OTA - Organic Report

Trade Association Members Fight Fraud to Protect Organic

stephanie@llmpubs.com — Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:32:11 +0000

September 9, 2022

What can you do to protect your business from organic fraud?

The success of the organic sector relies entirely on consumer trust in the USDA organic seal. Supply chains compromised due to fraud can erode consumer trust in the integrity of the organic brand and hurt organic farmers everywhere. It is critical that every organic business has a system in place that will prevent fraud and support the promise of providing organic products that people can trust.

If your business buys or sells organic products, now more than ever, you are at risk. Global supply chains are being disrupted, creating opportunities for fraud. The private sector is working together with USDA to secure the organic sector from criminal activity. Every stakeholder in the industry is responsible for maintaining organic integrity throughout their own business practices to maintain consumer trust in their brand and products. To further that expectation, the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule mandates that all USDA certified operations have an organic fraud prevention plan added to their organic system plan.

Organic Trade Association has invested significant time and resources in developing a program that will help certified operations become compliant with the SOE rule. Organic Fraud Prevention Solutions provides businesses engaged in organic trade with a risk-based process for assessing vulnerabilities and putting mitigation measures in place to prevent organic fraud.

Online Training and Program Guide

A key component of the program is an online training course and supplemental program guide, which provides the framework for assessing vulnerabilities and implementing an organic fraud prevention plan. The course, “Developing an Organic Fraud Prevention Plan,” was created in partnership with the Michigan State University Food Fraud Initiative, and is offered through the Food Fraud Prevention Academy along with many other educational resources.

The USDA’s Organic Integrity Learning Center offers additional courses such as “Preventing the Organic Fraud Opportunity” and “Organic Fraud and the Criminal Mind.” These trainings are designed for organic inspectors and certifiers to complement Organic Trade Association’s program, and to assist them in their evaluation of an organic fraud prevention plan.

Recognizing Leaders in Organic Integrity and Fraud Prevention

Forty-four organic operations are currently enrolled in the program, demonstrating their dedication to maintaining organic integrity by adding organic fraud prevention plans to their organic system plans. These early adopters stand out as leaders in organic integrity and transparency, and they are being recognized in the marketplace for their efforts.

Sunrise Foods, a global trader of premium specialty agri-food ingredients, was the first business to complete the enrollment process, and they have re-enrolled in the program to continue to monitor vulnerabilities in their supply chain. The Sunrise team chose to take advantage of the consultative services offered by one of the programs designated Trusted Advisors, Miles McEvoy, former Deputy Secretary at the USDA National Organic Program. Trusted Advisors are industry professionals who are qualified to advise and assist companies enrolled in Organic Fraud Prevention Solutions; they are experts in Vulnerability Assessment Critical Control Points (VACCP) and can go in-depth with enrolled participants to develop an organic fraud prevention plan.

Tobi Strohan, Vice President of Compliance for Sunrise Foods, valued Miles’ support throughout the enrollment process, “Sunrise Foods International is proud to be among the first to complete enrolment in the OTA’s Fraud Prevention Solutions Program. The training, manual, and templates provided a straightforward, comprehensive guide for our new plan, which underlines our commitment to upholding organic integrity across the supply chain. Our program was developed in collaboration with Miles McEvoy, with the support of the OTA team along the way. We recommend the OTA program as an excellent fraud prevention framework and are excited to see more participants coming on board.”

This article was originally published in the Fall 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

Get to Know Your Policymakers—Spotlight on Representative Glenn “GT” Thompson

stephanie@llmpubs.com — Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:23:02 +0000

September 9, 2022

With the 2023 farm bill right around the corner, it’s a good time to get to know the decisionmakers who will have a hand in setting the country’s food and agriculture policy for the next five years.

The farm bill is written and negotiated by the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees before and after it’s voted on by the full House and Senate. Although there are changes to the bill throughout the process, ultimately the four leaders of the committees are the final decisionmakers who steer the ship. There are some fresh faces in agriculture committee leadership this time around. In fact, of the four leaders involved in the 2018 farm bill, only one remains in Congress, Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow.

Congressman Glenn “GT” Thompson from Pennsylvania is the new lead Republican for the House Agriculture Committee. He currently serves as the Ranking Member, but depending on the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections, he could become the Chairman of the committee if Republicans take back the House this November. Regardless, he will play an important role in the next farm bill. Each leader gets to make their mark, so it’s important to understand their background and experience.

Congressman Thompson was first elected to Congress in 2008, representing the 15th district of Pennsylvania. He’s a veteran of the House Agriculture Committee; he served on it for more than a decade and was part of the 2014 and 2018 farm bills. He has taken on various leadership roles throughout his time on the committee, which has earned him the top spot during the 2023 farm bill.

Although he hasn’t said much publicly about his priorities for the upcoming farm bill, the committee is currently collecting feedback from impacted stakeholders, which is the first stage in the process. His perspective will surely be informed by his district. Pennsylvania is one of the most agriculturally diverse states in the country, with a large dairy and poultry industry, grains, specialty crops, organic production, and more. In fact, Pennsylvania currently ranks fourth in the nation for organic production, with more than 1,600 certified farms and businesses and nearly $1 billion in farm gate sales. Congressman Thompson is very familiar with and well-versed in organic, having met with organic stakeholders including OTA members face to face over the years, both in D.C. and back in his district. He has been a supporter of organic research, certification cost-share, and other key priorities. In the 2018 farm bill, he was a cosponsor of the Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act, legislation that was included in the final bill. It provided the USDA National Organic Program with resources, authority, and tools to increase oversight of the global organic supply chain to combat fraud and ensure the integrity of the organic label.

Megan DeBates is Vice President of Government Affairs for Organic Trade Association.

This article was originally published in the Fall 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

“Organic Consumer” is an Oxymoron

admin — Tue, 01 Mar 2022 00:30:58 +0000

February 28, 2022

In use for centuries, the term ‘consumer’ came into its own in the 1920s, as our economy offered a greater volume and variety of things to purchase, accompanied by the development of advertising and personal credit, which together brought us to the point where marketing can be referred to as the business of convincing people to buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have.

While we might debate its value to our trade, I doubt many of us would argue that, had the word not already achieved universal application, ‘consumer’ would be our first choice as a self-identifier.

