I grow about 60 kinds of vegetables a year. Sure, I can have all the ground, inputs, wash water, and crop tested for all known contaminants. Don't be too surprised at the $84 pound of broccoli or the $12/each apple.

Just a panel of tests for heavy metals and classes of biohazards costs between $400 and 1000 per sample.

Some farms may have 10 or more kinds of soils. A standard area for soil testing is max. 20 acres of uniform soil.

Different crops may call for different fertilizers and crop protection materials.

Typical returns on vegetable cropping ranges from $500 to 1500. The return has to service debt, future equipment and supplies for the next crop, living expenses, payrolls, insurances, etc.

How many tens of thousands of acres in production must be the norm to pay for all those tests?

Organic certificaton is a guide that you can use, or not use, as you wish. If you, like many of us here, believe that food grown under organic practices is much preferable to the so called "conventional" foods this certification is essential for those foods grown outside of our normal purchasing area.
If you have a problem with the standards that have been adopted after much conversation among many organic growers you can ignore them.

Hello marshallz10 and kimmsr, I smiled while I read your replies not because I thought they were funny but because I knew what was coming. My last sentence is not something I think, it was intended to spur conversation. I have been an organic gardener since 1960 and think it is the very best way to garden. Have I cheated?Âyes, will I ignore the standards if I disagree with them?...yes. For 11 years I was responsible for certifying mechanical testing equipment to ASTM standards for a major aluminum producer. So I am very familiar with the strict procedures and the need for standards involved. I am also familiar with the cost of any work preformed in a laboratory environment.

What I do think is that the initial inspection is not adequate for using the term "Certification", at minimum a representative soil sample should be taken and run through a gas-chromatograph to determine what contamination may be present in the soil and kept on file. A location could be selected at random for additional soil test to determine adherence to the standards. Secondly the list of allowed and disallowed should be written in laymen terms and any organic material that is disallowed because of things like the environment should be left up to the EPA. Anyhow thatÂs what I think.

John

The current Administration has eroded organic controls. The public is often fooled by product labeling, such as "natural". Most consumers would not be able to comprehend more detailed labelling of organic foodstuffs.
It suits me to know that non chemical fertilizers were used, and no pesticides. As you stated, John, our environment is contaminated, water, earth and air.

What can we do? We can support organic farmers, such as yourself. We can plant trees. We can learn to think in terms of green. Recycling began in the 70s. It seemed slow to take off, but now it is a major industry. Everybody cheats one way or another, but there is a growing movement towards sustainability. And, Monsanto has finally been slapped by the courts, after all those years of corrupt practices and thuggish tactics.

Keep the faith, be a good example, educate, and speak out that is how Grass Roots Movements cause change. You are part of the change, sir, and you have done well.

Lorna

As has been discussed here many times, one person's organics differs wildly from another person's. A good analogy is being a vegetarian. There are vegetarians who eat fish, chicken, cheese, milk, eggs, and those who don't. There are some who shun any animal based food and even foods produced with animal help. There are some who continue to not use animal products or byproducts. There is a similar spectrum of organics. The government has tried to regulate it simply to protect consumers. The people I know who are growing grass fed beef do not use any external materials except kelp and calcium. As such they could be certified organic, but they simply don't want the government coming around their property any more often than NEVER!

John, I was an inspector and inspector trainer and member of the State-wide certification committee for CCOF. We worked for more than a decade to institute more or less uniform standards for certified organic production. Now we have people coming out of the woodwork rejecting part or all standards as being inadequate and demanding to go to whatever seems the way to go, depending upon their particular biases. Reminds me of ten blind men each touching part of an elephant and describing in detail the elephant and insisting each description is the right one.

marshallz10, I hope that you are not suggesting that once a standard is in place it is fixed in stone and that it should not be questioned or changed and anybody that wants to change it or add to it is either biased or blind. The society that I spoke of, American Standard Testing Methods or ASTM is open to everybody and covers virtually every test method performed in America including mechanical, electrical and chemical. It was formed in 1898 and there is a committee for every test method. Corrections, additions, subtractions or an entirely new test procedure can be submitted by anybody including nonmembers. If somebody recommends a change or new test method the validity must be approved by a committee of a couple hundred members and voted on by the entire membership. The standard test methods are under constant change and sometimes hours are spent changing a word from "should to "shall". As a result of 110 years of effort the methods are near impeccable and accepted worldwide. In the 1980s ASTM was used as a model to develop ISO-9000 or International Standards Organization.

