Excellent statement. I'm not sure that consumers will easily adopt a label of 'authentic food' without the education they should have gotten to understand 'organic/organically grown', one can only hope. Couldn't agree more that serious growers are going to need to split from the new 'organic' euphemisms in short order as industry marches toward obscuring its meaning altogether.
Perhaps labels that show the total acreage the farmer owns, and the total farmed, would be an addition that would give folks a clue about the underlying source, since even the 'small farm' label doesn't mean what it used to.
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net> wrote:
From: Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net>
Subject:
[Livingontheland] BEYOND ORGANIC
To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 10:41 AM
BEYOND ORGANIC
By Eliot Coleman
http://www.fourseasonfarm.com/main/authentic/beyond.html
New ideas, especially those that directly challenge an established
orthodoxy, follow a familiar path. First, the orthodoxy says the new idea
is rubbish. Then the orthodoxy attempts to minimize the new idea's growing
appeal. Finally, when the new idea proves unstoppable, the orthodoxy tries
to claim the idea as its own. This is precisely the path organic food
production has followed.
First, organic pioneers were ridiculed. Then, as evidence of the benefits
of organic farming became more obvious to more people, mainstream chemical
agriculture actively condemned organic ideas as unfeasible. Now that the
food-buying public has become enthusiastic about organically grown foods,
the food industry
wants to take over. Toward that end the USDA-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. We now need to ask whether we want to be
content with an "organic" food option that places the marketing
concerns of
corporate America ahead of nutrition, flavor and social benefits to
consumers.
When I stated as an organic grower 35 years ago, it was a simpler world.
Organic was a way of thinking rather than a "profit center." The
decision
to farm organically was a statement of faith in the wisdom of the natural
world, to the quality of the crops and livestock, and to the nutritional
benefits of properly cultivated food. It was obvious that good farming and
exceptional food only resulted from the care and nurturing practiced by the
good farmer.
The initial development of
organic farming during the first half of the
20th century arose from the gut feelings of farmers who were trying to
reconcile the biological truths they saw in their own fields with the
chemical dogma the agricultural science-of-the-moment was teaching. The
farmers came to very different conclusions from those of the academic
agronomists. The farmers worked on developing agricultural practices that
harmonized with the direction in which their "unscientific"
conclusions
were leading them. Their goals were to grow the most nutritious food
possible, while protecting the soil for future generations.
The development and refinement of those biologically-based agricultural
practices continues today. It's what makes this farming adventure so
compelling. Each year I hope to do things better than I did last year
because I will know Nature's systems better. But my delight in the
intricacies of the natural world -- my
adventure into an ever deeper
appreciation of the soil-plant-animal nutrition cycle and how to optimize
it -- is not acceptable to the homogenized mentality of mass marketing. The
food giants that are taking over "organic" want a simplistic list of
ingredients so they can do organic-by-the-numbers. They are derisive about
what they label "belief systems," and they are loath to acknowledge
that
more farmer commitment is involved in producing real food than any number
of approved inputs can encompass.
The transition of "organic" from small farm to big time is now upon
us.
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.
They will be administered through the USDA, whose
director said recently,
"Organic food does not mean it is superior, safer, or more healthy than
conventional food." Well, I still agree with the old time organic
pioneers.
I believe that properly grown food is superior, safer and healthier. I also
believe national certification bureaucracies are only necessary when food
is grown by strangers in far away places rather than by neighbors whom you
know. I further believe good, fresh food, grown locally by committed
growers is the very best to be found.
"Organic" is now dead as a meaningful synonym for the highest quality
food.
Responsible growers need to identify not only that our food is grown to
higher, more considered standards, but also that it is much fresher because
it is grown right where it is sold. Therefore, we have come up with a new
term, one we define to mean locally grown and unprocessed, in addition to
exceptional quality. It's a term we hope
will be used, as
"organic" was
used when we began, by those local growers who accept that if you care
first about the quality of what you produce, a market will always be there.
We now sell our produce as "Authentic Food." We invite other serious
growers to join us.
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
|