When I consider how to approach “consumer education,” I believe we first need to educate people that they are something different and more than a consumer, a term that, as one colleague pointed out to me, infers that our role is simply to show up, buy and use stuff up, minus responsibility for how it was produced or distributed.

Which is precisely how the conventional food and fiber sectors want us to behave. There is no need for us to see behind the curtain. In some cases, they even try to prevent us from seeing behind the curtain, as they oppose labeling of GMOs and pass laws making it illegal to document or object to conventional practices. Our role is to show up to examine finished product, consider price, and make our selections. Period.

By its nature, our trade encourages a different approach. We offer shoppers the opportunity to witness production and distribution from soil to table, as we take down the curtain and provide visibility into organic practices and presence at the table when we deliberate guidelines and regulations.

This approach calls for us to recognize different roles with different labels, of which at least two are close at hand:

“Eaters”—Wendell Berry did us the favor of defining eating as an agricultural act, and I think most shoppers of organic goods would embrace the term. These shoppers aren’t typically producers beyond a garden, if that, but they are conscious in their purchasing, truly voting with their dollars.
“Co-producers”—courtesy of SLOW Food, which asks us to not only look behind the curtain, but to go there as a participant in supporting the transitions we seek. There are many opportunities here, mostly in contacting producers directly, not only at their farm or farmers’ markets or through CSAs, but also by engaging organizations that support the evolution of integrated holistic production of food.

When I entered the trade 40 years ago, we referred to the status quo as “commercial.” That was, until we admitted to ourselves that our efforts were also commercial. We wondered where to go from that descriptor and ultimately determined that “conventional” was a more accurate term for agricultural products and practices that weren’t organic and soon the switch was made across the board. We did it once, so I know we can do it again.

Reframing our business relationship with our fellow citizens ultimately requires us to be compassionate, transparent, and accountable in the totality of our dealings. It empowers them to make informed decisions, and compels us to solicit, intuit and respect their needs.

David Lively is Pioneer Emeritus at Organically Grown Company and a member of OTA’s Board of Directors.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

Looking Back on 2021 International Trade Successes

admin — Tue, 01 Mar 2022 00:24:20 +0000

February 28, 2022

If 2020 was the year for figuring out how to maintain business from home, 2021 was the year for expanding trade opportunities overseas via computer screen. Over the course of 12 months, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) hosted six unique virtual trade opportunities geared at expanding business overseas for the U.S. organic industry.

Over 50 companies participated across these six virtual events, collectively projecting nearly three million U.S. dollars in new export sales as a result. Although our typical international trade activities involve jumping on planes and exhibiting organic products at trade shows, we worked creatively in 2021 to offer low-cost, high-impact virtual trade opportunities.

OTA kicked off the year with a virtual organic booth at Biofach. While we missed seeing friends and colleagues in person at the world’s largest organic trade show, the virtual venue allowed a handful of new business connections and the opportunity to participate in the Biofach Congress seminar sessions. Next, we hosted a two-day virtual event specifically created for organic ingredient companies, consisting of one-on-one meetings with targeted importers in Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan, all of which are in the top 10 markets for U.S. organic exports.

Although we were not able to host our traditional buyers mission with Food Export during Natural Products Expo West, our Healthy, Natural, and Organic Trade Mission in April brought together 27 U.S. companies and 23 buyers for a three-day marathon of meetings taking place across continents and time zones.

Next, we headed ‘down under’ for a virtual trade mission to Australia and New Zealand, where U.S. companies received live market briefings from local experts on the organic market and economic landscape in both countries, followed by recorded store tours of a handful of retailers in both markets. While we wish we could have been there in person, this holistic virtual trade mission provided additional value to the participating companies as it included more than just one-on-one meetings. The event was rounded out with a series of business-to-business meetings, leading buyers from both countries to project over $2.3 million in purchases of U.S. organic products.

In fall 2021, the Organic Trade Association and Food Export hosted a follow-up event to our spring virtual trade mission, giving U.S. organic companies the opportunity to meet with over a dozen new importers from around the world.

Finally, OTA hosted our first export readiness training program—a 12-hour, three-session deep dive into the nitty-gritty of exporting overseas. These trainings were so well received by OTA members that we will host the training again in late spring 2022.

One participant noted, “I was not sure what to expect from this training. Sometimes continuing education sessions like this are well worthwhile and occasionally not as much. What was brought to the table here is enough for anyone to start exporting in a holistic, professional, and educated way. The information is concise, easy to understand, delivered well (not too fast or slow) and kept us all engaged. The homework was not imposing, was direct and effective in applying the knowledge taught. I can’t recommend this course highly enough for anyone who is interested in exporting and for those who already are. It was a great refresher and affirmation for me.”

In addition to the variety of business-to-business trade activities, we would have been remiss not to take advantage of consumer promotion opportunities overseas, particularly given the surge in demand for organic products during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the summer, we conducted a retail promotion in partnership with four City Super retail outlets in Hong Kong, resulting in over $35,000 in sales of U.S. organic products during the three-week promotion period. City Super also heavily promoted the organic fair on Facebook and Instagram, reaching over 21,000 consumers through direct digital promotions of U.S. organic products.

These promotions are extremely valuable opportunities to highlight the U.S. organic products already available to consumers in overseas markets. As the sixth largest export market for U.S. organic products overseas, Hong Kong represents a crucial area for continued growth for U.S. organic products. During 2021, we also conducted consumer and social media promotions in Japan, South Korea, and the U.A.E. Results of these campaigns will be shared out in the next report.

While virtual events have been a successful pivot, it is hard to make up for the value of in-person business, particularly in the international field. We hosted a small delegation of buyers from Korea at Natural Products Expo East, where the buyers were able to seek out new business in person for the first time since the start of the pandemic. We then returned to the ever-successful Anuga trade fair in Cologne, Germany, our first in-person international event since February of 2020!

Anuga is the largest trade show for food and beverages globally, presenting unparalleled opportunities for U.S. companies to showcase their products to buyers from around the world. While the trade show felt a little different with extra safety protocols in place, it was no less successful for the seven companies who traveled with us. Collectively the group achieved $8.5 million in projected sales. Just over a month later, we traveled back to Europe for the Free From Amsterdam show, our first time exhibiting at this event which targets European importers, distributors, and retailers looking for “better for you” products, including organic, vegan, gluten free, and dairy free. While pandemic-related lockdowns impacted the event, exhibitors in our pavilion all left with a handful of solid business leads and over $440,000 in projected sales.