John

I have no problem with testing, with ASTM standards or ISO standards. The latter standards (47 ff) for organic production and handling a fine too. I resisted the USDA NOSB process and results because at every step, the existing certified organic community had to fight the Board, a board with a minority of "organic" members and often none from regions growing most of the certified organic product.
There has been a constant pressure to lower the standards to allow historically prohibited materials and practices, including use of raw manure, use of gm seed and stock, use of prohibited adjuvants and other materials in processing, and even allowing non-organic if organic was too expensive (yet still sell as certified organic). We in the industry are tired of the BS.

Conventional agbusiness has managed to confuse the consumer, barred country-of-origin, and even labeling of organic at point of sale. They have subverted standards for livestock rearing and handling. Well, enough of this for now.

Back in the 1960's and 1970's I was a member of the Michigan Organic Growers and we worked on certification standards. Back then each state had its own group, and some states had two, maybe more, groups and each of those might be involved in certifying and that leads to confusion. What the USDA has done is brought together all the various groups and had them work out standards and these standards are a compromise, just as ours were back in the 1960's. Some people think the current standards are too strict while others think they are too lenient, but they have not been imposed by an invisible entity sitting behind a desk in Washington, D.C., rather by groups of people, growers, consumers, and marketers, to try and make the standards standard.
The standards may not be the best, but only you by participating can make them better. Saying the standards are no good and should be ignored is not a good solution.

Untitled

First let me thank both of you for your involvement in getting the standards of the ground. I'm sure it was volunteer time. I think some of my past remarks and criticism has left the wrong impression. I'm in total support of the organic standards, its just I think the standards should be a living document. If its fix in stone, then with the availably of new information and new technologies it will soon become obsolete.


What I would like to see is a National Society of Organic Producers. It should be totally independent from any other organization including the government. There are many fine national societies that could be used as a model and the existing organic standards could be adopted and used as a starting point. An example on how I thing it should work is to have a committee for each facet of organic production like composting. The committee would have sub committees, one for hot composting, cold composting and vermin composting. The sub committee would have the responsibility to recommend any changes to existing documents or any new procedures to the committee who would present the recommendation to the main body for a vote.


If an individual or company wanted to sell organic products, they would not have to be certified. If they claim that there product be it produce, fertilizer or what ever is produced in accordance with NSOP standard procedures and it is not. Then they accept all liabilities as a result.


John

If you are addressing me, kimmsr....

I did participate, both at the California state and local certification levl and inspections of operation for 10 years and at Federal level through written and oral testimony and advising. I did not say the standards are no good. I am saying the standards are lower than world standards and are being eroded piece by piece.

The USDA does not certify specific operations, only certifying private and State certifying bodies. The standards are LAW, not debatable and mutable by local producers, handlers, and processors. No higher standards can be legally be followed or promoted by, say, the CCOF. Our standards were reduced with the final USDA Rule. OTOH Legislative riders have changed the organic law in favor of animal producers and processors as has a law suit brought by non-organic producer.

Quote: Legislative riders have changed the organic law in favor of animal producers and processors as has a law suit brought by non-organic producer

There should be a separate procedure for produce and one for animal production. One should not conflict, degrade or inhibit the other.

I'm not in favor of strengthening or weakening the organic standards. It should be the responsibility of the organic community to develop standard operating procedures, which through time would become impeccable.
John

The current Administration has eroded organic controls
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorna, what do you mean by that?

In my opinion the current Administration has done much to weaken all laws regarding environmental concerns, such as reducing requirements/standards for the organic food industry. GM is not organic. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides have cauased gross contamination. Where are the farming subsidies offered by our government going, to users of organic fertilizers or to big business agriculture?

