Going Organic -- It's not Just for us Hippies Any More

Since the late 1990s, U.S. organic production has more than doubled, but the consumer market has grown even faster. Organic food sales have more than quintupled, increasing from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $21.1 billion in 2008. More than two-thirds of U.S. consumers buy organic products at least occasionally, and 28 percent buy organic products weekly, according to the Organic Trade Association. This fast-paced growth has led to input and product shortages in organic supply chains, and several new issues—concern about premium-priced product sales in a tight U.S. economy, as well as competition from newenvironmental labels—are emerging in the organic industry.

“Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry”
– A report from the Economic Research Service, an office of the U.S.D.A.

We have written a lot lately about the advantages of buying locally.  In many ways, buying locally is even more important than buying organic, particularly in terms of impact on the environment due to transportation and other factors related to mainstream commercial production.

However, we haven’t spoken much about organic foods and organic farming.  This is not an intentional sleight; we simply haven’t looked all that closely at “organic” labelling for a couple of fairly self-centered reasons:

1. We are not presently aiming to sell any of our produce anywhere which would recquire labelling (either traditional or organic)
2. Our household income has, until recently, not been adequate to consider paying the premium associated with the organic label.

The first factor may not be changing any time soon, but the second, thankfully, has changed pretty substantially over the course of the last few years.  As a consequence, as we look for ways in which to get our family free from the petrochemical tyranny gripping modern life, we are starting to pay more attention to things we simply couldn’t afford in prior years.  “Organic” is one such thing.

A quick perusal of available organic foods reveals some curious limitations which require explanation:

• Not every food item typically found in an American diet has a readily available organic alternative
• Fruits, Vegetables and Milk are overwhelmingly the most common organics
• Organic meats are disproportionately lacking, and expensive
• Local and Organic are not always words that play well together

Many of these facts hinge on common factors.  First and foremost, there has always been a very large percentage of vegetarians among consumers of organic products.  The reasons for this are fairly self-evident; the more educated the population, the higher the percentage of vegetarians in that population.  Those who have historically been organic consumers are primarily concerned with personal health and nutrition – again, vegetarianism and nutritional self-awareness are linked in a directly proportional curve.

The first impact of the link between vegetarianism and organics is obvious – there is a larger market for organic fruits and vegetables than there is for meat and poultry.  The disparity between these markets has steadily been declining, however, as organic conscioiusness has spread throughout the general public.  In particular, organic milk and eggs have been leading indicators for omnivores bridging the veggie gap to organic goods.

What causes meat and poultry to lag behind even as the typical consumer wakes up to the benefits of chemical-free foods, however, is a hidden truth about organics:  grains and cereals are woefully underrepresented.  Quoting from the aforementioned USDA study, “Only 0.2 percent of U.S. corn and soybean crops were grown under certified organic farming systems in 2005, according to ERS estimates.”  0.2% is not a large number.  Given how prevalent corn and soy are in animal feeds, there just isn’t a lot of incentive out there for applying organic principles to traditional farming techniques when it comes to raising meat and poultry.

To bring meat production up to snuff, farmers and ranchers could, of course, just wait until organic corn and soy production comes up to par.  Or… farmers and ranchers could start looking at alternatives.

The best available alternative to the feed lot mentality (which we have warned about as a pestilential nightmare waiting to happen) is to abandon feeds altogether.  Why not turn to grass feeding?  The cattle industry originated on grass-fed beef; you can’t get more traditional than that, right?  There are, of course, questions arising from grass-feeding of whether or not to use fertilizers and pesticides on the hay crops, but these are sufficiently answered by organic horticulture already as to be trivial questions.  No one needs to use chemical fertilizers anymore; their overuse is one of the great comic tragedies of the last five thousand years. 

And the simple truth is, steak built on a diet of clover and rain water just plain tastes better.  Ruby’s Bar-B-Que in Austin, Texas, is home to the tastiest beef we at Myrtle’s place have ever eaten.  There are other, more famous, ‘que joints around, but Ruby’s is the only one which features organic cuts of meat, and their brisket is just plain ridiculously good.  They are good cooks at Ruby’s, true, but we suspect with those cuts of beef, even we couldn’t screw it up.

The bottom line, of course, is that brisket from Ruby’s is more expensive; meat from the organic shelf at your local butcher’s shop is more expensive; organic lima beans are more expensive than their conventional counterparts.  There is a premium on anything organic. 

Again from the USDA:

“At the retail level, organic produce and milk, the two top organic food sales

categories, receive significant price premiums over conventionally grown

products. ERS analyzed organic prices for 18 fruits and 19 vegetables using

2005 data on produce purchases, and found that the organic premium as a

share of the corresponding conventional price was less than 30 percent for

over two-thirds of the items. The premium for only one item—blueberries—

exceeded 100 percent. In contrast, organic price premiums for a half-gallon

container of milk ranged from 60 percent for private-label organic milk

above branded conventional milk in 2006 to 109 percent for branded organic

milk above private-label conventional milk.”

So, if it costs more, we should be getting a higher return in value, correct?  Maybe.