Looking back on this hybrid year of in-person and virtual events, it is clear the mindset for international activities in 2022 and beyond will need to be centered on flexibility and a “roll-with-the-punches” attitude. We are gearing up for a robust year of travel in 2022, bringing new and experienced exporters around the globe for a myriad of trade opportunities in Europe, Asia, North America, and the Middle East.

While we are excited to get back on the road with members for these events, we are doing so with an abundance of caution and appropriate safety measures in place.

Exports of U.S. organic products increased 8% in 2021 from 2020 values, echoing the growth in the domestic market demand for organic products. We are optimistic about the trade opportunities that lie ahead for U.S. organic companies in 2022, and hope you will consider joining us.

Alexis Carey is the Associate Director for International Trade at the Organic Trade Association.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

RMA to Partially Address Organic Agriculture Crop Insurance Concerns

admin — Tue, 01 Mar 2022 00:20:11 +0000

February 28, 2022

“What’s in a word? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

–William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

In a recent flurry of press releases and federal rulemaking, USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) is possibly re-thinking to change its understanding of organic agriculture. Perhaps the most intriguing is the proposal by RMA to change its definition of organic agriculture. While one might think the definition of organic agriculture is common across all USDA agencies, it is not. The new proposed RMA definition is as follows:

“Organic farming practice. A system of plant production practices used on organic acreage to produce an organic crop this is approved by a certifying agent in accordance with 7CFR, part 205.”

What is interesting about this new definition and perhaps of most significance is that RMA now agrees at least in part that organic production is a system of production. However, the changed definition is still confusing since it also continues to see organic agriculture as a practice or set of practices.

The important point here is what a system of production actually means. A system of production is not merely a set of practices, but rather the dynamic interaction of those practices where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. RMA has not fully embraced the concept of a system of production in part because it seems to believe organic production is riskier than non-organic production, which our recent research calls into question as not likely.

Because RMA’s definition does not embrace a system of production, organic livestock production is excluded. This, too, may be short sighted since the re-integration of cropping with livestock production systems would likely lower revenue risk as well as address climate disruption.

This confusion around organic agriculture systems and crop insurance is partially understandable given the conflictive and confused history of how RMA established insurance for newly certified organic farmers and livestock producers.

Although not well known, the first organic crop insurance policies were written in 2002. A total of 110 policies covering 20 different organic crops were sold. However by 2004, fundamental changes were made by RMA such that organic crop insurance policies were limited to a small number of commodity crops, based indemnity (loss) payments on non-organic prices, added a 5% surcharge on the premium costs of all organic crops, generally established that the ten-year county average yields of most organic crops were 35% of non-organic yields, and finally that organic prices of crops were always about double those of non-organic crops. These policies led to a situation where many organic farmers paid more for crop insurance with less coverage than their non-organic peers.

It took until the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill to see significant reform with an elimination of the 5% premium surcharge and the creation of the Contract Price Addendum (CPA) whereby organic and transitioning organic farmers who had sales contracts could insure their crops at almost the full contracted price rather than the projected price established by RMA, which was wholly based on non-organic prices.

The passage of the 2014 Farm Bill also created the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policy, which provides coverage based on the historic or expected economic capacity of the whole farm to generate revenue. Because organic farmers and livestock producers tend to generate higher levels of gross revenue and generally grow a higher diversity of often unique crop and livestock products otherwise uninsurable, WFRP offered a clear advantage to organic farmers.

However, use of WFRP has declined thanks to an over-complicated application, confusing policy requirements, and the lack of interest by many crop insurance agents and crop insurance companies to sell the product. This is unfortunate since it’s the only approach to crop insurance that incentivizes crop and livestock diversity, which according to USDA has great potential to address climate disruption. It is also the only crop insurance product that provides high-quality revenue-risk protection for almost any product and is available nationwide.

Additional recent changes by RMA beyond redefining organic agriculture include:

The ability of farmers to hay, graze, chop cover crops for silage, haylage, or baleage after having received a prevented planting insurance payment. The intent of this change is to encourage cover cropping which is a conservation practice used by almost all organic farmers. This change in policy occurred as a response to the pandemic disruptions and a desire by RMA to further promote cover cropping.

Added flexibility to the “1 and 4” rule as to when land can and cannot be eligible for prevented planting coverage. The “1 and 4” rule required that to be eligible for a prevented planting coverage, the specific insured land must have been planted, insured, and harvested in at least one of the four most recent years.

Allows only organic farmers who use WFRP to make adjustments for rapid gross revenue expansion in estimating the revenue guarantee for insurance coverage possibly leading to better over-all coverage.

Introduction of a “micro” option for users of WFRP, such that if applicants have less than a historic gross revenue of $100,000 (or $125,000 if a previous user of WFRP), onerous application and policy requirements that are part of a regular WFRP are waived. For instance, a regular WFRP requires the tracking of historical and current year expenses such that if one does not spend at least 70% of their historical expenses in the year of insurance, a penalty is assessed. This requirement is waived for the micro option.

Jeff Schahczenski is an agriculture and natural resource economist with the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) and co-author of Is Organic Farming Risky? Improving Crop Insurance for Organic Farms, available for free download at https://attra.ncat.org/product/is-organic-farming-risky/.

Resources:

For a look at related press releases: Conservation and Climate; Organic Expansion & WFRP and proposed rules and how to comment at: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-11-30/pdf/2021-25925.pdf.

Morris, M., Belasco, E., Schahczenski, J., 2019. Is Organic Farming Risky? Improving Crop Insurance for Organic Farms. National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, Montana.

See: USDA Action Plan for Climate Adaptation and Resilience 2021 at: www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/usda-2021-cap.pdf.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

Member Community Round-Up

admin — Tue, 01 Mar 2022 00:02:36 +0000

February 28, 2022

Two years into the pandemic, there is perhaps no more familiar cultural phrase describing the past year than “You’re on mute.” It immediately conjures memories of a 2021 filled with virtual meetings. At the Organic Trade Association (OTA), many were meetings where members offered their knowledge, industry insights, and time within our member communities’ portfolio. Online meeting platforms provided members a virtual space to connect with familiar friends and new industry partners as our member communities continued taking steps to advance organic this past year. (And of course, these meetings regularly offered someone the chance to remind a friend they were on mute.)