If restrictions/laws/standards are loosened too much, organics will become a big money industry. Right now the organic industry works because of growers who care about the health of people and the environment. These people are not in the business primarily for the money. The Administration serves corporate business (big money), which I believe, is an agenda harmful to the American people and the environment. Small farmers were once the backbone of our country. I would like to see our government make it possible for small farmers to return to their rightful place in our society.

Lorna

I like Milorganite for the natural organic content, but OMG, it might not be 1000% pure so it won't be certified no matter what the EPA puts forth that proves it to be very safe. I think it is being carried to extremes. On the other side of the extreme is DDT is "organic" too. LOL!

There are different meanings for the word 'organic,' virginian. I somehow have a feeling you knew that..

The EPA has nothing to do with the matter. Next thing we know you'll be claiming compost is regulated by the EPA. :)

Hey, its not like the EPA is concerned with the environment or anything. Fecal matter does concern the EPA, USDA and FDA when it comes to bioremediation or biosoilds for human consumption, but you are right, another unregulated, questionably accredited and self appointed organization bears the standard for what is called organic these days. Who knows we could start our own with a special seal of approval! Raid, Sevin and Round-Up could then be called organic gardening products.....LOL! My point is the innacurate term "organic" should be replaced with "naturally farmed" or "synthetic free" or one of the best for meat "Free Range" which really is an accurate term. Common sense should be our guide when it comes to reducing synthetics in gardening or farming food crops, but also for ornamentals in our yards. One thing I really hate is when someone has Chem-Lawn spray for yard pests and you can smell it driving on your street on the way home. Neem Oil is as nasty as I go with insect/pest control and the birds in my yard take care of everything else.

Well, I worked for thirty years to standardize the definition of and content of "organic agriculture" rather than ''...be replaced with "naturally farmed" or "synthetic free" or one of the best for meat "Free Range" which really is an accurate term.'' Those "accurate" terms have been the problems, not contributors to any solutions. I am surprised that an intelligent person such as you appear to be would continue to push archaic and already-rejected terminology. There is no "natural" farming. "Free Range" applies to caribou and elk.

In your personal life, you may apply common sense as defined by your values, experience and expectations.

So then a term like organic that is so broad and misleading is better? I don't follow and I guess I am living in the 19th century compared to an enlightened person such as yourself. LOL!

I "hear" your voice often on GW and other sites, using the same phraseology and attitude to debunk or diminish alternative agriculture and animal husbandry. When challenged, we hear the canard about wishing to livein the 19th century. At that point, of course, the conversation about contemporary organics is over.

When there is a serious difference in opinion there is no justification for personal attacks. I was taught gardening using 19th century procedures and has worked very well for me. But I would not tell everybody to garden the same way I do. Reading posts on this and other forums about organic farming/gardening and certification through the eyes of a self proclaimed organic gardener and consumer when I see an advertisement saying Organic, 100% Organic or Certified Organic, if reminds me of the saying "buyer beware". When you see so much controversy is it any wonder that the vast majority of farmers/gardeners are not interested in trying organics.


A question that came to mind reading this post is; why are there no procedures and certifications for conventional, hydroponics and greenhouse producers?


John

John, there are specialty certifications usually promoted/awarded by industry boards and marketing organizations. USDA inspection programs and those of State and other Federal agencies also serve as kinds of certification.

In a sense, the early years of trying to advance organic agriculture followed the same processes of self-identification. Confusions about what constituted "organic" production brought States to pass laws and regulations and a number of private non-profit and for-profit groups organized to write standards and award certificates based on compliance to those standards.

Standard agriculture and agribusinesses paid little attention because the market share from organic production was so small. Production is still only a few percentage of total production, but enough to threaten the public's attitude toward conventional product and processes.

If organic products are really superior, what is wrong with conventional product, materials and processes? Now that is a threat to the market place. The campaigns against "organic" are fierce and unrelenting, an industry in itself.

