Comments on Organic 3.0 paper

Commentary on the Organic 3.0 IFOAM Paper:

Okay, first off, I have a problem with the idea that Organic 1.0 is when we started realizing what we ate and how we grew it effected things like our health. I mean, really? We really had to state that in a paper and we put the date at 100 years ago (1917? I've got agricultural books dating back into the 1600s, come on)? Hunter/Gatherers realized that when they died after eating something near contaminated water. Pasturalists realized it when their animals ate something bad for them and died. See a trend? So, let's get back to the paper.




The paper classifies Organic 1.0 as when (around 100 years ago) we started seeing "the connections between how we live, eat, and farm, our health and the health of the planet" (pg. 2). Then is says Organic 2.0 is when this movement started being formed and we started creating rules and standards establishing what 'organic' means. Organic 3.0 (the point of this paper) is "to establish a widespread uptake of truly sustainable farming systems and markets based on organic principles and imbued with a culture of innovation, of progressive improvement towards best practices, of transparent integrity, of inclusive collaboration, of holistic systems, and of true value pricing (pg. 2)."

First issue, and we won't mention the fact that this is a gross misuse of the English language grammatical structure, what you are basically saying is it's time to get everyone on the same page and start enforcing the governments of the world to let us play with the big boys. Here's the general concept for Org. Ag. It Is Not Subsidized. That's our problem. You look at corn (fyi the USDA has decided high fructose corn syrup can now be called 'natural sweetener') in the US and see how much corn is subsidized and then look at how many products contain some version of corn and it makes sense that we are overweight and sick; most of our diet is a single plant. No complex animal has a single plant diet that doesn't have issues (see pandas). So that's part one, we need for the governments of the world to start subsidizing organic products or STOP subsidizing corn, soy, cotton, and canola (the main contenders).

Second issue, Organic takes more time to grow and process. This is the part that always makes me shake my head. Of course it takes more time than your GMO stuff, it's NATURAL. You know, the way they grew before we started pumping them full of the same things we bombed most of Europe and Asia with in WW2 and Vietnam/Korea. A naturally raised and bred chicken can support it's own weight and cows didn't need to have holes in their sides so farmers could clean out their guts. It's not the way they were before we started tinkering with them and that is exactly the problem. Humans started thinking they knew better than the processes in place by nature. And right here is when I get on my soap box and make a little declaration: I am NOT anti-gmo. I am anti-stupid. GMO has been happening in nature as well as in laboratories. Teosinte became corn. Mendel made better peas. You know what neither of these did? Added Agent Orange into my food. By building pesticides into our food supply, we now have to add herbicides to deal with the pesticide resistant bugs. Worse, these are killing the beneficial insects that are necessary for a healthy ecosystem.

So there is my soapbox. Let's move on to the next part of the article...

Organic 3.0's strategy:

• get and use cool technology (no, seriously, they said this)
• "continuous improvement toward best practices" (what does that mean?)
• "diverse ways to ensure transparency and integrity" (open up your doors and books so we know you aren't lying)
• play nice with other organic and sustainable organizations
• empower the people who actually do the work, not big business (how about we pay them a decent wage and give them healthcare and time off, that should 'empower' them)
• "true value and cost accounting" (I don't even know what this means...)

Here's the thing, if you want buy-in from anyone that doesn't have a law degree, use normal people speech. Let's reword this so a 14 year old would understand it.

"Stop bullshitting and tell us what is in it and how you made it. Pay the people who are out there growing it and picking it and caring for it enough that they don't need subsidies or welfare. Don't bitch over whose logo is on the product. Charge me what it costs to make it. Give us robots to do the work so I don't have to."

How's that? Everyone understand it? Great, let's move on to the actual article. What, you thought that's what I was talking about up there? Nah, that was just the Executive Summary. Now we get into the good stuff...

"Sustainable means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (pg. 4)"

Actually, it doesn't. "Sustainability is the endurance of systems and processes." That means at our rate, with our resources, using them up at the current rate. So in the context of this paper, what they mean is how can we continue to do what we are doing without compromising the next generations ability to live EXACTLY like us? I don't know about you, but I don't live like my parents. My parents don't live like theirs; we are constantly changing how we live, which means what we should be trying to do is figure out how to live like we do now but by using LESS of our resources, so when the next generation comes about, they have something to use AT ALL.

Finally, a statement I agree with: "Certified Organic Agriculture has not even reached 1% of agricultural land and of global food and fiber consumption (pg. 7)". You are absolutely correct and you know why? Because the standards and fees to become COA is beyond most small holders abilities to afford or manage. So, beyond making sure their stock is gmo-free, that there are no pesticides anywhere (like their water supply), that their feed is organic, now Organic 3.0 says they need to work within "five dimensions and 20 criteria of sustainability as described in the IFOAM Best Practice Guideline for Agriculture and Value Chains (pg. 11)". These include items like Transparency & Reporting, Markets & Trades, Investment, and Local Economy & Resilience.

I am not opposed to holistic agriculture. In fact, I am for it, but I think there needs to be a frank discussion with urban planners and community developers because none of this is going to happen if we don't rip out the entire old system and put a new one in place. As long as there is someone willing to cut corners and focus only on profits, this is going to be an uphill battle. 

Here's the problem as I see it: Mr. and Mrs. Smith want to run a dairy farm. They buy land. 

Problem 1) what was that land used for before the Smith's bought it? Is the water clean? The soil? Are their neighbors fracking or pumping 'natural' gas? Who has the mineral and water usage rights? Where does the watershed start and finish?

Let's say everything comes out clean and they own everything. Great. Next, they buy cattle.

Problem 2) what type of cattle? Heritage breeds or 'modern'? What is the land to animal ratio? Can the land support the cattle on the natural forage or do they need to bring in feed? Where are they getting the feed? The seeds if they grow it themselves, or the end product if they buy it? Is it GMO or have pesticides been used? How much is that going to cost? What about the water for the cattle and the manure? What about the pests and diseases for both the feed and the cattle? Housing and storage of both?

So, they've now squared away all of those issues and they are still COA. Next comes the butchering. Butchering? But this was a dairy farm?

Problem 3a) what to do with the male calves...do you sell to a beef farm or butcher the animals yourself? who butchers the animals? Are they legally allowed to butcher their own or do they have to send the animal out to a USDA (or government approved) slaughterhouse? What does that cost? Who transports the animals? Is it humane? How much meat actually comes back to the farmer? What happens to the carcasses?

Now you've got meat. Well, packaging and selling comes next, right? Oh, wait, don't forget the marketing...

Problem 4) storing and packaging and selling it; who is going to do this? What type of distribution are you looking at? who is your agent? co-op, farmstand, big grocery chain? materials the item is packaged in? turn around time between production and distribution? cost analysis? marketing materials? advertising? shipping and receiving? inspections? quality assurance? vet checks?

Problem 3b) milk? how are you milking: by hand, machine, rotary pump, carousel? storage and cleaning? pasteurization? bottling? storing?

Now go back to Problem 4...

So, you see where I'm going with this? All of these items need to be dealt with, now add in labor and community involvement and all the other bits and you've got more work and costs than most small farmers can handle. These are the real problems, setting up the pipelines for farmers to gain access to these extra steps. If we can do that, then maybe this Organic 3.0 could work, but until that happens, it's just more hoops for farmers to jump through without any additional income.

Reference:

Arbenz Markus, Gould David and Stopes Christopher, 2016, Organic 3.0 – for truly sustainable farming and consumption, IFOAM Organics International, Bonn and SOAAN, Bonn.