We offered more than 20 different member community engagement opportunities in 2021, some which focused on specific policy issues and others which built community among members across various organic sectors. There was much exciting work completed by our members and staff through our sector councils and task forces. As we have found, these communities provide members an opportunity to learn, network, share, teach, and develop leadership skills to help grow organic.

The trade association also invites its members to participate in time-bound, task-charged, outcome-focused task forces, which are convened either by the Board of Directors, staff, or members to recommend a course of action or accomplish a specific objective. Some meet a few times only; others are driven by regulatory or legislative agendas such as the Origin of Livestock rulemaking, the Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic Standards Act, or NOSB petition on ammonia extract. In 2021, over 10 task forces with 130 unique member organizations participated to shape policy recommendations and help to advance organic.

Concurrent to this work, our sector councils offer networking, community building, and leadership opportunity to farms and companies that join. In the past year, we added two new Sector Councils: the Sustainable Food Trade Action Council (SFTAC) and the Diversity Council. Our sector councils represent members across the full supply chains of organic dairy, dietary supplements, fiber, grains, produce, and retailer sectors, as well as farmers. We have nearly 200 unique member organizations participating in nine sector councils, all of which meet virtually at least four times a year. Members develop and approve work plans with the guidance of staff liaisons.

A look at council wins in 2021:

The Dairy Council continued forward progress on its goals to advocate for clear regulations and consistent enforcement of organic dairy standards, from helping to shape our comments for the NOSB spring proposed rule or closely monitoring the Origin of Livestock rulemaking process. This council also helped in evaluating the impact of Federal Milk Marketing Orders and other proposed changes on the organic dairy sector.

This past year also was challenging, with particular attention to the northeastern United States where multiple dairy companies announced non-renewals of contracts for over 135 farms. Meeting time was dedicated to discussing solutions and evaluating how to prevent similar outcomes in the future, resulting in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack outlining these potential solutions. With members representing farmers, processors, and manufacturers, the group is uniquely positioned to advocate now and in the future for solutions to grow the sector.
The Dietary Supplements Council prioritized its professional development through robust information sharing and networking at its meetings and advocacy for residue testing issues for supplements. Some of the key issues discussed included the impact of supply chain disruptions on industry and the growth and challenges of evolving organic hemp and hemp-derived ingredients. In collaboration with OTA’s Fiber Council, it supported the completion of the association’s Hemp Fact Sheet published at OTA.com/hemp.

Since this council’s formation, it has prioritized and valued the education offered from NOSB updates from our Regulatory Team. It grew its membership in 2021, adding two new members, and looks forward to continual growth and education in 2022.
Approved by the Board in June 2021, the Diversity Council held its first meeting in August with over 30 people in attendance. It currently has 26 member companies participating in this newest OTA Council. Since the inaugural meeting, members and staff recruited new OTA members through our Diversity and Entrepreneurship Program, and created a graduate fellowship to support diversity work at The Organic Center. This council is working to highlight engagement, opportunity, and retention in 2022, while fostering an inclusive environment in which diverse groups find their place in the organic movement.
Our Farmers Advisory Council (FAC) provides input from small- and medium-sized organic farmers, ranchers, and growers for organic agriculture’s advancement. FAC members met with 29 members of Congress and five USDA agencies as part of its virtual annual farmer fly-in last February, advocating for the most pressing challenges facing organic farmers and amplifying policy priorities including advancing organic standards, fighting climate change, and ensuring organic farmers received adequate support in federal COVID relief efforts.

In June, FAC hosted a listening session for USDA leadership on priorities for future investment in support of organic transition. Members have started offering insights on critical issues such as agricultural workforce safety, organic certification cost-share, crop insurance, and conservation programs, which will help shape OTA’s farm bill platform development in 2022.
With nearly 50 member organizations participating on our Fiber Council, members attended quarterly meetings that kept everyone connected through roundtable updates celebrating the successes and challenges members faced across the supply chain. These updates always result in great discussions, sharing, and networking—at a social distance! In February, the Council co-hosted an information-rich webinar with The Organic Center presenting research into the environmental footprint of organic cotton funded by Fiber Council members in 2019 undertaken in collaboration with Iowa State University.
In July, six members co-hosted an Organic Textile Twitter Party with Organic Voices, reaching thousands of consumers and influencers. Members continue to prioritize research, education, and communication, which this year included updating their Organic Cotton Fact Sheet with the latest production and market data, and collaborating with the Dietary Supplements Council on a one-pager on organic hemp production published at OTA.com/hemp. The council continues to add new members every year from across the supply chain, with ambitious goals for 2022 membership and work.
Members of the Grain, Pulse, and Oilseed Council represent the entire supply chain from growers to processors to manufacturers. This past year, they elected and seated new officers who collectively represent the organic grain sector from seed to feed to food. Over the year, they received technical policy briefings on critical international trade issues impacting the U.S. supply of organic soybean meal. They also engaged in a series of roundtable discussions on business and industry updates, inspirational organic moments, and impacts from COVID-19 on grain production and supply chain issues. Following the election of new officers for the council, they are finalizing efforts for another aspiring 2022 work plan.
As a community of diverse stakeholders across the organic produce value chain, the Produce Council had an exciting first full year of work in 2021. Members prioritized technical policy briefings on regulatory and legislative issues during meetings, including briefings on a petition to prohibit ammonia extract, USDA’s plans for an organic transition program, and outcomes on the latest hydroponics lawsuit. Like many other sectors, they engaged in a roundtable discussion on the impacts of COVID-19 on production and supply chain issues, such as accessibility of farmworkers to PPE and vaccines, and other workforce safety priorities.

In November they hosted a listening session for researchers from the University of Rhode Island and The Organic Center on food safety incongruities between NOP standards and third-party food safety requirements. A member survey identified that their geographic footprint reaches every U.S. state and nearly every continent, which will help identify opportunities for member recruitment and to promote council diversity and representation.
Our Retailer Council re-wrote the Good Organic Retail Practices (GORP) guide on how to sell organic products in 2021—first published by the trade more than 15 years ago. In addition to updates to regulations around how organic products should be handled and marketed at retail, the updated GORP guide contains new guidance for non-food organic products, as well as for online retailers. In August, the council hosted a webinar for members and prospects on GMOs, learning about the novel genetic technologies emerging that are transforming the food production industry. Council members anticipate releasing the revised GORP guide in 2022 and look forward to getting this vital information out to retailers across the country.
The Sustainable Food Trade Action Council consists of more than 50 sustainably minded businesses committed to strengthening the organic sector’s voice in work relating to sustainability and climate, and boosting the sector’s efforts to create an environmentally friendly, sustainable food system. In January 2021, the Sustainable Food Trade Association (SFTA) consolidated with OTA to form the Sustainable Food Trade Action Council (SFTAC). Fourteen OTA members have joined this past year.