Another point to remember is that gardening is not farming and organic farming is not organic gardening. Modern organic producers use many of the techniques of production and handling/processing as conventional ones. We tend to think of horse or oxen-drawn tool bars and wagons as representing some idyllic organic era. Moreover, organic producers use an array of crop and animal promoting and and protecting materials, just materials of mostly non-synthetic sources.

John, nearly all ag research is now privately funded and supported, even at the land grant universities. The amount of money directed at organic farming is tiny, hardly measurable in fact. Researchers wanting to trial organic materials and methods cannot find funding from traditional sources. Given the limited support, the studies that are done and published, are often called anecdotal because they studies do not cite a large body of prior acceptable research published in reputable professional journals. A Catch-22 situation.

Marshall I understand what you are saying in all your threads. What is missing is a national organization of organic producers separate from food handlers marketing and government. They and only they would be responsible for the development of standard operating procedures and approved by a consensus of the organization. The SOP could be rejected or accepted by any agency. If the organization wanted a particular endorsement, then they would have to address that problem. When was the last time the mechanical engineering standards were produced by electrical engineers? Any organization can solicit input from any other organization or individual but the final decision must lay within the organization. I suspect without knowing, that most of the controversy over the current standards comes from input from non organic people. Of course farming and gardening are different but the underlying principals are the same.

John

I agree with you. As I pointed out, the early standards and certification came from more local levels. You are asking for organization of organic farmers that doesn't exist for other farmers, other than trade associations and insurance companies posing as farmer-friendly organizations. Remember that certified organic producers comprise fewer than 5% of all farmers. The community is scattered and in its infancy.

Different State agencies and different private groups came to draw up their own rules, mostly in general agreement among the most respected ones. The impetus for a national standard came in part from consumer interests but also from international markets where international organic standards for more rigorous and resources to check on the many certifiers in the US were limited. Agribusiness wanted into the lucrative international organic market but wanted to meet a single set of standards -- thus the USDA Federal organic rules and stamp.

CCOF was wholly controlled by organic farmers until the federal rules came in and required separation of farmers from the certification process in the interests of eliminating conflicts of interests and other related issues. So CCOF now is divided into the general trade association and an independent certification agency with its own board of directors.

The USDA approach to certification is to create a paper trail managed by certified certifiers. The Federal organic rules were long in the drafting with many regional meetings of the NOSBoard and much input from existing organic farmers, animal people, certifiers, and consumers. The organic community fought off repeated efforts to undermine what we considered the integrity of the organic process and product.

I hate this expanded bureaucracy and anti-farmer bias and refuse to participate. The rigidness of the current standards might look good on paper but stifle flexible responses to market opportunities and trialling new techniques and materials. The farmer has to follow his farm plan submitted often the year before.

Organic Certification is more of a EPA/environmental thing.
The only way to know if some vegetable is organically grown, is to test the fruit of the vine.
However, the OC can be used to stop scammers & put the persons in jail.
Other then the organic gardeners, few even know what organic garden means.

Here is a link that might be useful: They do not know

John couldnt be so right..thank you! The USDA is such a joke. They never say on their website (at least I cant find it) what really makes something organic. They are basically a board, who decides what can or cannot be added to a product to meet their "classification" of organic. They do specify however the different levels of organic though...ie 100%, 95%...but what chemicals/addditives/polluntants are allowed or dissallowed to make these certifications?

I have 142 apple trees, and a large blueberry bed. I collect and use rainwater to irrigate and spray maybe every 2-3 years. Does this make me organic? No. I would classify it as more natural, which is completely different than organic...even to the USDA. The first question Im asked is..."is your fruit organic?". To which I reply..."what is organic"? LOL Sometimes I think their heads are going to spin around! Most people think organic is zero pesticide, which is HUGELY incorrect. If there is no pesticide being used, then the grower is probably growing a plant that has been genetically engineered. (even rootstocks to apple trees) This is NOT "organic" either....and can never be organic. Dont get me started on "free range chickens". Think parentage and food/feed.

There is too much to write about on this posting, but a great topic to discuss.