When you think of organic food, you probably imagine a bucolic farm with happy cows out in the pasture and crops growing lush and healthy in fields free of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.
There’s a reason for that image: It was the original intent of the organic movement, which aimed to reclaim farming and preserve soil integrity. Unfortunately, the value of the organic label — now regulated by the USDA — has been undermined in recent years by the rise of what some refer to as “industrial organic.”
Now, “organic” includes confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), hydroponics and crops grown in industrial settings that don’t adhere to the spirit of the label. Backed by ferocious marketing, organic is big business, with consumers paying a premium for products labeled “organic.” Following the money, numerous major agriculture firms have entered the organic business, and small farms are getting fed up.
It’s not just the industrialization of organic food that’s worrying some food producers. They’re also concerned about changes they see at the Department of Agriculture, fearing that the protections they’ve fought for will erode. They argue that “USDA organic” is losing its meaning, and creating a maze of paperwork and finicky requirements that benefit big corporations, but present challenges for small farms.
And with big corporations entering the fray, organic certifications face some major changes. Companies are lobbying to increase yields and save money, not necessarily to protect natural resources or be kind to farm animals.
So small-scale farmers are proposing a solution, in the form of the Real Organic Project.
They’d like to get together as a group to develop farmer-driven recommendations for standards and practices that better reflect organic ideals. That includes better animal welfare protections, as well as the elimination of hydroponics and other steps to protect the integrity of the label.
Through a series of meetings, producers hope to develop guidelines and then explore next steps. Ideally, these would involve a reputable third party certification process, with the label designed as a supplement to — not necessarily a replacement for — the USDA organic label.
Some farmers think this initiative should go a step further. John Ikerd agrees that broad national standards are helpful, but he suggests bioregional certifications adjusted to fit the specifics of a region’s ecology and farming community. Ikerd says such certifications could supplement national labels and work through systems of cooperatives and mutual accountability in the community; farmers and community members could collaborate together on labeling and enforcing values. This could foster a deeper connection to the earth, as well as helping farmers build relationships with their communities.
The Real Organic Project team hopes to announce some preliminary findings later in 2018, laying the groundwork for developing a pilot program that will help them explore practicalities. By keeping the advisory committee tightly focused on small farmers and some consultants like scientists, they aim to develop a plan that promotes sustainable agriculture while increasing consumer choice.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 6 days to add 379 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.