In May, this newly formed council organized a UN Independent Dialogue on organic as a solution. The event was hosted by seven council members and brought more than 50 diverse stakeholders to look at the ways organic can help address hunger, poverty, climate change, and inequality. Throughout the year, members continued engagement in COMPASS Modules and Sustainability Reporting, tools that SFTA developed for organic businesses to build, measure and refine their sustainability programs. The council’s work in 2022 will prioritize continued advocacy, networking and thought leadership, education and communication, strategic partnerships, and more.

With unique aims that guide their work, members of each council connected virtually to meet their ambitious work plans in another year filled with uncertainty. Whether a council had over 50 members represented at a meeting or fewer than 20, they gathered to share their time, passion, triumphs, and struggles while advocating for growth within their organic sector.

If you have not yet, we encourage you to connect with your fellow organic advocates and ensure your voice is not on mute in 2022. Member communities are an invaluable opportunity for networking, education, and leadership at OTA and we need you at the table! Learn more about each at OTA.com/MemberCommunities.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

Setting Up Priorities for Organic for Next Farm Bill

admin — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:45:13 +0000

February 28, 2022

It seems like just yesterday that the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law. Now, the fruits of that labor are finally being implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In fact, the Organic Trade Association’s top priority for the last farm bill was giving USDA’s National Organic Program more tools, authority, and resources to combat global fraud in organic.

New regulations for the organic sector are set to debut this spring that will implement those critical provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill via the release of the Strengthening Organic Enforcement final rule. As the ink barely dries on that rule, Congress will have already kickstarted the process for developing the next farm bill as the current bill expires and must be renewed by 2023.

Although Congress has written and passed many farm bills over the years dating back to the 1930s, organic did not make its debut until 1990 when that year’s Farm Bill included the Organic Foods Production Act—legislation that established national organic standards and led to the creation of USDA’s National Organic Program. Over the past 30 plus years, organic agriculture has made many advancements in each subsequent farm bill.

What will be different about the 2023 Farm Bill?

Several factors will make the next farm bill negotiations different than the development of the 2018 Farm Bill. Farm bills are drafted by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and the Chairs and Ranking Members from both political parties make up the leadership of the committee. They are oftentimes referred to as “the Big Four” because they have an outsize influence on the negotiations and shepherding the legislation through the congressional process. Three of the big four players are new this time around.

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), a member of Congress first elected in the early 1980s and the only lawmaker to have served as both the Chair of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees throughout his long career, retired in 2020. He participated in eight farm bills and helmed the committee for two of them. Congressman Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota), first elected in 1990, was the lead Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee serving both in the Chair and Ranking positions since 2005, making him a lead negotiator for three out of the five farm bills he worked on throughout his career. Peterson lost his reelection in 2020. Congressman Mike Conaway (R-Texas), Chair of the House Agriculture Committee during the 2018 Farm Bill negotiations, retired in 2020.

That leaves Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) as the only remaining veteran of recent farm bill negotiations. She is currently Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator John Boozman (R-Arkansas) is the Ranking Member. The new leaders of the House Agriculture Committee are David Scott (D-Georgia), who is Chair, and Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), who is the Ranking Member. These leaders will protect their states and farm constituencies closely in the negotiations. Although organic is still a burgeoning sector in the Southeast, it is firmly established in both Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Another major factor different from the last farm bill is political control in Washington. In 2018, Republicans controlled the White House, House, and Senate. Party control flipped during the 2020 elections, and currently Democrats control the White House, House, and Senate. And while farm bill negotiations will start in earnest this year, the actual farm bill won’t likely be on the table until 2023, which means the outcomes of the 2022 midterm elections this fall will be crucial to how the farm bill will play out.

It is possible that the Republicans could take control of the House and Senate, setting a collision course with the Democratic President, or win back one of the chambers in Congress to seize total control of the legislative agenda from the Democrats. That being said, the farm bill has traditionally been one of the few remaining bipartisan pieces of legislation left in Washington, although it is not immune from partisan and regional fights over agriculture subsidies, spending, and the food stamp program.

Lastly, writing and passing a new farm bill could be a difficult prospect with current budget constraints, setting up a scenario where the 2018 Farm Bill might just be extended temporarily rather than fully reauthorized. Both President Trump and the current administration have lavishly spent on shoring up farm country outside of traditional farm bill programs. During the Trump administration, tens of billions of dollars were given to farmers to offset retaliatory tariffs and actions taken against the U.S. agriculture sector because of international trade conflicts. And then, COVID disrupted the food supply chain resulting in billions more in assistance for agriculture.

The future of the label is at stake

So, what will be the top priority for the Organic Trade Association in the next farm bill? It’s been more than 30 years since the passage of OFPA and more than 20 years since USDA implemented the final rule that established the regulations. Although the USDA Organic label remains the gold standard around the world for transparent standards in agriculture, the sector is losing steam to competing private labels in the marketplace.

Much more can be done to meet the evolving expectations and demands of consumers concerned about the impacts of our food system on climate change, soil health, animal welfare, and the health and well-being of humans and workers. Organic must be well-positioned to meet these needs into the future. Although OFPA is updated and amended every farm bill, now is a good time to take a fresh look and make major changes to ensure a sustainable market.

While the organic market has skyrocketed from $8.6 billion in sales in 2002 to more than $62 billion today, USDA—the regulatory body charged with updating the organic standards—has not kept pace with industry growth or consumer expectations. The biggest challenge facing organic businesses, farmers, and consumers is USDA’s failure to update and clarify the organic standards regularly, leading to inconsistent enforcement and competitive harm in the marketplace.

In the lead up to the next farm bill, the Organic Trade Association has partnered with Arizona State University’s (ASU) Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems led by Dr. Kathleen Merrigan who, when congressional aide to Senator Patrick Leahy, helped write OFPA during the 1990 Farm Bill. The Organic Trade Association and ASU recently hosted a series of virtual workshops bringing together a diverse array of stakeholders from certifiers, inspectors, retailers, consumer-facing brands, farmers, researchers, non-profits, and advocacy organizations to discuss the future of organic.

