Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: Organic industry vs. organic movement

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Organic industry vs. organic movement
  • Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:03:08 -0500


Lawrence London, Jr. wrote:
> I am not opposed to large entities at all. They, with the help of
> being USDA certified
> organic, bring unbelievably high quality products to market and
> keep them there. Making
> certified organic virtually exclusive to that segment of the food
> and nutrition industry
> alone is worth the price to most. Go to any natural food store
> and look at the
> cutting edge products on the shelf and you will probably agree
> with me.

I appreciate your comments about the large entities. I did misunderstand
your message previously and thought you were actually taking the other
viewpoint against the larger entities.

> People who think
> and care about their health and what they eat _are_ thrilled by
> this. These products need
> to be made more widely available by supermarkets and pharmacies
> offering them too.

I would probably put it a different way and say that people who believe that
organic foods are better for them are the ones thrilled by the availability.
I have yet to see much science that suggests that people who eat organic are
healthier for it. It may be true, and it also may not be true. But the
evidence has not been forthcoming. In fact, the evidence does seem to show
that people are actually living much longer and life expectancy in the
countries with higher use of non-organic are increasing a noticeable amount.
Which to be honest, if you asked me 30 years ago, I would not have
predicted.

> Organic certification will be good for US companies that acquire
> it and for those other US businesses
> that import certified organic products from foreign contries -
> they will not have to worry about
> competition in most of the marketplace (supermarkets) from small
> local farmers who will have to rely
> on a variety of local marketing schemes to stay in the black.

In our area we do see a lot of local produce at this time of the year in
particular. We have even seen organic items in a local supermarket for the
same price as the "non-organic" product. A recent price of squash (butternut
and acorn) was only .18/lb. but who knows if organic or not. But it is hard
to compete with that price point when you are trying to get .40/lb.

> That is based on access to a fair share of the marketplace,
> something denied to all those
> opting out of organic certification, but spent years preparing
> for and expecting to make
> a reasonable living from that market niche.

A fair share of the marketplace would not be the same as the same rules for
everyone. You would actually have to craft the rules and bias them in favor
of the smaller players. They have done that to a small extent as it is. One
could argue that the current rules are not fair toward the larger entities
since they don't have those special deals, but it is still not a big
advantage for the small players. No one in a free market has an automatic
access to a fair share. It is a competitive market and always has been and
always will be. And needs to be for improving the overall standard of
living.

> And what concepts of organic are you not supportive of, Rick?

I have always been skeptical of the use of added chemicals to the natural
chemicals in the soil. However, I am science oriented and tend to study
these things a bit over the decades and am hard pressed to find much science
in the various organic, biodynamic, and similar certified products. I
strongly support the right of people to certify and to produce whatever
product the consumer wants and is willing to pay for. And yes, even if they
are irrational or based on ones spiritual belief etc. I still support the
right for people to do this in a free society.

There are some organic rules that I view as nonsense, particularly in the
area of fertilizers. Also, I have a problem with using some of the tillage
practices on HEL and prefer to keep erosion at a lower level through the use
of minimal and no till practices. Some of these do require herbicide
applications. We no longer have to do this on our land because we no longer
grow row crops and have converted mostly to grass farming.

My position is to be reasonable on most things, especially when we don't
know the answer for sure. I take a view similar to IPM as used in both
agriculture and other facility issues. I do not totally oppose all
pesticides all the time, but would rather use the minimal amount and then
only if it becomes very necessary and also to use the least harmful
chemicals.

In our own gardening endeavors, we have never personally felt comfortable
with using pesticides on plants so we just don't do it. We use compost for
most of our fertilizing although we will use lime if needed and acid
chemicals such as S for low pH plant needs such as our blueberries.

With animal agriculture, I have some moral problems with organic. Again, a
more IPM approach I think is better for the livestock health. I do not want
a high worm load (particularly brown stomach worms) and external grubs, etc.
Organically raised livestock do have to suffer a lower quality of life in my
view. At the same time, I will be one of the first to use anthelmics that
prove to be efficacious and are "organic" type products. There are no such
products at this time.

Also, some of the organic practices such as feeding dairy animals the milk
from the dam, while having some advantages, is risky due to the Johne's
issue both in the ruminant animal and in any possible transmission to
humans. I prefer to use high quality milk replacer made from milk (not
soybeans as I believe that is inappropriate). Even if we wanted to use fresh
milk, it would be almost impossible for young dairy animals that we raise.

Finally, organic has too much stress on what is NOT in your food. Our farm
also stresses what IS in your food.

> It certainly should be unless efforts are made to regulate
> alternative certification
> and labelling

To suggest that there is only one way to grow food is very presumptious from
my perspective. Much of the special nature of any certification program is
to improve marketing and increase prices of the product because of the
consumer perceiving benefit. Most of this is perception.

I would have preferred that the government stay completely out of any
preemption of organic. But the reality is that this was extensively debated
and the stakeholders had years to discuss every nuance and the democratic
process chose to preempt.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Dairy heifers and dairy beef graziers
Viroqua, WI

www.mistyridgefarm.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page