Organic farming is often idealized —
and commercially promoted — as producing a better product and
treading more lightly on the land. Indeed, folks pay a premium to
indulge this perception.
But two recent articles are casting
doubt on those beliefs.
The Washington Post has a lengthy piece
on organic dairies, which may be much larger and less bucolic than
some consumers imagine. It focuses on the Aurora Organic Dairy in
Colorado, which has some 15,000 cows producing enough milk to supply
Walmart, Costco and other big box retailers.
It was interesting to read that “the
USDA allows farmers to hire and pay their own inspectors to certify
them as “USDA Organic.” It was also ironic, considering how many
of the Hawaii anti-ag folks dissed the seed companies' voluntary
disclosure of restricted pesticide use as insufficient.
Basically, the article is saying that
the coveted “organic seal,” which boosted annual sales from $6
billion in 2000 to $40 billion in 2015, is based on “an unusual
system of inspections” that are pre-announced and funded by
farmers.
You mean, it's really all kind of a sham/scam? As the article concludes:
The growth of mega-dairies that may
fall short of organic standards and produce cheaper milk appears to
be crushing many small dairies, some analysts said.
“The mom and pop — the smaller
traditional family dairies — who are following the pasture rules
are seeing their prices erode,” said [Pete] Hardin, the Milkweed
editor. “It is creating a heck of a mess.”
You mean, consumers who have bought the
organic marketing speil, but balk at paying a premium, are
undercutting the very system they claim to cherish?
My sister, who lives in Portland, likes
to buy Tillamook because she sees their cows grazing on her way out
to the coast. But it claims neither to be organic nor GMO free. In
response to a consumer question, a dairy spokesperson noted:
Even
organic feed for organic farms is extremely difficult to verify as
GMO-free because of cross-pollination.
Maybe it's time to revisit the organic
standards, and re-assess consumer attitudes. Are consumers truly
looking for organic, or do they actually want pasture-raised? Of
course, even pasture-raised doesn't pass muster for some, as we saw
with the opposition to the proposed rotational-pasture dairy farm at Mahaulepu. (Btw, I ran into this piece about how very little manure leaves well-managed pastures.)
Do people even know what they want? Or
like the barn-raised dairy cows that had forgotten their natural
grazing instinct, are we so manipulated by marketing that we've
forgotten how to think, how to assess our true needs and desires?
Meanwhile, a columnist with the Daily Camera is writing a multi-part series on the GMO crop ban recently
adopted in Boulder, a Colorado county where the sensibilities are
akin to North Shore Kauai. The ban was passed, despite unanimous
opposition from county open space farmers, including the organic
growers.
Columnist Mara Abbott, who spent five
months researching the debate, starts by citing a 2015 briefing paper
that Colorado State University developed for county commissioners
considering the ban on planting GMO crops in the county's open
spaces:
[O]rganic crops on six Nothern
Colorado farms used 10 times more water, five times more pesticides
and released six times more sequestered carbon from the soil than
genetically engineered crops.
I was paralyzed. I had always
self-identified as a good Boulder environmentalist, and figured that
meant that non-organic was a non-starter (and the organic definition
excludes GMOs). Now where was I supposed to buy my kale?
After all, the ban's loudest
supporters claimed to be fighting for reduced pesticide use and more
sustainable cropping methods. Commissioner Deb Gardner specifically
cited researching carbon sequestration as a top priority of the
transition.
It also turns out that "organic"
doesn't mean "pesticide-free." The pesticides just come
from natural rather than synthetic sources — and apparently some of
those are harmful to honeybees, too. Given that the purpose of an
herbicide is to kill weeds, and an insecticide to kill insects, any
crop protection practice won't be completely benign. Some natural
pesticides are less effective, requiring more frequent applications,
and higher overall life-cycle toxicity.
This isn't to brush off the value of
organic, but it is to say that agriculture is rarely black and white
— and that's actually why diverse approaches are important. Really,
the only way to know what is being put on your food is to know the
farmer who grew it.
"It's just such a complicated
web in agriculture," third-generation county farmer Scott Miller
told me. "You can't just say you're going to block one thing and
that is going to fix it."
Once again, we're
reminded that the world is so complex. Try as we might, we can't
contain it into neat little boxes of good-bad. There are no silver
bullets, no one-size-fits-all solutions, especially when human nature
comes into play. We want to blame the corporations, but the
corporations are also us. We want to return to the good old days, but
there's no turning back the clock. All we can do is move forward, and
try to be honest about the issues and our own choices.
In closing, I'll
leave you with this amusing little call to action from the Maui Babes
Against Biotech, which typifies the simplistic, reactionary approach
that underlies so much conflict:
Yup, nothing says
home rule like an email blitz from thousands of miles across the
Pacific.