Over 200 individuals participated and contributed their ideas and perspectives. The workshops explored topics such as the structure of the public-private partnership between USDA and the organic sector, continuous improvement in the organic standards, accreditation, certification, accountability and enforcement, and the future of marketing claims and their relationship to organic. The outcomes of these dynamic conversations will culminate in the release of a report later this spring that will help shape necessary updates to both the organic law and regulations in the next farm bill.

Stay tuned! And to find the most up to date information go to ota.com/future.

Megan DeBates is Vice President of Government Affairs for the Organic Trade Association.

The Dirt on Organic Farming Podcast OATS Answers Some of the Most Common Skepticisms of Organic

admin — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:19:22 +0000

February 28, 2022

Over the years, I have been asked some really tough questions about organic farming. Whether it’s from my uncle at Thanksgiving who fears that organic can never produce high enough yields or from my neighbor farmer down the road who just can’t understand why organic farmers could be comfortable tilling the soil. My life is full of friends and family who look at my career in organic with puzzlement. Where I see abundance, health, and profits, they see potential pitfalls and missed opportunities.

My colleagues and I at the Organic Agronomy Training Service (OATS) are working to bring better access to technical assistance for organic and transitional farmers. One path we are taking is to cross-train conventional agronomists and Certified Crop Advisors in organic production methods. Many of the agricultural professionals we are working with share the same criticisms of organic agriculture that I hear from my conventional farming friends and family. They ask me tough, well-reasoned questions that deserve thorough and honest answers.

With the widespread use of tillage to control weeds, will organics create another dust bowl?
Why does organic farming turn its back on scientific advancements like synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and genetic engineering?
Is organic anti-science?
Organic yields drag far behind conventional, can organic ever hope to feed the continually growing world population?
Is it even possible to get through transition without losing a bunch of money?

So, my colleague Nate Powell-Palm and I decided to get curious. We hit the road (so to speak) and gathered up the six most common and hard-hitting criticisms of organic that we could find. Then, we set about answering them in the form of a podcast. “The Dirt on Organic Farming” explores these criticisms and offers honest and fair answers that are driven both by data and real-world experience. We interviewed 20 farmers, researchers, economists, and policy experts to gain a thorough set of viewpoints on each question.

What we found are farmers and researchers who have looked deeply at the problems in agriculture and set about to find solutions. Organic is an industry full of innovators who are taking the power of scientific inquiry and putting it to use in a way that enacts their personal set of values. Vince Jaeger, an organic farmer from Fairfield, IA, put it like this in Episode 1: “Well, I love it. It’s changing so fast. The stuff that [organic farmers are] doing this year compared to what we could have done five years ago, it’s unbelievable. The advancement is there. It’s not just a lab where we’re trying to fix the problem that we created when we fixed the last problem. We’re actually coming up with solutions and we’re moving forward.”

It is not just a love of innovation that draws farmers into organic agriculture. The economic opportunity provided by the organic premium and the cost savings provided by organic practices are keeping farmers in business. Bryce Irlbeck, an organic farmer and consultant with AgriSecure in Manning, IA, put it this way in Episode 3: “At the end of the day, when our family looked at our bottom line and what kind of business we were able to have, and what kind of conservation we were able to do, [conventional farming] wasn’t actually making our farm that much better. We’re seeing a path forward to bring the next generation on the farm that we just weren’t seeing five years ago. It seemed like the farm was going to die. It doesn’t seem like that now.”

The podcast spans five hours of information-rich content. Through these interviews, it is clear that organic has so much to offer the farmer, the environment, and the economy. But it is not without its challenges. Yields, plant breeding, and fertility management need more dedicated research efforts. One thing is abundantly clear: working through these challenges is a joy when you feel good about what you are doing. Randy Hughes, an organic farmer in Janesville, WI, shared how he feels in Episode 2: “When you’re organic farming, it feels like you’re working with Mother Nature instead of trying to beat her at your own game. It’s just this most wonderful feeling… You feel really good about what you are doing for the environment.”

Also, check out these upcoming programs from OATS by visiting www.organicagronomy.org:

The Organic Field Crop Course: This online/in-person hybrid course for organic advisors lets you learn organic production practices and consulting at your own pace. The course launches in July 2022.
Organic Advisor Listserv: Connect with fellow organic advisors in this first-of-its-kind listserv focused on the topics and issues most important to your work. Ask questions and get the answers right in your email inbox.
Organic Advisor Call Series: Monthly Zoom discussions and Q&A with farmers and experts. Facilitated by Nate Powell-Palm.
Custom training for companies and groups: We offer private, dedicated training in organic production practices to company employees, co-op members, and small groups.

Sponsor acknowledgment

OATS is a programmatically independent consortium that is fiscally sponsored by the Organic Trade Association. OTA serves as an anchor funder for OATS through its industry-invested GRO Organic research, promotion, and education program. Thank you to top donors General Mills, Clif Bar, Stonyfield, King Arthur Baking Co., and Organic Valley.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

Exploring the Need for AgTech for the Organic Sector

admin — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:28:52 +0000

February 28, 2022

Because organic farmers are banned from using common conventional materials such as most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, the tools available for them to tackle common agricultural challenges are limited. Agricultural technology (AgTech) can provide the opportunity to develop sustainable, organic-compliant methods for addressing organic obstacles, but there has been a disconnect between what has been built by the AgTech industry and the needs of organic producers.

Historically there have been a lack of communication and a paucity of organic-AgTech collaborations. Additionally, the diversity of organic farming operations presents the need for AgTech discussions that include issues such as accessibility of technology for small and low-income farms, equity around tech use and adoption, and inclusion of marginalized farming communities in the development of AgTech. Specifically, AgTech tools are often developed:

Without farmer input
More for the goal of making the most money rather than what will benefit the farming community
Using proprietary software that is costly to purchase, update, and fix
To collect farmer data for profit without giving farmers access or control over their data

To explore the potential promises and pitfalls of AgTech and organic, The Organic Center developed a December 2021 virtual conference that focused on how AgTech can help organic move toward the future, while highlighting current technological trends that can empower farmers rather than exploit them.