Organic certification has more to do with standards for feed and production than it does to do with quality and nutritional content.  Clearly fruits, vegetables, meat and poultry which have been produced on farms where no pesticides or fertilizers are used more than likely will be lower in chemical contaminants than the equivalent foods produced using industrial agribusiness methodology.  That does not, however, necessarily translate into “healthier” food; buyers should still do item-by-item research to confirm nutritional values, even for organic foods.

There are other factors to consider, as well.  One of the primary bones of contention in the organic community involves the use of immunization in poultry.  Organic eggs are produced from chickens whose feed is free of a score of substances, not the least of which is a group of immunization agents which are standard fare in the factory farming poultry industry, for obvious reasons.  Eggs from the typical factory farm come from chickens who spend their entire lives (and they are surprisingly short lives, at that) in the same two square feet of space.  With thousands and thousands of birds piled on top of each other in this way, disease is almost inevitable.  Immunization is therefore absolutely necessary.

Sane poultry farming methods (not that we have opinions on factory farming, of course) are far less unsanitary.  Free range birds have the easiest time avoiding the diseases of overpopulation, since they spend the majority of their time wandering around quite casually, only encountering other members of their flock when they wish to do so.

Even in a cage, however (as is the case with Myrtle and her sisters), the need for immunization becomes a debatable topic.  Most literature suggests at least 4 square feet per adult bird (double what the factory farms provide), but at Myrtle’s, just counting floor space, there is closer to 14 square feet per bird, and that’s not counting the top of the laying boxes, nor all the space on perches.  Overpopulation and associated epidemiological concerns just don’t factor into the equation.

Then, too, there is the question of what to feed a bird.  Organic certification stresses a particular list of do-and-don’t items.  At Myrtle’s, we are a little more relaxed.  Our birds love fish, for example, and we really don’t care to limit them to just organic certified fish, as we would have to do if we wanted their eggs to likewise be certified organic.  Myrtle is an omnivore; making her an organic omnivore would simply be more work than the return on investment would be worth.

And so, with the benefit of organic certification not being great enough, we tend to be more lenient on the immunization question, as well.  The dangers of immunization have not been sufficiently proven for us to abandon the less expensive feeds which supplement Myrtle’s weeds-and-table-scraps diet.  When and if that changes, we will just have to adapt.

Meanwhile, even when lacking the “Organic” label, there are numerous advantages to at least thinking in organic terms.  The USDA certification process means you can only label a product as “100% organic” if every ingredient or material used in production is itself organic; a product may be labelled as “organic” if 70% of the ingredients or materials used in production are themselves organic.  Clearly, even products falling short of those measures may be superior as ecological advancements to industrial agribusiness approaches.  Why?  The USDA outlines some of the chief advantages:

• Reduced pesticide residues in water and food. Organic production systems virtually eliminate synthetic pesticide use, and reducing pesticide use has been an ongoing U.S. public health goal as scientists continue to document its unintentional effects on nontarget species, including humans.
• Reduced nutrient pollution; improved soil tilth, soil organic matter, and productivity; and lower energy use. A number of studies have documented these environmental improvements in comparing organic farming systems with conventional systems.
• Carbon sequestration. Soils in organic farming systems (which use cover crops, crop rotation, fallowing, and animal and green manures) may also sequester as much carbon as soils under other carbon sequestration strategies and could help reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere.
• Enhanced biodiversity. A number of studies have found that organic farming practices enhance the biodiversity found in organic fields compared with conventional techniques. 

Which brings us back to the question of non-organic “local” foods.  The stack of literature suggesting “local” and “organic” are labels in competition with each other is fairly high, and not without some reason.  To be “local” all a product has to be able to prove is proximity.  There are no certification hoops to jump through, so a food could theoretically be considered “local” even though it represents an appauling lack of ecological concern.  A good example would be chicken from Sanderson Farms here in the Brazos Valley; they are definitely “local”, in that they are just down the road.  They are, however, a factory farm.  We strongly recommend against buying eggs or poultry from such a facility.

However, most “local” foods are produced in a more environmentally friendly manner.  Again from the USDA report:  “Some organic certifying entities, both State and private, already certify producers and processors to a number of other standards—including food safety standards and international organic standards that incorporate a social justice component. A product might easily carry both an organic label, denoting the ecologically based production system used, and a locally grown logo, denoting the number of miles to deliver the product to the consumer.”

The key, again, is personal responsibility and research.  We cannot stress enough how tremendous is the advantage of going out personally and meeting the farmers who grow your food.  When you sign on for a Community Supported Agriculture agreement, even with a farmer who is not certified “organic”, you can find out exactly why.  Maybe they are using immunized feed for their poultry.  Perhaps they are using a fertilizer for their vegetables which, while not strictly speaking ‘organic’, is nevertheless not a nitrite or nitrate hazard.  Maybe they don’t presently use non-organic fertilizers or pesticides, but they reserve the right to change their minds.  Or perhaps they simply don’t want to have to go through the bureaucratic hassle of getting certified.

For whatever reason, it is much easier to find out the truth if you know whom to ask.  A CSA makes that a lot simpler.  Simpler still?  Grow it yourself!

Happy farming!