporations) to very real threat of cross-contamination by non-organic and genetically modified seed, the healthy nature of many products labeled as organic should be called into serious question.

And then there's the fact that the second fastest-growing sector of the organic market is convenience and snack foods. (Organic meat is the first.) If health is the goal, doesn't it seem odd that our organic purchases largely consist of Tostitos and teevee dinners?

The question really comes down to this: At the end of the day, what is it that consumers are willing and able to support? Do people really care about sustainability, fair labor practices, animal welfare, or environmental protection? And if they do, are they willing to put their pocketbooks where their mouths are?

Our market research friends at the Hartman Group found that instead, people are drawn to organics because they perceive organic food to be healthier, better tasting, and safe (in that order). Consumers are concerned about the health risks posed by pesticides and other chemicals, as well as by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in dairy and meat. The top two "triggers" people cite for buying organic? Having children and having a family member with a health condition. Most of these consumers aren't, and probably won't ever be, hardcore organics supporters: They buy organics only occasionally, and are looking for "balance." They might buy organic strawberries, but continue to buy conventional broccoli. They won't go out of their way to get organic food. And they generally aren't interested in changing their overall diet.

For the organics movement to make any gains, there has to be an assessment of what consumers think organic means, and more importantly, what they want it to mean.

Beyond that, there's a slew of things we can do to push the organics movement toward true sustainability.

We need to encourage local—especially rural—market opportunities that protect fair trade values, and we must support mechanisms that link farmers and consumers more directly: farmers' markets and community-supported agriculture programs (CSAs), under which consumers sign up for a weekly box of produce from a local farm.

Agribusiness as a whole needs reform—not just the organic sector. Corporate control over the food system must be challenged, diminished, and eventually elimintated. We need to put an end to subsidies and incentives for conventional approaches to farming.

The organics movement should keep a global focus, engaging in alliances with consumer and labor groups around the world, as well as with the anti-globalization movement.

Farmers, especially small-scale producers, need better support services and resources, while certifiers need to be reined in, trained, and held accountable.

Governments and international organics associations should be encouraging partnerships among NGOs, research bodies, and farmer organizations in order to help organic farmers work sustainably and with integrity.

In the meantime, buy local and fresh. Develop relationships with the folks creating your food. Grow your own. And, above all: Look beyond the label.

[ L i P ]

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE TO A FRIEND. CLICK HERE.

LiP development and editorial assistant Ariane Conrad resides and writes in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco. She has partnered with a variety of community-based organizations working toward social justice, to strengthen their fundraising and communications.

LiP's managing editor Erin Wiegand has quite a lot of responsibility. To make up for it, she pursues dangerous and uninhibited activities such as baking, napping, and plotting the destruction of western civilization.