Dr. Kathleen Merrigan, the Kelly and Brian Swette Professor in the School of Sustainability and Executive Director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, kicked off the event with a talk entitled “Organic Ag-Tech: Oxymoron or Golden Opportunity?” Focusing on how the collective community of organic activists can best help shape the next 30 years of organic food and agriculture, she shared current innovations in AgTech that fit within organic values, concluding that AgTech, when done right, could be a boon for organic.

Dr. Steven Mirsky, a USDA Research Ecologist in the Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, continued Dr. Merrigan’s theme on the opportunities of AgTech for organic, sharing the perspective of the expansive possibilities of technology when it comes to agriculture. “Organic could see the biggest impact from advances in agricultural technology, because of the challenges and constraints that go into organic agriculture,” said Mirsky. “What technology brings is really transformative, so the future is very bright.”

Dr. Andrew Hammermeister, Director of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada and Associate Professor in the Faculty of Agriculture at Dalhousie University, finished the first conference block on AgTech opportunities in organic, discussing the intersection of organic, smart agriculture, and ecological intensification. Dr. Hammermeister noted that the future of organic agriculture should include a coupling of smart technologies with ecological knowledge.

One of the reasons that AgTech overlooks organic is the monetary opportunities available from large-scale conventional agriculture. To discuss organic AgTech funding opportunities, we heard from Revathi Kollegala, the Executive Director of the Regen Foundation, and Dr. Steven Thomson, a National Program Leader with the USDA National Institute Food and Agriculture. They highlighted both private foundation support, as well as federal programs such as the AFRI and SBIR Small and Medium-Sized Farms, which aims to promote and improve the sustainability and profitability of small and mid-size farms and ranches (where annual sales of agricultural products are less than $250,000 for small farms and $500,000 for mid-size farms); the Engineering for Agricultural Production Systems program, which invests in agricultural production research, education, and extension projects for more sustainable, productive, and economically viable plant and animal production systems within the priority areas of plant health and production and plant products; animal health and production and animal products; food safety, nutrition, and health; bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture economics and rural communities; and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), which seeks to solve critical organic agriculture issues, priorities, or problems through the integration of research, education, and extension activities. The purpose of this program is to fund projects that will enhance the ability of producers and processors who have already adopted organic standards to grow and market high-quality organic agricultural products.

Despite the opportunities of AgTech for organic, there are many potential pitfalls, such as a lack of data sovereignty, which was highlighted by Dr. Sarah Rotz, a professor at York University, who focused on how agricultural technologies and data bias reinforce agri-food inequities. The Gathering for Open Ag Tech Team spoke about how the open source movement could help overcome these inequalities, as open source tools afford farmers’ and food stakeholders’ ability to exert control over where the data is stored, how it is used, and who uses it. Dr. Julie Guthman, Professor of social sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, extended the discussion to suggest circumstances in which AgTech can exacerbate the economic challenges of organic farming and in which it might mitigate them. “If AgTech means producing corporate cooperation with organic farmers geared toward enabling agroecological practices cooperatively funded by universities or other non-profits, and made available to coders or produced with open source technology, then we’re talking,” said Dr. Guthman, highlighting the elements that would enable organic and AgTech to complement one another.

Dr. Heather Darby of the University of Vermont discussed ways that farmers could be supported to make appropriate tech choices. She noted that AgTech tools should be looked at critically to determine if they meet the needs of the people who are expected to use them. “In my mind, technology should serve a purpose,” said Darby. “It shouldn’t just be there because it’s the newest greatest coolest thing everybody else is doing it.” She also highlighted that some older farmers are less familiar with smartphones and their apps. This is exacerbated in remote rural areas that lack access to strong broadband and even cellular service. Apps that are designed to work offline will help farmers without reliable cell service, and Darby suggested that the younger generation of farmers could become important mentors to older farmers, helping them improve their technological literacy (or increase their experience).

Summer Sullivan, a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz followed Dr. Darby’s talk by examining how collaborations between engineers and ecological agronomists and farmers could be developed, highlighting synergies and frictions of agroecology and AgTech using a case study from the University of California, Santa Cruz, which developed an initiative in 2013 focused on AgTech. One of the main challenges that need to be overcome when bringing these distinct groups together is the difference in perspectives: engineers tend to focus in on specific phenomena and processes, while agroecologists see things from a systems-based perspective.

To highlight AgTech projects that include organic perspectives, the conference included talks by Dr. Paula Ramos of North Carolina State University and Dr. Dorn Cox of OpenTEAM and Wolfe’s Neck Center for Agriculture & the Environment. Dr. Ramos discussed projects she has been working on with smart, IoT, and low-cost systems to bridge the technology gap in agriculture. In addition, Dr. Cox spoke about OpenTEAM innovations in collaboration, digital equity, and data sovereignty.

The conference concluded with a farmer panel, highlighting the perspectives of five farmers, including Nate Powell-Palm of Cold Spring Organics, Philip LaRocca of LaRocca Vineyards, Earcine Evans of Pure Ciné, Wa Kou Hang of Twin Cities Green Farm, and Jon Bansen of Double J Jerseys / Organic Valley. The farmers spoke about current technologies that they found useful, but also highlighted needs for future technological development, such as a focus on usability.

Dr. Jessica Shade is Director of Science Programs at The Organic Center (organic-center.org).

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

Agrochemicals’ Harm on Social Justice

admin — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:20:33 +0000

February 28, 2022

The history of pesticide manufacturing and use in the United States reveals an enduring legacy of environmental racism against communities of color and their collective action for environmental justice. Humans have harnessed the toxicity of chemicals to kill agricultural insects for millennia. However, the rapid proliferation of conventional synthetic agrochemicals increased how much agriculture itself could hurt places and people. The burden of protecting people and places has always fallen on communities rather than governments and institutions.

History of Agrochemicals and Social Justice

Insecticides and fertilizers gained new popularity as labor-saving technologies after the abolition of slavery in 1862. Without enslaved Black field hands to pluck insects from crops and clear new lands, cotton planters invested in agrochemicals to kill insects and revitalize the land. However, agrochemicals did not simply replace Black labor, they also placed the burden of harm on Black laborers who had to use them with little to no educational support.

On the West Coast, the formation of California’s vast agricultural infrastructure also relied on environmental racism and modern agrochemicals. White settlers weaponized ideas about efficiency and proper land use to seize lands from dozens of Indigenous communities, and passed legislation (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, among others) preventing farmers of color from participating in the agricultural boom as landowners.

