organic food

A food-politics writer expresses angst at the obscurity of his topic

The other day, a prominent Canadian journalist paid me a visit to interview me for his book on building a sustainable future. At one point, I expounded on the closed-nutrient cycle of old-school organic farming, contrasting it with what writer Michael Pollan deemed the "industrial-organic" way. In the old-school organic style, which relies on animals, farm wastes are recycled into the soil, providing all the nutrients necessary for the next harvest. The industrial-organic farmer, by contrast, imports his or her soil fertility -- just like the conventional farmer. The difference is that the organic farmer is likely shipping in composted manure from far-flung places, while the conventional grower is hauling in a processed petroleum product.

"The problem," I continued -- my interlocutor's eyes may well have been glazing over -- "is that most small vegetable farms these days, including my own, don't have enough animals to produce the nitrogen we need. So our transition to real organic farming is ongoing."

The journalist then asked me a question that stopped me short: "Do you think real organic farming could feed the world?" I stammered something like "I hope so," and had him jot down a couple of books to look up. It wasn't until after he left that I realized why his question made me so uneasy.

Umbra on dorm snacks

Dear Umbra, As a hall adviser at a college where social activism is valued, I find myself stuck when it comes to entertaining en masse. Sure, I buy from local farms when buying snacks for myself, but when leaving goodies for my hall, putting the ever-enticing winter squash outside a resident’s door does not say […]

In the heartland of industrial agriculture, a county goes local and organic

Nestled in the heartland of globally oriented commodity-food production, Woodbury County in Iowa has made a bold move away from industrial agriculture.

Last summer, the Kellogg Foundation's Food and Society (FAS) website reports, "the County passed an 'Organics Conversion Policy,' offering up to $50,000 annually in property tax rebates for those who convert from conventional to organic farming practices."

And then in January 2006, FAS continues, the county ...

... became the first in the United States to mandate the purchase of locally grown, organic food. The "Local Food Purchase Policy" requires Woodbury County departments to purchase locally grown, organic food from within a 100 mile radius for regular city use. The policy has the potential to shift $281,000 in annual food purchases to a local farmer-operated cooperative, increasing local demand and spurring increased production and processing.

Why would a county in Iowa, of all places, implement what amounts to a rejection of industrial agriculture?

Umbra on coffee

Dear Umbra, I am a seriously indulgent coffee drinker. Lately, there have been a ton of “green” coffee shops popping up. I like to support local coffee shops, and I want to believe that they are “shade-grown, fair-trade, organic,” but I’ve wondered if they are being honest. How do I know if they are legit? […]

Junk food: The Senate trashes organic standards

The Senate succumbed last week to food-industry pressure and approved a rider that would water down organic standards. (Grist's Amanda Griscom Little a few weeks ago ably laid out the context behind the Senate's surrender.)

This AP article states that a Senate vote last Thursday ...

... unravels a court ruling on whether products labeled "USDA Organic" can contain small amounts of nonorganic substances. Earlier this year, an appeals court ruled that nonorganic substances such as vitamins or baking powder can't be in food bearing the round, green seal.

As I understand it, the real issue isn't that baking powder and vitamins will be allowed in food labeled "USDA organic." Ominously, the Senate's act would strip power to decide which synthetic substances can and cannot be used from the National Organic Standards Board, a 15-member panel made up of  a mix of farmers, processors, retailers, scientists, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and certifying agents. Although the board is appointed by the USDA chief, it has acted independently -- and by most accounts, responsibly -- in its ten-year history, approving only 38 synthetic ingredients.

If the Senate bill becomes law, the power to decide what synthetics can go into "organic" food would be shifted directly to the USDA -- that bastion of food-industry flackery.

USDA inaction supports feedlot-style

Consumers looking for milk from grass-fed cows can't rely on the USDA's organic label.

As this Chicago Tribune article shows, the department has been allowing feedlot-style mega-dairies to claim organic status -- despite a recommendation from the National Organic Standards Board that it close existing loopholes.

Access to pasture lies at the heart of any meaningful definition of organic farm-animal stewardship. Grass-fed cows produce a healthier product, they're easier on the environment, and they're not forced to live miserable lives completely enslaved by the mechanized milker.

Organic farms don’t treat workers any better than other farms

As Grist's own Amanda Griscom Little recently reported, a trade group representing Kraft and Dean Foods has been quietly pushing Congress to tweak organic labelling standards to make them more friendly to food-processing giants.

Thankfully, the Organic Consumers Association has led a fight, so far successful, to stymie those changes.

While it's important to preserve the organic label's integrity on the supermarket shelf, it's just as important to interrogate what it means in the field. An interesting study published in UC Davis' Sustainable Agriculture Newsletter sheds much-needed light on that issue.

Seriously, now — why aren’t organics getting affordable?

So you like whole-grain bread, pesticide-free plums, and low-fat meat? Better ask for a raise. A recent study by researchers at the University of California-Davis reported that U.S. shoppers who consistently choose healthy foods spend nearly 20 percent more on groceries. The study also said the higher price of these healthier choices can consume 35 […]

Universities considering adding organic-farming to curriculum.

Recently in Daily Grist we reported how locally grown foods are catching on at college dining halls.

Now wouldn't it be nice if the students knew the in's and out's of how that food was produced? Well, they may get their chance, as several universities are offering (or are considering offering) organic-farming majors.

But as KATU 2 in Portland, Ore., reports:

... starting up such a major can carry an implicit critique of traditional programs, said Matt Liebman, director of the graduate program in sustainable agriculture at Iowa State University in Ames.

"It implies that everyone else is non-sustainable, and they find that fairly threatening," Liebman said. "It can imply a critique of traditional agriculture, and its effects on the environment, or farm size."

Kinda like saying that slapping on non-GMO labels implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified foods.

Now, the question is, will organic-farming majors think that they are morally superior?