New technologies did not replace migrant laborers but encouraged investment in modern, capital-intensive agriculture that further discredited their traditional knowledge and access to land. The overlapping nature of technology and labor continued to make pesticides an occupational hazard for farmers of color.

Environmental Racism and Agrochemicals

Environmental racism intersects with sites of agrochemicals production in urban areas and use in rural areas. Agrochemical production shaped urban industrial centers in urban waterfront communities like the South Bronx and South Baltimore. In South Baltimore, in particular, the history of agrochemical production in Curtis Bay is one factor that resulted in that community having some of the nation’s highest asthma rates in the country. Even though Curtis Bay is no longer a principal producer of agrochemicals, a wide range of chemical manufacturers continue to plague the health of residents.

Agrochemicals production also left a similar stain on the strip of the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, known as Cancer Alley. Due to pollution from nearly 30 chemical manufacturers, cancer rates for the historically Black communities in this industrial corridor are 50 times higher than the national average.

Agrochemical Racism in Agricultural Production

Agrochemicals also have a direct impact on poor health outcomes in sites of agricultural production. This is especially true in California, where nearly one-third of the nation’s farmworkers live. Combined with a legacy of racial segregation, California is also a site of environmental racism. Over half of California pesticides are used in five majorities Latinx and low-income counties. This parallels the patterns in the U.S. South, where the government spends nearly eight times more money on pesticides in counties with populations over 40% people of color than in counties with less than 6%.

In the case of California, counties with Latinx majority populations use 906% more pesticides than counties with fewer than 24% Latinx residents. A high percentage of residents encounter pesticides in the fields, and entire communities experience effects of pesticide drift and pesticide runoff, which contaminate the air and water shared by communities and cropland. School children are especially vulnerable where planners nestled schools between fields. Latinx students are 91% more likely to attend schools with the highest exposure to agrochemicals.

Studies of the impact of prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides on low-income Mexican and Mexican-American farmworkers are numerous, complex, and troubling. They generally highlight how unequal protection from pesticides causes several respiratory, stress-related, and developmental illnesses. Despite California’s regulatory system for pesticides and record environmental protection, pesticide-related illnesses continue to harm farm-working communities due to environmental racism.

Environmental Justice and Agrochemicals

In response to the unequal burden of harm environmental racism placed on communities of color, those communities nurtured environmental-justice movements to advocate for themselves. Environmental justice consists of social-justice oriented and life-affirming environmental practices, and it intersects with agrochemicals in many ways. The recent federal ban of chlorpyrifos, led by the Latinx farmworker community, is a case in point: with strategic legal and scientific support, farmworker community organizers made the federal ban possible.

According to Margaret Reeves and Ángel García, who organized with California farmworkers, communities used their own lived experience and expertise to investigate the environmental injustices they face. In many cases, administrative districting formally excludes communities of color from land-use decisions, and decision-making bodies ignored communities with a perceived lack of scientific credentials. Decades of farmworker experiences, ideas, and efforts generated the local, state, and national momentum necessary to ban the pesticide.

Alternative Agriculture

An environmental justice lens helps us think critically about food systems, even organic farming. For example, organic farming protects biodiversity and soil quality and reduces pollution from fertilizers and pesticide run-off. Since the 1980s, organic farming has advocated for an agriculture free of synthetic agrochemicals as an alternative to conventional agriculture. Organic farmers are also required to use such non-chemical techniques as crop rotation, selecting resistant varieties, using nutrient and water management, providing habitat for the natural enemies of pests, and releasing beneficial organisms such as ladybugs to protect crops from damage.

If all these pest prevention strategies have failed and pests are present, organic farmers may use limited amounts of pesticides, but those chemicals are five times less likely to leave behind harmful residues. However, since organic farming has become more popular and profitable, farmers will have to center on social justice and increase compensation, transparency, and safety standards for their workers.

Black Farmer Justice

Thinking critically about Black-owned farms is another way the organic farming community can address environmental racism through environmental justice. The institution of slavery first took African people from their Indigenous lands and subjected them to lives of hard and unpaid agricultural labor.

According to Leah Penniman, the owner of food-justice certified Soul Fire Farm, the legacy of slavery still stains many Black people’s ideas and relationship with agriculture. Rather than see growing foods as liberating, they can think of slavery and oppression. Anti-Black racism also robbed Black people of positive experiences with the land after slavery. The history of Black agriculture since the Civil War is a history of violent displacement and fearful migration.

In 1920, before the millions of Black people fled southern violence in the Great Migration, over 14% of U.S. farmland was Black-owned. By 1992, Black farmers owned less than 1% of U.S. farmland. Even with the increased attention to Black-owned farms, historical Black-owned farms continue to face racism and injustice today. Lastly, supporting Black-owned land helps center a wide range of Black environmental knowledge and activism. Similar to how

Latinx farmworkers and activists have influenced chlorpyrifos policies, Black ecological knowledge and activism have shaped environmental justice movements in the United States.

Even though agrochemicals are the engine of industrial agriculture, which adversely impacts the environment and communities of color, many of those same communities fight back. Science and technology alone will not reduce inequalities in our food system. Organic agriculture cannot improve how food is grown and distributed by itself either. The future, however, is far from bleak.

Jayson Porter, is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Northwestern University and Social Justice Intern at The Organic Center.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2022 Organic Report, you can view the full magazine here.

OTA - Organic Report

Trade Association Members Fight Fraud to Protect Organic

What can you do to protect your business from organic fraud?

Online Training and Program Guide

Recognizing Leaders in Organic Integrity and Fraud Prevention

Get to Know Your Policymakers—Spotlight on Representative Glenn “GT” Thompson

“Organic Consumer” is an Oxymoron

Looking Back on 2021 International Trade Successes

RMA to Partially Address Organic Agriculture Crop Insurance Concerns

“What’s in a word? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” –William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Member Community Round-Up

Setting Up Priorities for Organic for Next Farm Bill

What will be different about the 2023 Farm Bill?

The future of the label is at stake

The Dirt on Organic Farming Podcast OATS Answers Some of the Most Common Skepticisms of Organic

Exploring the Need for AgTech for the Organic Sector

Agrochemicals’ Harm on Social Justice

History of Agrochemicals and Social Justice

Environmental Racism and Agrochemicals

Agrochemical Racism in Agricultural Production

Environmental Justice and Agrochemicals

Black Farmer Justice

“What’s in a word? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

–William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet