Spring, 2006 Vol. 2, No.

68 Publication of the Northeast Organic Farming Association 1077-2294

Inside This Issue
Features
Need Conference Workshop Coordinator 8
Sixty-three at Organic Land Care Course 45
Supplement on
Who Owns Organic?
Organic at the Crossroads 9
The Devil Is In the Details 11
Who Is Taking Over Whom? 15
Consolidation in Food and Agriculture 17
Euro-ganics 21
Holding On To Organic! 25
What Became of Walnut Acres? 29
A Part is Less Than the Whole 35
My Journey Toward Organic Inc. 36
Sligh: Stay the Course 38
A Case Study of OFARM 39
The View from LaFarge 43
Growing the Farmers Pledge 44
Departments
Editorial 2
Letters to the Editor 3
NOFA Exchange 4
News Notes 6
Organic Industry Spotlight 7
Book Reviews 46
NOFA Contact People 50
NOFA Membership Information 51
Calendar 51
by Kathleen Litchfeld, publicity coordinator
We are delighted to announce that Sister
Miriam Therese MacGillis of the Dominican
Sisters of Caldwell, N.J. will present the
keynote address on August 11
th
, during the 2006
NOFA Summer Conference. Past conference
keynote speakers have included Eliot Coleman,
Vandana Shiva and Satish Kumar.
The 32
nd
Annual NOFA Summer Conference
will be held Aug. 10-13, 2006 at Hampshire
College in Amherst, Massachusetts. Featuring a
pre-conference on Organic Food and Farming
Education the conference is sure to offer
something for every farmer, gardener, organic
landscaper, consumer, homesteader and student
alike!
The founder of Genesis Farm, a learning
center where people gather to search for more
authentic ways to live in harmony with the
natural world and each other, Sister Miriam
Therese MacGillis became coordinator of
Peace and Justice Education for the Newark
Archdiocese in 1973. She joined the staff
of Global Education Associates as program
coordinator and art editor of The Whole
Earth Papers in 1976. In 1980, she founded
Genesis Farm, where she lives and works. The
farm, which practices biodynamic methods
of agriculture, was one of the frst to organize
a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
venture, and now supports nearly 300 families.
Sister Miriam received a masters degree
in art from the University of Notre Dame
and has taught art at the high school and
college levels. Today she lectures extensively
and has conducted workshops in the U.S.,
Canada, Europe, Asia and the Pacifc. She
also coordinates programs exploring the
work of Thomas Berry, as he has interpreted
the New Cosmology; and promotes Genesis
Farms Earth Literacy program, which offers
accreditation for graduate and undergraduate
students.
Sister Miriam describes herself as having been
formed by the three rivers that have shaped the
regions of New Jersey where she has lived her
life. She was born and lived her frst 17 years
in Bayonne, a small industrial city, separated
from Manhattan by the Hudson River as it
moves through its estuaries across the sweep
of New York Harbor. When she was 7 years
old, her family began to clear a home-site in a
heavily wooded area along the Musconetcong
River in what was then a rural and sparsely
settled region of northwestern New Jersey. On
weekends and throughout the summer, they
worked together to build a small cabin, and
Miriams childhood was deeply infuenced by
summers spent in the forests and felds of that
watershed and the challenges of living for years
with neither water nor electricity.
Since 1980, she has lived along the Paulinskill
River as it fows through the same watershed on
its way to the upper Delaware River. Genesis
Farm takes its place within a community of
people and organizations working to preserve
the wildlife, farms and rural communities of
this highly threatened region.
At the Summer Conference almost 200
workshops will be offered on topics including
farming, gardening, innovative techniques,
animal husbandry, spirituality, organic land
care, and much, much more. Numerous
workshops for children and teens will
be offered through concurrently running
conferences. The event will also feature its
much-loved Local Meal, Saturday Country
Fair, movies, swimming, off-site farm tours,
camping, dancing, networking and endless fun
for the whole family!
One very popular event is the Saturday Night
Debate at which a hot issue in NOFA is debated
by advocates. This year the topic will be
Health Benefts -- What is the Responsible
Thing to do? We are looking for members who
feel passionately about this issue. On the one
side would be one or two people who feel not
having health benefts is irresponsible and for
whom the presence of benefts is a top priority
in taking a job. Perhaps such a person has even
had a loved one at risk and feels the benefts
might have saved a life. On the other side
would be a person who feels health insurance
is expensive and ineffcient, who prefers to
take direct charge of his or her familys health
care, and has focused on prevention, tried to put
aside enough money to directly cover health
bills, arranged a barter system, or otherwise
dealt creatively with family health needs. The
debate is videotaped, has a moderator who
keeps things light and friendly, and goes for an
hour and a half on Saturday night. Participants
get free registration for the entire conference,
a free meal and $25. If interested, contact Jack
Kittredge at jack@mhof.net or 978-355-2853.
By now you have probably received ad/exhibit/
sponsor fyers for the conference and a mini-
poster suitable for hanging up in your locale.
If you received two copies, our apologies, and
please give one to a friend. If you got two, it is
not because we have your name twice on a list,
rather we collect many mailing lists in order to
send out this mailing.
Additionally, you can expect to get the
registration form in the mail sometime around
the middle of May. Those will be available on
line by April 30.
Visit the NOFA Summer Conference website
www.nofamass.org - or read upcoming issues
of The Natural Farmer to learn more about the
NOFA Summer Conference!
2006 NOFA Summer Conference:
Sister Miriam Therese MacGillis to Keynote
photo courtesy of Sister Miriam Therese MacGillis
Sister Miriam Therese MacGillis, founder
of New Jereys Genesis Farm - a learning
center where people of good will search for
more authentic ways to live in harmony
with the natural world and each other. The
farm practices Biodynamic methods of
agriculture and was one of the early pioneers
in Community Supported Agriculture with a
current membership of 300 families.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 2
The Natural Farmer is the newspaper of the Northeast
Organic Farming Association (NOFA). Regular members
receive a subscription as part of their dues, and others
may subscribe for $10 (in the US or $18 outside the US).
It is published four times a year at 411 Sheldon Rd.,
Barre, MA 01005. The editors are Jack Kittredge and
Julie Rawson, but most of the material is either written by
members or summarized by us from information people
send us.
Upcoming Issue Topics - We plan a year in advance so
that folks who want to write on a topic can have a lot of
lead time. The next 3 issues will be:
Summer 2006 Is Organic Better?
Fall 2006 Organic Potatoes
Winter 2006 Agriculture & Globalization
Moving or missed an issue? The Natural Farmer will not
be forwarded by the post offce, so you need to make
sure your address is up-to-date if you move. You get your
subscription to this paper in one of two ways. Direct
subscribers who send us $10 are put on our database here.
These folks should send address changes to us. Most of
you, however, get this paper as a NOFA member beneft
for paying your chapter dues. Each quarter every NOFA
chapter sends us address labels for their paid members,
which we use to mail out the issue. If you moved or
didnt get the paper, your beef is with your state chapter,
not us. Every issue we print an updated list of NOFA
Contact People on the last page, for a handy reference to
all the chapter names and addresses.
As a membership paper, we count on you for articles, art
and graphics, news and interviews, photos on rural or
organic themes, ads, letters, etc. Almost everybody has a
special talent or knows someone who does. If you cant
write, fnd someone who can to interview you. Wed like
to keep the paper lively and interesting to members, and
we need your help to do it.
We appreciate a submission in any form, but are less
likely to make mistakes with something typed than hand-
written. To be a real gem, send it via electronic mail
(Jack@mhof.net.) Also, any graphics, photos, charts,
etc. you can provide will almost certainly make your
submission more readable and informative. If you have
any ideas or questions, one of us is usually near the
phone - (978) 355-2853, fax: (978) 355-4046. The NOFA
Interstate Council website is www.nofa.org.
ISSN 1077-2294
copyright 2006,
Northeast Organic Farming Association
The Natural Farmer
Needs You!
Advertisements not only bring in TNF revenue, which
means less must come from membership dues, they also
make a paper interesting and helpful to those looking for
specifc goods or services. We carry 2 kinds of ads:
The NOFA Exchange - this is a free bulletin board
service for NOFA members and TNF subscribers for
occasional needs or offerings. Send in up to 100 words
and well print it free in the next issue. Include a price
(if selling) and an address, E-mail or phone number so
readers can contact you directly. If youre not a NOFA
member, you can still send in an ad - just send $5
along too! Send NOFA Exchange ads directly to The
Natural Farmer, 411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005 or
(preferably) E-mail to Jack@mhof.net.
Display Ads - this is for those offering products or
services on a regular basis! You can get real attention
with display ads. Send camera ready copy to Dan
Rosenberg, PO Box 40, Montague, MA 01351 (413) 863-
9063 and enclose a check for the appropriate size. The
sizes and rates are:
Full page (15 tall by 10 wide) $300
Half page (7 1/2 tall by 10 wide) $155
One-third page (7 1/2 tall by 6 1/2 wide) $105
One-quarter page (7 1/2 tall by 4 7/8 wide) $80
One-sixth page (7 1/2 tall by 3 1/8 wide), or
(3 3/4 tall by 6 1/2 wide) $55
Business card size (1 1/2 tall by 3 1/8 wide) $15
Note: These prices are for camera ready copy. If you
want any changes we will be glad to make them - or to
typeset a display ad for you - for $10 extra. Just send us
the text, any graphics, and a sketch of how you want it to
look. Include a check for the space charge plus $10.
Advertise in or Sponsor The Natural Farmer
by Jack Kittredge
The passage last October of an amendment to the
Organic Foods Production Act has split the organic
movement. Steve Gilmans centerfold article in
this issue conveys some of the anger which many
felt at the way the amendment was pushed through
Congress by the Organic Trade Association and a
minority of organic big food companies.
This issue of The Natural Farmer was commissioned
by the NOFA Interstate Council to take a broad look
at where we, small scale organic farmers, gardeners
and consumers, now stand relative to the industry
we helped create. Besides Steves article on the
amendment and what we can do about it, this issue
contains several articles tracking consolidation in
organic food. Phil Howard traces the forces driving
such consolidation, Sam Fromartz looks at how
they apply to organics specifcally, Laura Sayre
analyzes how such consolidation takes a different
face in Western Europe, and Amy Guptill and Rick
Walsh show how at least some US farmers are
responding to buyer consolidation by forming mega-
cooperatives to maintain their bargaining power.
Two articles exemplify these forces. Cynthia
Barstow puts a human face on big food executives
trying to make sense in this strange marketplace,
Frequency discounts: if you buy space in several issues
you can qualify for substantial discounts off these rates.
Pay for two consecutive issues and get 10% off each,
pay for 3 and get 20% off, or pay for 4 and get 25% off.
An ad in the NOFA Summer Conference Program Book
counts as a TNF ad for purposes of this discount.
Deadlines: We need your ad copy one month before the
publication date of each issue. The deadlines are:
January 31 for the Spring issue (mails Mar. 1)
April 30 for the Summer issue (mails Jun. 1)
July 31 for the Fall issue (mails Sep. 1)
October 31 for the Winter issue (mails Dec. 1)
Disclaimer: Advertisers are helping support the paper so
please support them. We cannot investigate the claims
of advertisers, of course, so please exercise due caution
when considering any product or service. If you learn of
any misrepresentation in one of our ads please inform us
and we will take appropriate action. We dont want ads
that mislead.
Sponsorships: Individuals or organizations wishing to
sponsor The Natural Farmer may do so with a payment
of $200 for one year (4 issues). In return, we will thank
the sponsor in a special area of page 3 of each issue, and
feature the sponsors logo or other small insignia.
Contact for Display Ads or Sponsors: Send display ads
or sponsorships with payment to our advertising manager
Dan Rosenberg, PO Box 40, Montague, MA 01351. If
you have questions, or want to reserve space, contact
Dan at (413) 863-9063 or dan@realpickles.com.
Who Owns
Organic?
and George DeVault tells the tragic story of what
happened to Walnut Acres, once a pioneer in organic
food marketing.
Liz Henderson offers two articles one comparing
the lofty principles of organic agriculture as set
forth by the International Federation of Organic
Agricultural Movements to those more mundane
ones enunciated by the United States Department
of Agriculture. The other, with Mark Dunau, looks
at the Farmers Pledge as an alternative for small
farmers, disillusioned with organic certifcation,
who are selling to local markets.
Lastly, several folks active in last falls events give
their views about what happened and where we
go from here. George Siemon (Organic Valley)
supported the amendment as a way to increase the
supply of organic food. Michael Sligh (RAFI-USA)
opposed it as unnecessary and divisive. Both of
them give their own take on how we should now
proceed in a post-amendment world to avoid tearing
ourselves apart. Grace Gershuny (NOFA-VT and
NOP) writes about the history and signifcance of
the various fghts over organic standards during the
last 20 years, and Emily Brown Rosen (NOFA-NJ
and OMRI) responds with her thoughts on the same
topics.
Even our book reviews feature a couple of relevant
volumes. RAFI-USAs 2003 Study Who Owns
Organic in some ways prefgures this issue of
The Natural Farmer. Julie Guthmans Agrarian
Dreams takes a hard look at the reality of organic
farming as played out in the incredibly fertile (but
expensive) farmland of California.
We hope that this issue serves to inform and ground
you. The forces of consolidation and expansion in
organic food are only going to continue. Whether
and how we as farmers and consumers continue
to relate to the National Organic Program will be
thrashed out on NOFA boards, in conferences, and
at kitchen tables throughout the Northeast during
this next year. It is an important discussion, and
needs our full attention.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 3
Good Morning Jack,
Thank you for printing the article about Carla. Im
sure her husband and family will appreciate it. Just
thought Id mention that Carlas book is not out-of-
print, and Im not sure how that got in the article.
Perhaps it was my phrasing. I simply meant to say
it was easy to order the book if it wasnt on the
shelf. So, if you would make a small correction in
your next issue it would be appreciated. Thank you
for your time. -- Yours, Jane Dean
Hi Jane,
Sorry, I guess I assumed it from your wording.
Ill let people know Carla Emery DeLongs
Encyclopedia of Country Living is still alive! -- Jack
Dear Jack and Julie,
I wondered if people in NOFA had any ideas about
pasturing rabbits. The American Rabbit Breeders
Association seems mostly concerned with the
fancy ones and all the breeders feed pellets, have
automatic waterers, etc. and act as if you must be
insane to let your rabbits feet touch the soil. All
the pasturing of animals info seems to be limited
to cows, sheep, chickens, etc. but no one mentions
rabbits. Id love to hear some ideas on feeding
besides just pellets (I doubt there are any organic
pellets anyway!) The ARBA people caution against
feeding rabbits under six months any greens because
they will die of diarrhea. That doesnt make too
much sense to me but it is common practices in the
rabbit world. Any thoughts on this would be much
appreciated. Erin Matica
Hi Erin,
Julie and I used to keep rabbits in Dorchester, and
we fed them pellets plus a healthy amount of grass
and green stuff whatever was left from the garden.
I know that Martin Gursky once did a workshop at
the Summer Conference on Deinstitutionalizing
the Rabbit which I think meant moving them out
of cages into fenced warrens and onto pasture. We
videotaped it for the NOFA Video Project, so you
might want to look at that. Otherwise lets see if
any readers respond with thoughts of your own.
-- Jack
Hi Jack,
Great issue of the Natural Farmer, I hope you
got a few free meals out of all those restaurant
reviews!
In the News Notes section, I see you put in the
blurb from OCA about children eating organic
food and having their pesticide levels drop. There
is an incorrect deduction at the end, however, that
was also on the OCA website. I checked it out
myself because it is so important to my work. The
study did NOT show, or imply, or even suggest
that children are in general exposed mainly
through food, and not lawns or other exposures.
It was not designed to test for that. The children
in the study all came from homes that did not use
pesticides. From the study: The lack of residential
pesticide use as reported by the parents suggests
that children in this study were exposed to OP
pesticides exclusively from dietary intakes. It is
an important detail.
It does beg the question about what lawn and
home exposure really is, however, and I hope
someone does do that study. Oddly enough, I think
no one has. -- Sarah Little, Ph.D.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for the kind words. I did get a few really
tasty dishes out of the visits!
You are right that the children involved in the study
came from homes without environmental OP pesti-
cides and the study says that these children were
likely exposed to OP pesticides exclusively through
their diets, as opposed to all children. But I dont
think the OCA summary is that far from the mark.
The authors of the study do go on to say that OP
pesticides are predominately used in agricultural pro-
duction, have no or minimal residential uses, and that
this study, therefore, supports the conclusion made
by the National Research Councils 1993 report that
dietary intake of pesticides could represent the major
source of exposure in infant and young children.
That could be taken as suggesting that children in
general are mainly exposed through their food.
I think it would be great to test for other exposure
sources, however, and establish that fact once and for
all! -- Jack
Hi Jack,
Of course it is possible that dietary intake of pes-
ticides could represent the major source, but this
is not a conclusion, it is an untested hypothesis. It
might not be true and the studies neither confrm nor
refute it. It shouldnt be stated as a conclusion, but as
the next thing to test.
Per pound, more OP pesticides are used in agri-
culture. However, OP pesticides include diazinon
and chlorpyrifos, which are extensively used in and
around homes, especially for cockroach control,
although the recent phase-out should gradually
reduce exposures. In NYC, phasing out these two
products, and thus reducing in utero exposure, has
resulted in larger birthweight and head circumference
babies [regardless of diet]. Current uses of organo-
phosphates also include mosquito control and quite a
few lawn insecticides, including trichlorfon, which is
used for grubs.
My hypothesis would be that dietary intake repre-
sents a major continuous source, while lawn and in
home applications represent a major acute source,
that is, they would result in higher, shorter term ex-
posures. But maybe not much shorter term, since
these chemicals dont break down very fast indoors
without sunlight or bacterial action. -- Sarah
Letters to the Editor
Please help us thank these
Friends of Organic Farming
for their generous support!
Socially Responsible Investing
Douglas J. Calnan
Vice President-Investments
douglas.calnan@agedwards.com
(800) 543-8010 Norwell, MA
Member SIPC 2006 A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
[2
4
7
7
8
-v
1
-0
2
9
3
]
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 4
Blow Your Own Horn
Responsible, mature woman seeks work exchange
for living situation on a farm in MA or southern
NH. Experienced small-scale organic gardener,
berry grower and horsewoman. Interested in
learning about dairy goats, draft horses, and organic
orcharding. Non-smoker, non-drinker. Please call
Carolyn at 603-924-7421.
Seeking certifed organic farmers to provide
farm products for the NOFA Summer Conference
local meal on Sat, Aug. 12, 2006. The local meal
is made solely of certifed organic food grown in
the Northeastto demonstrate that it can be done!
Please contact us by April 1 if you are interested
in selling vegetables, meat, eggs, dairy, vinegar,
herbs, teas, oil, salt, etc. to NOFA for this event.
Donations are also welcome. Participating farms
and their products will be described in the Food
Guide distributed at the meal. Contact: Dorothea
Sotiros at (413) 773-5633 or dsotiros7@yahoo.com.
Exciting seasonal opportunity to work at a
working organic farm in an urban neighborhood that
does wholesale, CSA and retail farmstand with an
email pre-order system. Many specialty, ethnic and
heirloom crops. Central Connecticut location. $8
per hour plus great produce! Possibility that one
full time position with health care will develop.
Must enjoy farmwork and teamwork. Call Tony at
860-223-6200.
Three apprenticeships available on diversifed
farm in Huntington,VT for 2006 season (April-
October preferred). Opportunity to learn skills
involved in raising grass-fed and fnished
livestock, pastured and organic pork and poultry,
and vegetables through a Community Supported
Agriculture program. Compensation includes yurt
lodging on farm and stipend (board is negotiable).
To apply, please download an application: www.
maplewindfarm.com or call (802) 434-7257.
Position in Amherst, NH for farmer and/or college
or school interns 35-40 hours week. Pay range $8-
12 per hour. The Soccer Farm, a sixty acre site with
4 acres of organic crops, serves a 60 member CSA
and local markets. Work April-October with mini-
breaks during Tuesday-Saturday (2pm) with two
days off. Housing arranged locally. Soccer, hiking,
dog training and fun activities at site. Members help
in garden with supervision. Both positions allow for
organizational and promotional work and hosting
visitors for pickups and special events. Call Ben at
603-744-5067 or email ben@bbsoccer.com.
3 Farm Acres for Lease - S. Acton, MA,
Historically farmed acreage currently maintained
as open mowed meadow - Bounded by perennial Ft
Pond Brook for irrigation - Good Martin St. road
frontage & neighborhood location - Located close
to South Acton MBTA Commuter Rail Stop, and
Route 2 - Only experienced Farmer for long- term
farming commitment Very Generous lease terms.
Contact: The Hadley Farm @ 978 263-621-7935,
hadleyfarm@mindspring.com
Since I have discontinued my organic greenhouse
farming, I have some used and new greenhouse
equipment for sale, Automatic watering system
(timer and valves) for 8 rows. 1 inch foating
styrofoam plug trays. 252 per tray as well as a
few other sizes. Watering stakes for automatic
watering system. Tomato clips 1 inch and 3/4
inch. Bobbins for hanging tomato plants from. 5
gallon pails with drain holes for greenhouse plants.
Contact Johan van Achterberg @ 203-261-2156 or
johanachterberg@sbcglobal.net
Lindentree Farm CSA in Lincoln, MA is looking
for two workers or interns for our 2006 farm
crew. The farm crew grows our 12 acre organic
farm for our 200+ member CSA and a Farmers
Market. Responsibilities include planting, weeding,
harvesting, irrigation, pest control, and much
more. Small equipment and some tractor use may
be involved. Applicants should be energetic, in
good physical condition, interested in learning
about agriculture, and able to cheerfully work
with a diverse group of CSA members in the feld.
Experience is helpful but not necessary. Contact Ari
at (781)259-1259 or arikurtz@att.net for more info.
Farm Available This Year. The Benson Place in
Heath, MA is now available for sale or long term
lease. Includes farmhouse, barn, guest cabin, second
house site, and organic wild blueberry business
on 38 acres of beautiful conserved land. Loyal
customer base. Contact Dave Gott and Ted Watt,
182 Flagg Hill Road, Heath, MA 01346. 413-337-
5340, benplace@gis.net, www.gis.net/~benplace
Assistant grower sought: One position remaining.
Heirloom Harvest in Westborough, MA, seeks
skilled candidate to begin April 10th. This is
a full-time position to the end of October. The
farmsite is open to the public, and employees are
expected to work well with volunteers and children.
Some management and direction of volunteers
is necessary. Pay: Hourly, $9.25. Some variance
in workday length (long days and short days) is
to be expected. Benefts: CSA share, workmans
comp. No housing, but plenty of apartments
around. Contact John at 508-963-7792. Check out
heirloomharvestcsa.com.
Seeking farmer to take over a one acre, hand-
cultivated, raised-bed, (organic but uncertifed)
market garden in Grafton MA for 2006 season
and beyond. This very fertile acre has been
managed organically for four years. The current
farmers operate a CSA serving between 30 and 40
shareholders and hope to pass land use on to a hard
working, enthusiastic, and sustainable grower who
would plan to steward it in hand-worked, raised-
bed fashion for multiple seasons. Contact Patrick
McCabe: (508) 839-3185 pmccabe@charter.net
Waynes Organic Garden is offering certifed
organic vegetable transplants for the 2006 season,
including tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, parsley,
basil, onions, shallots and more. Custom orders
welcome. Pick-up at farm mid to late May, alliums
in April. For list, prices, options, write or call
Waynes Organic Garden, PO Box 154, Oneco, CT
06373, (860) 564-7987.
Gardening the Community, NOFA/Masss youth
agriculture project in Springfeld is looking for a
part-time garden and program assistant for the
2006 season. The position would include working
with youth (aged 12-17) to cultivate vegetable
gardens, distribute and sell produce, do outreach
to the neighborhood, and complete administrative
work. We are looking for a person with experience
in any of these areas and with a willingness to be
fexible, open, and positive. Contingent on funding,
the position begins in May 2006; 20 hours a week
through August with the possibility of extending
through October; $11.00/hour. Cover letters and
resumes due by April 15th. Please send to Kristin
Brennan at 127 Marlborough Street, Springfeld,
MA 01109 or to kristinbrennan@riseup.net.
High Mowing Seeds of Wolcott, VT is seeking an
organic pepper seed grower. This would likely
be someone either passionate about peppers or
passionate about seed saving. Does not entail large
acreage, but requires someone who could pay close
attention throughout the season to the many details
of a high-quality seed crop. Please contact Jodi
Lew-Smith, jodi@highmowingseeds.com or 802-
472-6174 X 8.
For Sale: Certifed Organic Barley Straw $4.00
per bale. Sold by Zeng Farms in Ringoes NJ.
Delivery possible at additional costs. For more
information please call (908) 406-0747
Farm manager/educator needed for small organic
farm that provides food and education at a Quaker
high school in southern NH. Responsibilities
include: care for livestock (including milk cow,
pigs, sheep, chickens) and vegetable gardens; house-
parenting teens. Room, Board and Comprehensive
beneft package. Please send resume to: Christine
Smith, The Meeting School, 120 Thomas Road,
Rindge, NH 03461, 603-899-3366, www.
meetingschool.org, offce@meetingschool.com
Sign up now for a 2006 workshare: Heirloom
Harvest in Westborough, MA, is hiring workshares
who work one day a week from the middle of May
through the end of October in exchange for a share
of the farms produce. All workshares must be
available across the season to fulfll their obligation,
and must make an effort to fnd a replacement on
days they cant make it. Available workdays are
Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Students, parents
and teachers who are tied to school schedules
are encouraged to apply for Sunday workshares.
Contact John at 508-963-7792. Check out www.
heirloomharvestcsa.com.
Living Situation/Work Trade Offered. Seeking
individual to work 20 hrs/wk on our small organic
fower farm in Conway, exchange for living in our
yurt. Some shared meals, use of land (currently in
raised beds) for your own growing projects, tools,
water access, etc. included. Swimming hole a
bonus! Small stipend a possibility. Contact: Leslie
Chaison (413) 369-4020 or (978) 544-2590.
Looking for a source of local organic dry beans
for a Harvest Supper next winter. Following a very
successful Free Harvest Supper in August initiated
by Greenfeld Farmers Market, a second August
supper is planned for August of 2006. If you grow
dry beans or are willing to do so, please call Juanita
Nelson: 413-773-5188, 91 Keets Rd., Deerfeld, MA
01342.
CSA Memberships Available: Join a farm thats
passionate about great food and personal service!
We offer over 50 varieties of outstanding vegetables
and fruits, all grown with the earth in mind (we are
NOFA-NY Farmers Pledge members). Pickup is
every Monday at our Fulton County farm for 20
weeks: May 22 through October 2, 2006. Farm
tour, forest walk, BBQ and weekly newsletter with
recipes are included in the share. Working shares
available. Pastured pork, lamb and eggs also
available. Call for more information (518) 627-
0476
Apprentice/Intern sought for 2006 season. Long
hours, short pay, good food, and lots of learning,
from soil to seed to sale. Position open from mid-
April to mid-October. Contact Wayne at Waynes
Organic Garden, PO Box 154, Oneco, CT 06373,
(860) 564-7987.
NOFA
Exchange
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 5
Internship opportunities and CSA shares
available for 2006 season. 90+-family CSA farm,
located in the Monadnock region, in Sullivan, NH
looking for intern/apprentice to work alongside
farmer with all aspects of farming from planting,
cultivation, harvesting, washing and packing
to planning, organizing and management of
working shares. Opportunities for extra income
doing deliveries and farmers market. We are in
our eighth year of diversifed organic vegetable
production and looking for hardworking enthusiastic
individuals, who want to get hands on experience
and knowledge of the fow of farm season. Working
shares available as well. For more information
contact Tracie, 603-847-9066.
Grassfed pork and lamb available! We raise our
animals the old fashioned way: with gentle care
and respect on lush rotating pastures. The pigs
are supplemented with certifed-organic grains.
Available by the whole and half, our meats are
custom butchered exactly to your specifcations and
vacuum-sealed for freshness. Reserve now for fall
pickup. (518) 627-0476
Three Apprenticeships available on organic
vegetable farm in western CT for 06 season, April
3 - mid Nov. 17. Help plant, cultivate, harvest,
and market produce through a 250 share CSA and
farmers markets. Opportunity to learn many of the
agricultural and business skills you will need to run
an organic farm. Compensation includes a private
room in separate apprentice house, farm produce
and eggs, $800 monthly stipend plus incentives.
To apply, send a letter of intent and resume to Paul
Bucciaglia, Fort Hill Farm, 18 Fort Hill Rd., New
Milford, CT 06776. Also see www.forthillfarm.
com.
Manager Opportunity. The Open Field Foundation
is looking for an infrastructure manager for Bramble
Hill Farm. The farm consists of buildings and
equipment as well as natural structures and sites,
which support a range of resident and visiting
educational and agricultural programs. The manager
should have experience with carpentry, plumbing,
electrical, tool maintenance, agriculture, and general
maintenance. Good communications skills a plus.
To apply, send a letter and resume to: The Open
Field Foundation, Att. Gordon Thorne, 150 Main
Street, Northampton, MA 01060
Request for proposals: Bramble Hill Farm is a
120-acre farm located 1 mile from the center of
Amherst, MA, with 80 acres of fenced pasture, 10
acres of cropland, and a 10-acre wood lot. There are
also houses, barns, and greenhouses to lease. Open
Field Foundation is looking for interested parties to
lease all (or part) of the land and infrastructure of
Bramble Hill Farm to create their own agricultural
enterprises. If you are interested, please go to
our website (www.bramblehill.org) or for more
information, write to: The Open Field Foundation,
Att. Gordon Thorne, 150 Main Street, Northampton,
MA 01060
Farm Educator. Hildene, located in Manchester,
VT, is seeking an enthusiastic farm educator for our
small-scale farm. This position requires experience
in organic farming, livestock care, development
of education programs for children/adults and
basic carpentry skills. Salary commensurate with
experience, range: $20,000 - $30,000; possible
housing. Contact Diane Newton, Education
Director, (802) 362-1788, ext. 15
MOFGA Farm Apprenticeship Program. An
informal experiential education program that
connects people wanting to learn organic farming
with experienced farmers willing to share their
expertise. Typical arrangement involves an
exchange of labor for room, board, a stipend, and
intensive training and experience in farming. Visit
www.mofga.org/apprinfo.html or call 207-568-4142
Wanted: Raw foods, (meat, vegetables, fruit).
We are looking for free or inexpensive sources
of raw foods for our dogs, Central Massachusetts
area. Are you a farmer or breeder and have leftover
meat trimmings, meaty bones, fruits or vegetables?
Dont throw it away or let it go to waste! We can
use it. Give us a call at 508-754-0809 or email at
carafaith224@verizon.net
Keeping A Family Cow Workshops to be held at
Local Farm in Cornwall Bridge, CT. Learn about
fnding, feeding, fencing, housing, and caring for
your cow. Try your hand at milking. Make fresh
cheese, butter, and ice cream and go home with a
slew of recipes and resource lists. $35/person or
$50/family of up to four. 10:30 -1:30, June 3, July 9,
August 5, and September 2. Call Debra (860) 672-
0229 to register. www.rlocalfarm.com
Conserved farm land lease. Up to 50 acres for
organic farmers. Building site for residence, barn
and roadside stand. Pasture land, crop land and
streams. In Canaan, Vermont. Call Morze Tree
Farm, 802-266-3512
ph. 231/889-3216
O!!LNl1Y O!!LNl1Y O!!LNl1Y O!!LNl1Y ^k! ^k! ^k! ^k!
3480 Potter Rd, ear |a|e, N| 49614
1 11 1L L L L
A V A V A V A V0|C| 0|C| 0|C| 0|C| |0R |0R |0R |0R C CC C0NNUN|IY 0NNUN|IY 0NNUN|IY 0NNUN|IY S SS SUPP0RI|D UPP0RI|D UPP0RI|D UPP0RI|D A AA AuR|CU|IUR uR|CU|IUR uR|CU|IUR uR|CU|IUR| || |
A quarterly journal for CSA
and small farm advocates
C CC C
l ll l
Web: www.csafarms.orq
|mal|: csafarmQjac|plne.net
$ $$ $17 17 17 17 per year per year per year per year
$22 Canadlan funds $22 Canadlan funds $22 Canadlan funds $22 Canadlan funds

Contact us for a samp|e lssue Contact us for a samp|e lssue Contact us for a samp|e lssue Contact us for a samp|e lssue
A|so aval|ab|e as an emal| attachment -
$7/year
Many Hands Organic Farm
Julie Rawson, Jack & Dan Kittredge
411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005 (978) 355-2853
www.mhof.net, farm@mhof.net

CSA shares available
Organic, Free-range Poultry & Pork
Certifed by Baystate Organic Certifers
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 6
compiled by Jack Kittredge
Heinz to Sell Shares in Hain
After purchasing 6.1 million shares of Hail Ce-
lestial Group since 1999, H. J. Heinz has decided
sell them in order to redeploy its assets and con-
centrate on its core food categories of condiments
and sauces, meals and snacks, and infant nutrition.
source: Whole Foods Magazine, January 2006
NOSB Mandates 120-Days on Pasture for
Organic Cows
The National Organic Standards Board has
voted to require that organic cows be on pasture at
least 120 days a year. The board voted 12 to 1 for
the measure after the USDA took its previous rec-
ommendation for a 120-day requirement as a guid-
ance document. The action received wide support
from dairy farmers and groups such as the Northeast
Organic Dairy Producers Association. Accredited
certifers can enforce the requirement once it goes
through fnal rulemaking.
source: Organic Business News, December, 2005
OTA Predicts Petitions for 1500 Ingredients
The Organic Trade Association has estimated
that as many as 1500 ingredients will be petitioned
to be on the National List as a result of the OFPA
amendment last October requiring manufacturers to
prove that needed ingredients are not commercially
available. The list is expected to include steam-dis-
tilled essential oils, CO2 extracts, alcohol-extracted
botanicals and spices. According to Tom Hutchison,
OTAs associate policy director, These represent
materials for which a reliable supply of organically
produced product may not be available, so the good
news is that this also represents market opportuni-
ties for organic farmers. He added that the OTA
would like the process to proceed quickly in order to
avoid problems in organic product formulation
source: Organic Business News, December, 2005
Denmark to Compensate for GMO Contami-
nation
Denmark has become the frst country in Europe
to compensate farmers who detect GMOs in crops.
Payments will be made by the government to farm-
ers who have suffered economic losses because
GMO contamination exceeds 0.9%, and the money
will be recovered from the farm which was the
source of the contamination.
source: Elm Farm Research Center Bulletin, De-
cember, 2005
GMO Contamination Lasts Over 15 Years
A study funded by the biotech industry as well
as the British government has found that growing
GE crops contaminates land for at least 15 years.
Even if a farmer were to grow GE canola for just
one year, the plants would continue to grow and
contaminate future harvests. Nine years out two GE
plants were found per square meter. After 15 years
there was still one per square meter.
source: Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener, Dec.
2005 Feb. 2006
USDA Tries to Dismiss Country Hen Suit
The US Department of Agriculture has asked
the Federal Court to dismiss a legal action brought
on behalf of MICI (Massachusetts Independent
Certifers, Inc.) The action accuses the USDA of
wrongfully interfering in its decision to deny certif-
cation for The Country Hen of Hubbardston, MA. In
arguing for dismissal, the USDA claimed that MICI
was acting as a government agent and had a duty to
transmit information from USDA. MICIs attorney
countered that the group is a private agent and can-
not be ordered to take a position it has rejected.
source: Organic Business News, January, 2006
News
Notes
GE Trees Coming Closer to a Forest Near
You
The USDA has approved at least 124 open
air feld tests for genetically engineered trees. No
known commercial plantings have been made yet in
this country, but it is rumored that there have been
some in China. The trees are engineered to resist
Roundup herbicide, to produce Bt pesticide, and
for decreased lignin content (easier to make paper),
faster growth, and for sterility.
source: Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener, Dec.
2005 Feb. 2006
Consumer Reports Helps Consumers Become
Savvy Organic Shoppers
An investigation in the February 2006 issue of
Consumer Reports has found that shoppers do not
need to buy organic foods across the board to get
added health value. The report tells shoppers which
organic products are worth seeking outand which
ones are not. Consumers can pass on organic sea-
food and shampoo, for example, because their labels
can be misleading. The complete report, including
a list of organic products that are worth buying and
which are not, is also available on www.Consumer-
Reports.org.
Organic products worth buying to avoid chemi-
cals found in the conventionally produced versions:
Fruits and vegetables, such as apples, bell peppers,
celery, cherries, spinach, and strawberries. The US-
DAs own lab testing reveals that even after wash-
ing, some fruits and vegetables consistently carry
much higher levels of pesticide residue than others.
Meats, poultry, eggs, and dairy products are also
worth seeking out.
Organic products worth buying only if price is
no object, include: processed foods and certain pro-
duce items, such as: caulifower, sweet corn, broc-
coli, mangos, and sweet peas. Multiple pesticide
residues are, in general, rarely found on convention-
ally grown versions of these fruits and vegetables,
according to research by the Environmental Work-
ing Group (EWG).
Organically labeled items not worth buying in-
clude seafood and cosmetics. Whether caught in the
wild or farmed, fsh can be labeled organic, despite
the presence of contaminants such as mercury and
PCBs. The USDA has not yet developed organic
certifcation standards for seafood.
source: Consumers Union Press Release, February,
2006
California Prohibits Organic Label on Fish
The state of California has prohibited the use of
the organic label on fsh and seafood until either the
state or the federal government establishes organic
standards for the products. The rogue use of the
organic label on fsh and seafoodis an inauthentic
use of that term and undermines the trust that con-
sumers have come to place in other organic-labeled
foods, says the Consumers Union.
source: Acres, USA, December, 2005
Physicians Plus Insurance Corp. wants you
to eat your kohlrabi. And they are willing to
pay you $100 or $200 to do it.
The Madison, WI-based insurance companys
pioneering Eat Healthy Rebate, which began this
week, encourages its 95,000 members in Dane and
eight surrounding counties to join the community
supported agriculture (CSA) movement. Member-
ships can run $300 to $700 for a season and thats
where Physicians Plus comes in. The insurance
companys new initiative, part of its Good Health
Bonus program, subsidizes CSA memberships, in
some cases cutting the cost by more than half.
Boy, that changes the economics, said Richard
de Wilde, who has been running Harmony Valley
Farm in Viroqua since 1984 and is one of the areas
largest CSA farmers, providing boxes to about 700
families. A weekly produce share from Harmony
Valley, a total of 30 boxes delivered from May
through October, runs $675. But the every-other-
week share, 15 boxes, is $380. With the Eat Healthy
Rebate - $100 for single policyholders and $200 for
families - it can reduce the every-other-week share
to a mere $180 for a family. (To fnd out more about
the program, visit www.pplusic.com).
source: January 6, 2006, The Capital Times (Madi-
son, WI)
Food Costs Still Shrinking in Family Budgets
The average America family spent a little over
$40,000 on goods and services in 2003. Of each
dollar spent 13 paid for food, as opposed to 32 in
1950 and 43 in 1901. To make matters worse, of
that 13 a little over 40% is spent eating out!
source: CT NOFA Gleanings, Fall, 2005
Roundup Extremely Lethal to Amphibians
University of Pittsburgh biologist Rick Relyea
has found that the herbicide Roundup, applied ac-
cording to the manufacturers recommended dosag-
es, caused a 70% decline in amphibian biodiversity
and an 86% decline in total mass of tadpoles. Only
one species of frog, the spring peepers, was unaf-
fected. Nobody would have guessed Roundup was
going to be so lethal to amphibians, he observed.
source: The Rams Horn, April-May 2005
Iowa County to Serve Local Organic Food
Woodbury County, Iowa has mandated its food
service contractor to purchase local organic food
for meals served in the jail and juvenile detention
center. Local is defned as grown and processed
within 100 miles of Sioux City. The county expects
savings from reduced transportation expenses and
bulk sales to keep overall costs competitive with
what they have paid in the past.
source: Organic Business News, January, 2006
UNH to Establish Organic Dairy Farm
The University of New Hampshire will be the
frst land-grant university to have an organic diary
farm. Located on a 200-acre parcel of certifed land
at the schools Burley-Demeritt Farm, the project
will cost an estimated $1.5 million and serve as an
applied research center for integrated organic pro-
duction as well as an education center for organic
and transitional dairy farmers.
source: Organic Broadcaster, Jan/Feb 2006
Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks,
Study Finds
The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat
diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart dis-
ease has found that the diet has no effect. The $415
million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women
ages 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years.
In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the
same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart at-
tacks and strokes as those who ate whatever they
pleased, researchers are reporting today.
These studies are revolutionary, said Dr.
Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rock-
efeller University in New York City, who has spent
a lifetime studying the effects of diets on weight
and health. They should put a stop to this era of
thinking that we have all the information we need to
change the whole national diet and make everybody
healthy.
The study, published in The Journal of the
American Medical Association, was not just an
ordinary study, said Dr. Michael Thun, who directs
epidemiological research for the American Cancer
Society. It was so large and so expensive, Dr. Thun
said, that it was the Rolls-Royce of studies. We
usually have only one shot at a very large-scale
trial on a particular issue. As such, he added, it is
likely to be the fnal word.
source: February 8, 2006, New York Times
State Food Safety Laws in Danger
A bill is pending in the United States House of
Representatives that would eliminate dozens of
food safety laws. The bill, H.R. 4167, does this by
stripping away the power of states to regulate food
safety. Under the guise of promoting uniformity
of food safety laws in the U.S., the bill requires all
state food safety laws to be identical to the require-
ments of the Federal Food and Drug Administra-
tion. If the FDA has not passed a regulation on a
food threat, then all state regulations on that threat
would immediately be voided. The uniformity to
be achieved by the bill is in many instances the uni-
form absence of food safety regulation that the food
industry seeks. There are currently 226 co-sponsors
in the House of Representatives to pass the bill in
the House, so every letter is needed to ensure that
these Representatives understand what a bad bill
this is.
source: Center for Food Safety at http://ga3.org/
campaign/fooduniformity_national
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 7
Virginia Bill Would Ban Outdoor Poultry
Production
A bill fled in Virginia, HR982, purports to con-
trol live bird markets by banning outdoor produc-
tion of poultry. But there are no live bird markets in
Virginia and opponents believe that its real purpose
is to clamp down on independent poultry producers.
Mark Kastel, farm policy analyst at the Cornucopia
Institute, noted that it was no coincidence that the
bill was being pushed by the Del-Mar-Va Poultry
industry, a giant industrial poultry cooperative, and
by the states Agribusiness Council and the Farm
Bureau. Nothing would make the huge poultry
confnement operators happier than to squelch an
increasingly popular competitor that consumers
are focking to, Kastel added. Consumers have
discovered that the purveyors of organic and direct-
market eggs and poultry raised in healthy, outdoor
conditions offer a superior-tasting product, and that
scares the huge confnement operations. Organic
and sustainable farming advocates are concerned
that this legislative initiative in Virginia is just the
frst in a battle that will spread to statehouses around
the nation.
source: Cornucopia Institute press release, Feb. 10,
2006
Organic
Industry
Spotlight:
Jim Riddle Takes Job with University of
Minnesota
Lamberton, Minn. The University of Min-
nesotas Southwest Research and Outreach Center
(SWROC) has been a leader in the study of organic
agriculture and ecology for over 15 years. Now Jim
Riddle is joining the SWROC staff as organic agri-
culture coordinator.
Riddles experience in the feld of organic
agriculture extends over 25 years. He began farm-
ing organically in 1980 and conducting organic
inspections in 1987. In the early 1990s, he became
involved with various government agencies and pri-
vate organizations that establish organic standards
and policy, including the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movement.
Since 2001, Riddle has served on the National
Organic Standards Board. From 2003 to 2004, he
held an endowed chair position in agricultural sys-
tems for the University of Minnesota. He is a fre-
quent speaker at organic farming conferences and
feld days.
Jim brings a national and international reputa-
tion for his work on national organic standards to
SWROC. He has a vast and valuable knowledge of
the practical application of organic systems, said
Pauline Nickel, SWROC head.
Im looking forward to the opportunity to bring
more exposure to the good work that the University
of Minnesota is doing in this feld, commented
Riddle. Its an exciting time to be involved in the
growth of the organic market.
source: SWROC press release, January 9, 2006
John Cleary Joins Organic Valley/CROPP
Cooperative
photo courtesy Organic Valley/CROPP
John Cleary
New England organic industry veteran John
Cleary has joined Organic Valley Family of Farms/
CROPP as the cooperatives New England Regional
Pool Coordinator. In his new post, Cleary will pro-
vide outreach, education and support to current and
prospective organic farmer members of the Organic
Valley cooperative. In addition to holding regular
educational workshops and organizing hands-on
barn meetings, Cleary will participate in a wide
range of dairy industry events and make personal
farm visits to interested farmers who want to learn
more about how they can participate in the growing
organic dairy market.
Cleary comes to his new post with extensive
leadership experience in the organic community of
New England. Most recently he served as Certif-
cation Director of the Vermont Organic Farmers
L.L.C, owned by NOFA-VT, where he was respon-
sible for the annual organic certifcation of over 380
Vermont farms, including over 100 organic dairy
farms. He simultaneously served as the Technical
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 8
Assistance Coordinator of the Vermont chapter of
NOFA, where he oversaw all aspects of NOFA-VTs
technical assistance programs for farmers and pro-
cessors. For the past several years, he has focused
on helping dairy farms make the transition to or-
ganic- providing fnancial planning and production
assistance. His background also includes work as an
independent organic certifcation inspector for vari-
ous agencies, farm manager, and Watershed Resto-
ration Specialist, Vermont Conservation Corp.
An organic farmer, Cleary operates Lucky La-
dies Organic Eggs/Cleary Family Farm, a 600-hen
laying operation and direct market diversifed live-
stock farm. He is a member of the UVM Extension
Advisory Board, the UNH Organic Dairy Advisory
Board and the Vermont Department of Agriculture
Dairy Task Force. He is the Board President and a
Founding Member of the National Accredited Cer-
tifers Association. Additional affliations include
the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture,
where he is a member of the Policy Committee.
Cleary can be contacted at 1-888-444-6455 ext.
330 or 612-803-9087 (cell) or via e-mail at john.
cleary@organicvalley.coop.
source: CROPP press release, February 7, 2006
Organic Valley Launches Generation Or-
ganic
Generation Organic, a campaign to save the
family farmer from extinction by bringing new
farmers into organic agriculture, was announced by
Organic Valley Family of Farms, Americas larg-
est cooperative of organic farmers and one of the
countrys leading national organic brands.
Generation Organic is the Endangered Spe-
cies Protection Act for the American family farmer.
U.S. farmers have disappeared from the land at the
rate of 195 per day for 70 years. We have worked
to protect the bald eagle and the grizzly bear. Now
its time to save the family farmer. The health of our
food, our environment and our future generations
is at stake, said Travis Forgues, 32, the Organic
Valley dairy farmer from Alburg, Vermont whose
concern for the future of family farming gave rise to
Generation Organic, or Gen-O.
Forgues announced a fve point Gen-O Agen-
da for developing the next generation of organic
farmers:
1. Save the family farmer, an endangered species.
2. Keep diversity in agriculture.
3. Preserve farmer wisdom and knowledge.
4. Unify rural and urban communities.
5. Offer hope for a safe and healthy future.
Organic Valley has spearheaded a full program
of Gen-O initiatives to nurture the next generation
of organic farmers and will be adding more in the
year to come. Offerings include a nationwide pro-
gram of barn meetings and organic educational
workshops, a farmers speakers bureau, web resourc-
es, educational literature, a farmers hotline, fnancial
and technical support for farmers transitioning to
organic, partnerships with university-based farmer
training programs, organic school curriculum, a
farmer ambassador program to heighten public
awareness of organic farmers and, starting in 2006,
an organic farmer mentoring and internship pro-
gram.
Organic Valley 2005 Fact Sheet
Number of U.S. farmers: 6.8 million in 1935; 1.8
million in 2004
Number of U.S. organic farmers: 10,000 (accord-
ing to Organic Farmers Research Foundation)
Percentage of U.S. organic farmers in Organic
Valley cooperative: 7.23 percent
Number of Organic Valley Farmers: 723 in 23
states, 2005; 361 in 15 states, 2002
Organic Valley farmers by region: East (157);
Midwest (621); West (41)
Organic Valley new farmers by region: East (13);
Midwest (83); West (9)
Organic Valley farmers by type or pool: Dairy,
533; Produce, 86; Egg, 57; Beef, 36; Pork, 8; Broil-
er, 1; Juice, 1 cooperative representing 14 farmers;
Soy, 1 cooperative representing 12 farmers
Organic Valley new farmers by type or pool:
Dairy (81); Egg (5); Produce (31); Beef (12); Pork
(2)
Age of U.S. farmers: 37% 55 years or older, 1954;
61% 55 years or older, 1997
Age of Organic Valley farmers (2005): 27%, 40
years or less; 48.5%, 45 years or less; 67%, 50 years
or less.
Organic Valley Average Farmer Pay Price per
Hundredweight: $21.80, 2005; $20.69, 2004;
$20.27, 2003; $20.00, 2002
Conventional Average Farmer Pay Price per
Hundredweight: $15.35, 2005; $16.47, 2004;
$12.43, 2003; $12.02, 2002
Organic Valley/Conventional Average Farmer
Pay Price per Hundredweight by Region: North-
west $22.39/16.25; California, $21.07/13.40; Texas,
$22.27/13.89; Colorado, $21.84/15.46; Midwest,
$20.91/15.38; Ohio & Indiana, $21.53/15.28; North-
east $23.48/15.19
Organic Valley Sales: $285 million, 2006; $245
million, 2005; $208 million, 2004
(Figures in parentheses are based on farmer mem-
berships, not individual farmer members.)
source: Organic Valley press release, Dec. 19, 2005
OTA Hires New Executive Director
photo courtesy OTA
Caren Wilcox
The Board of Directors of the Organic Trade As-
sociation (OTA), has announced the hiring of Caren
Wilcox as OTAs next executive director. The board
anticipates that OTA will continue to thrive as an
organization and that Caren will build on the strong
foundation established by OTAs frst executive di-
rector, Katherine DiMatteo.
Caren has extensive experience in agriculture
and public policy, and has served in both the execu-
tive and legislative branches of the U.S. govern-
ment. Caren has handled food safety and quality
issues, rural development matters, and environ-
mental issues throughout her career. She was the
frst Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and has served
as a senior advisor to the Ranking Member on the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee
of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee where
she worked on such issues as sustainability, food
security, specialty crops and water and energy. Dur-
ing her work at the USDA, she became very famil-
iar with the National Organic Standards. All in all,
her career has given her unique insights into a wide
range of organizational and management issues and
the interaction of the public and private sectors.
Caren is looking forward to working closely
with Katherine from March until the end of June, so
OTA members can expect a smooth transition as the
organization moves forward through this next phase
of development.
source: Organic Trade Association letter, February
1, 2006
Julie Rawson
The 150 to 175 adult workshops are the heart and
soul of the NOFA Summer Conference. This job
calls for a person who is able to understand the
equal importance of a home birth workshop and
one on national organic policy, on seed saving and
on food allergies, on hands on milking and how
to facilitate our families working together. It is
essential to be constantly open to new ideas and new
faces in our workshop line up and also honor the
immense gift that some of our long term presenters
have given the NOFA public for all of these years.
There has to be equal time given to all of the state
chapter areas.

The workshop coordinator has be a person who is
willing to say no, willing to say yes, has scrupulous
integrity about how people and topics are chosen, is
able to set and keep deadlines and also hold others
to deadlines.

Here is a rough timeline for the job. Start looking
for workshops at the previous conference and
keep up the search through the end of January. In
January and February it is important to set up and
manage a database, and an email list. On February
15 presenters get their forms to fll out with a turn
around by early March. By the end of March a
program is set up with times and locations and all
of the workshop information is entered and edited
to be sent off to the publications coordinator.
Registration information is sent to presenters in mid
to late April, a follow-up letter in July and then on
site management at the conference all the while
keeping an eye out for new workshops for the next
year.

The Workshop Coordinator must attend all of the
6 or 7 NOFA Summer Conference Committee
meetings which are held on Sundays and run for 5
to 8 hours, depending. These meetings are all held
in Mass, but you neednt be a Massachusetts NOFA
member

Remuneration: $3,500, free registration, 2 meals,
free housing at the conference and the opportunity
to work with an amazing conference committee to
continues to put on one of the best conferences on
organic farming in the country. The deadline for
application to this job is April 1. The person who
is hired will be expected to attend the remainder of
the 2006 conference committee meetings: April 30,
June 4 and July 30 and attend the conference as a
staff person with all the above listed benefts, but
without pay.

I will work closely with this person in 2007 to
train him/her. We are looking for a several year
commitment for this position.

Send your resume and three references (letters are
great) to Julie Rawson, NOFA Summer Conference
Coordinator, 411 Sheldon Road, Barre, MA 01005,
email: julie@nofamass.org (email applications
preferred). Questions, call Julie at (978) 355-2853
or email.
Seeking New 2007
NOFA Summer
Conference
Workshop
Coordinator
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 9
Special Supplement on
Who Owns Organic?
by Grace Gershuny
My friend Joe Smillie was the keynote speaker
at a NOFA-VT Winter Conference sometime in
the eighties, and opened his talk by saying Ive
got good news and bad news. The good news is:
Success! Organic is growing and spreading, more
people are buying organic food, and more farms are
converting. The bad news is: Success...The big
guys are noticing us, and looking for ways to cash
in on the organic image.
We have come a lot farther down the road to success
since then, and Joes words continue to ring true.
The charge he gave us that day was to begin to take
ourselves seriously, and to be willing to work with
anyone who was ready to play by the rules. Joe
and I were both heavily involved in setting those
rulesat the time, I was running the NOFA-VT
certifcation program, and we had worked together
to develop the frst set of comprehensive guidelines
for organic certifcation on behalf of OFPANA (the
Organic Foods Production Association of North
America), which is now known as OTA (the Organic
Trade Association).
It was a pivotal time in many waysthere was
already talk of Federal regulation of the organic
label, along with fear of that eventuality. It was
the beginning of referring to an organic industry,
and competition was growing among certifers,
sectors of the trade and regions of the country.
There was also the classic clash between farmers
and middlemen, recreating the same exploitive
economic relationships that characterize the
conventional food system.
Within OFPANA at this time a debate was raging
over the basis for organic standards. Farmers
generally (and NOFA in particular) supported the
idea that an organic label refers to the process by
which a product is produced. That process entails
principles such as ecological harmony, soil health,
and minimizing dependence on nonrenewable
energy as well as external inputsespecially
petrochemical ones. Meanwhile, the manufacturers
and marketing people were pitching the organic
label as meaning food you can trust--clean, pure,
and chemical free. To them, consumers belief that
organic meant no synthetics was sacrosanct.
This debate came to be known as origin of
materials versus agronomic responsibility. One
side thought that organic is a process based on
proper care of the soil and other ecologically sound
agronomic practices, and not a claim about product
quality. The other side, while they acknowledged
that no synthetic chemicals was not an accurate
characterization of organic practices or products,
believed that the basis for organic standards should
Organic At The Crossroads:
Revolution or Elite Niche Market?
clearly outlaw the use of synthetic substances, but
make exceptions for those that were considered
benign. Besides, consumers could never understand
the nuances of agronomic responsibility.
Position papers were written, and the membership
of the young trade association was polled. By a
slim margin, the vote was for origin of materials.
The guidelines that Joe and I had crafted to give
central prominence to the principle of agronomic
responsibility had to be reshaped so that the central
question became whether or not a synthetic material
was used. In my opinion, it is this decision that has
come back to bite us all, and continues to limit the
potential of organic agriculture to revolutionize the
food system.
Today, we are strangling organic producers in a
quagmire of red tape and picky questions about
things like food contact substances. Crusaders
are drumming up outrage over weakening the
standards, sounding the alarm that nefarious
agribusiness interests have taken over and want to
make it so anything goes. The purity of organic
food is their main concern, and the possibility that
an organic product might be contaminated in some
way their biggest fear. They also complain that the
same interests are squeezing out small producers,
and stealing the organic label that the pioneers of
the movement worked so hard to establish.
As organic food (and fber) continues to gain
momentum in the mainstream, among the central
questions are these: Should consumers dictate the
standards that organic farmers must live with? Is
raising the standards the solution to preventing
agribusiness from taking over? And fnally, what
are the bigger goals of the organic agendato
protect an elite niche market from too many new
entrants, or to increase the number of acres, animals,
farm workers and earthworms that are organically
managed? I think you can tell, by the way I phrased
that question, what my own opinion is.
Protecting Organic Integrity and the Myth of
Higher Standards
When I came to work at the NOP in 1994, the frst
thing they asked me to do was to write a defnition
of organic. When I stopped laughing, this is what
I put at the top of a page: The only thing I know
for sure is not organic is dogmatism. That motto
continues to guide my advocacy for an organic
approach to just about everything.
There has been a lot of talk about keeping standards
high, which is seen as the means to protect organic
integrity. Although this seems to make sense, there
Photo courtesy of Organic Trade Association www.ota.com
OTA members prepare to visit legislative offces as part of OTAs
Bring Your Legislator to Work Month, Fall 2005. One goal of the day is to let legislators
know how important organic agriculture and production is in their districts.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 10
is a fundamental confict between organic principles
and the kind of rigidity characterized by high
standards. There is a similar clash between organic
principles and the concept of purity. Something
that is pure is, above all, homogeneous
uncontaminated by diversity (think of white sugar,
once preferred as free from impurities). And
diversity, as everyone agrees, is integral to the
meaning of organic.
I continue to use the word higher in quotes
because there is also a disconnect between organic
principles, which understand that nature works in
cycles, and the linear world view of high versus
low. There may be certain lines that cant be
crossed, but most of the decisions fall into the vast
gray area. Even the distinction between synthetic
and non-synthetic is not as clear and bright as
most people assume. My attempts to help organic
manufacturers comply with the post-Harvey (and
pre-OTA amendment) landscape by reclassifying
substances currently deemed to be synthetic
underlined for me the fuzziness of that distinction.
Synthetic, after all, also refers to a process by
which a substance is created, not to any inherent
quality of the substance.
Misconceptions are also rampant about different
types of regulations and standards and what they are
supposed to do. Most environmental and consumer
activists are accustomed to standards that regulate
environmental contamination and health hazards,
which most certainly should be as strict and high
as possible. Their purpose is to protect us from
pollution of all kinds, with the goal of keeping toxic
substances out of our air, water, and food.
Organic standards are an entirely different animal.
While they do have a consumer protection function,
it is not protection from contaminants but protection
from mislabeling. The major purpose of having
consistent national standards in this case is that of
market development. This is also true for product
standards; industries typically work with regulators
to make sure that grades are consistently applied
to products such as butter, textiles, potatoes and
peanuts. They want these standards to be strict, not
so much to protect the public, but in order to keep
inferior or nonconforming goods out of the market,
and thus maintain prices.
Consumers generally have no role in setting these
kinds of standards, although consumer expectations
are an important consideration. Consumers expect
accurate information about the grade of a product,
since higher grades often cost morefancy apples
are free from blemishes, for example. That said,
I believe that consumers should have some role in
organic standard development. But, if consumer
perceptions are based on inaccurate information,
they should not be accepted as an immutable fact of
life, but regarded as an opportunity to educate the
public about the real benefts of organic agriculture.
In the case of organic, and any process-based
standards, stricter does not generally translate into
benefts to consumers or environment. It translates
mainly into increased barriers to new entrants,
and disincentives to those who wish to remain. It
also creates abundant new job opportunities for
people like me, who help generate the bureaucratic
procedures needed to enforce these rules, and help
people make sense out of them (if there is any).
In general, stricter standards work against the small,
family operation, whether it is a farm or a processor.
Big companies have compliance staffs to make sure
they are meeting all the requirements of myriad
Photo provided by Organic Trade Association www.ota.com
Massachusetts Congressman John Olver and OTAs Policy Associate Beth Fraser
talk about organic agriculture and production over heirloom tomatoes.
types of certifcations their customers demand of
them. They are not interested in lower barriers
for new entrants to the market, and mostly want to
make sure the prices for their niche organic product
remain high enough to cover the extra expense of
ingredients and certifcation. In my experience in
organic certifcation and on the NOP staff, it was
usually the small, independent folks who felt they
needed the rules bent to accommodate their needs.
The mythical pressure from agribusiness to dilute
or weaken organic standards is, in my experience,
fctional (and often happened in reversethe big
players advocated for stricter standards).
The Way Forward
The attacks and smear campaign that characterized
the debate surrounding the Harvey lawsuit and
legislative amendment sponsored by OTA has
violated the spirit of organic. It has probably
also confused consumers, and engendered some
unwarranted distrust of the organic label. I am not
claiming that the process is always working, or
that it cant be improved. However, the politics of
polarization, painting the world as us and them,
and staging all-out attacks on them is a recipe for
global catastrophe, and a poison that has infected
the world of organic advocacy.
Heres what I think you, as an informed organic
producer or homesteader can do to keep organic
moving in the right direction. First, be skeptical
about pronouncements from self-proclaimed
upholders of organic integrity, and learn the facts for
yourself. Educate yourself and your customers about
what organic really means, and promote its real
benefts, not faith-based claims of purity and safety.
There is no place on earth that is not contaminated
in some way.
Support efforts to involve more people in food
production, and to encourage local food systems.
Food security, food sovereignty, and all similar
movements to decentralize the food system are
critically important, and should not be seen as
competing with an organic industry that many think
has become too mass-production oriented. While
I personally grow most of my own vegetables and
chicken, I still want to buy organic coffee and
bananas, which I know supports small farmers and
benefts the environment in tropical countries.
Dont expect or demand that the organic label
solve all the problems of a corporate dominated,
globalized food system. Pursue social justice goals
vigorously, through fair trade schemes and political
action, but dont pile them onto organic standards.
All it will do is reduce the possibility that organic
will become the dominant system of agriculture in
our lifetime.
Grace Gershuny is widely known in the alternative
agriculture movement as an organizer, educator,
author and consultant. In the seventies and eighties
she market gardened and worked for the Northeast
Organic Farming Association (NOFA) in many
capacities, including developing its frst organic
certifcation program, and was a founding member
of the Organic Trade Association. She has written
extensively on soil management and composting,
including The Soul of Soil, coauthored with Joe
Smillie, and edited Organic Farmer: The Digest of
Sustainable Agriculture for its four year existence.
From 1994-99 she served on the staff of USDAs
National Organic Program, and was a principal
author of its frst, much maligned proposed rule.
She now consults for the organic industry (including
OTA), does some inspections and a little teaching,
and is working on a book about the real meaning
of organic. She still grows most of her own veggies
(organically of course) at her homestead in Barnet,
VT.
Biodynamics,
the oldest non-chemical agricultural movement, seeks to
actively work with health-giving forces of nature. Join with
us in the renewal of agriculture, health, and nutrition. To
support our efforts, consider an annual membership, which
includes a subscription to the quarterly BIODYNAMICS and
discounts on our books and conferences. Membership cost is
$45.00. To receive an information packet and a copy of our
book catalog, please call, write or e-mail us at:
BIODYNAMICS
Working for Social Renewal Through Agriculture
autumn 2005 number 254
Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association
25844 Butler Road, Junction City OR 97448
(541)998-0105; fax: (541)998-0106; biodynamic@aol.com; www.biodynamics.com
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 11
by Emily Brown Rosen
It seems like there is always a new crossroads
being encountered in the recent history of
organic regulations and growth. Starting in
1989, the organic community struggled with the
initial drafting and passage of the Organic Food
Production Act, then through the early years of
debates about standards with the NOSB, then the
various versions of the proposed regulations (Save
Organic Standards!) Accreditation of certifers
began in 2001, then implementation of the rules
occurred with much anxiety in 2002, a rider to the
law was added and repealed in 2003 (the chicken
feed fasco), and directives were issued by NOP
and retracted in 2004. Now we have had to face
a major change brought on by the Harvey lawsuit
and suddenly, an industry generated change to the
original law. Sometimes it seems like we must be
turning in the same direction each time we come
to the proverbial crossroad, and ending in the
same place, as these same arguments are recycled.
But despite all the turmoil, the organic industry is
thriving and growing, because organic food really
is a good idea, consumers do want to buy it, and
because there is an active community that really
cares about maintaining strong standards to provide
a clear defnition of what is organic.
We can all agree that the basic principles of organic
agriculture, and the whole idea of organic integrity
are much bigger than the laws and regulations that
have been crafted to try and defne organic systems.
As a person who has been involved in efforts to
help craft, interpret and enforce the details of the
organic regulations over the last 15 years I can
wholeheartedly agree that no regulation, no set of
rules, or list of materials can really do justice to the
vision of ecological agriculture that we all hold is
such high esteem. Grace Gershuny did an excellent
job writing the defnition of organic production that
is now ensconced in the NOP rule:
A production system that is managed to
respond to site-specifc conditions by integrating
cultural, biological, and mechanical practices
that foster cycling of resources, promote
ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.
It has always been a challenge to translate this
holistic vision into a workable set of regulations,
without putting rigid limits around what should be
based on a natural system, evolving and changing
and adapting to the specifc situations that each farm
and microclimate demands. For this reason, many
organic farmers do not wish to be certifed. They
prefer not to be constricted in decision-making or
bound by rules that do not seem appropriate or that
they cant have control over this is their choice
to make. There is room for all different types of
positive marketing claims, but for those working on
organic rules, the charge has been to try to keep the
organic claim meaningful, and true to the vision.
Once the decision was made to set up a national
system of organic standards, a workable method
was needed. The suggestion that the whole basis
of our system relies on an artifcial distinction
between what is natural and what is synthetic is
overly simplistic. The wishful idea of agronomic
responsibility as sole criterion for organic
standards sounds good, kind of like sustainable
agriculture has a nice ring to it, but what does this
really mean when you try and decide what is or is
not allowed. Is every choice site-specifc to every
farm? Is just a little bit of Roundup on the fencerow
ok? Who gets to make the decision that a practice
is responsible? Faced with this diffculty, we now
have a set of rules based on verifying the process
of production, that also include as a basic premise,
the reliance on natural systems and materials with
some specifc exemptions created for synthetic
substances. These exemptions are permitted based
on a set of criteria that ask questions about the
ecological and yes, the responsible nature of these
materials. Rather than blame this evolution of our
standards on the fact that consumers could never
understand the nuances of agronomic responsibility
we should acknowledge our own responsibility for
drawing some lines in the sand. A set of standards
must be understandable, consistent and enforceable
if it is to be meaningful as a marketing claim.
Precise rules and consistent certifcation decisions,
along with competent accreditation are not merely
a quagmire of red tape and picky standards but
actually are the mortar and bricks needed to assure
the consumer is in fact getting what they expect.
Yes, consumers should be a huge part of the input
on what the standards are. Disrespecting the voice
of the consumer will mean loss of the consumer.
More education is always needed, especially about
the actual methods and environmental benefts
provided by organic systems, but one must give
the consumers credit for their choices and work to
include them as stakeholders in the standards setting
process.
There is a false choice being offered that one
must either be a purist obsessed with minute
details of rules, and determined to protect an elite
niche market, or that one is instead a big picture
environmentalist, dedicated to vastly increasing
the acreage of organic crops and livestock, and
providing organic food for all. This overlooks
a very real possibility, that if the confdence in
meaningful organic rules is lost, or organic food is
seen by consumers to represent no real difference or
improvement from conventional food production,
the opportunities for converting this vast acreage
will be lost. Without careful vigilance and
commitment to strong standards, everyone loses.
What was the Fight About? Should We Really
Care?
Now that we have a new OFPA, what does it all
mean? Were the changes really that damaging or is
all the noise overblown? Why should anyone care
about picky subjects like the mysterious food
contact substances? Although one may consider
the details fussy, insignifcant, (or worse, incredibly
boring), in the organic spirit of educating us all
about what is in our organic food, here is a synopsis
of the issues at stake.
Synthetics Allowed in Food Processing
When OFPA was originally debated back in 1989,
there was a lot of question about whether any
synthetics should be allowed at all. Farmers insisted
they needed some synthetic materials that were
traditionally used, such as copper, sulfur, soaps,
oils, vitamins and minerals for animal feed, etc.
Environmental groups who were key partners is
supporting this legislation did not want to create
unlimited allowance for synthetic substances, so
a list of categories was inserted to create some
boundaries (see section 6517(c)(1)(B)). Despite
some prodding, those representing the processing
interests did not want to add a similar set of limited
categories for use of synthetics and specifcally
excluded any synthetics from use in processed
foods. This was back in the day of natural foods,
remember, and the thinking at the time was that
organic foods should in fact be completely natural,
and there were relatively few organic processed
products on the market. As time went on, and more
organic processed food became popular, including
breakfast cereals, beverages, snack foods and yes,
frozen dinners, it became clear that the initial no
synthetics stance meant it would be very diffcult
to manufacture any organic processed food. The
NOSB argued about this topic, but went ahead and
voted to allow a specifc list of synthetic materials,
with the idea that USDA would advise them if this
was not feasible. A signifcant minority of those
paying attention at the time felt that the inclusion
of synthetics was inconsistent with OFPA, but this
view did not get much traction. The USDA included
the list of synthetics for processing into the fnal
regulations, which led to the inevitable lawsuit, with
the ruling in favor of Arthur Harvey.
Now, there were many possibilities for how to deal
with this problem faced by organic processors, but
instead we now have to deal with a change to the
law that was inserted quickly, with no opportunity
for discussion or adjustment. Supposedly, the
changes to section 6510 and 6517 will simply
provide authority for the existing NOP regulations
that permit synthetics and little will change (see the
sidebar on next page for text of changes). Rather
than add a new section of categories, similar to
The Devil is in the Details: or
Why Organic Standards Matter
photo by Emily Brown Rosen
Five Movers and Shakers in the Organic World: from left, USDAs Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) Deputy Administrator Barbara Robinson, Dave Carter (past chair NOSB),
AJ Yates (former Administrator of AMS), OTA Executive Director Katherine DiMatteo, and
Margaret Wittenber, Vice President of Whole Foods at the NOP roll-out, October 21, 2002
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 12
the restrictions that organic crop and livestock
farmers must live with, this change simply deletes
the phrase the substance is used in handling and
is non-synthetic but is not organically produced.
The court ruled in January 2005 that this phrase
specifcally prohibited all synthetic ingredients and
processing aids (substances used in handling that
do not end up in the fnal product). The law has
now gone from a total prohibition on synthetics in
processing, to an unrestricted allowance that is not
consistent with the way synthetics are restricted for
crop and livestock production.
The court ruling could have been seen as an
opportunity to improve and clearly defne the
limited allowance for synthetics that the NOSB has
supported over the years, but in the rush to fx the
problem, there was no thought for this. The criteria
NOSB developed to restrict synthetics in processing
could have been added to the OFPA, but this was
not done. These criteria will likely remain in the
regulations (205.600(b)) but as currently worded
do not even apply to ingredients, just processing
aids and adjuvants. This means ingredients that
are used to create texture, convenience, or used
as preservatives may be allowed. Some additives
have already been proposed and are awaiting
fnal rulemaking for example tetrasodium
pyrophosphate has been proposed to provide
texture for dough used in texturized vegetable
protein products. Sodium acid pyrophosphate has
been recommended as leavening for slow-rising
refrigerated doughnuts. This raises a bigger picture
question, what is organic processed food supposed
to be? Must we have organic doughnuts made from
refrigerated dough that can be stored for weeks?
Should organic food travel down this slippery slope
toward allowing all FDA approved food additives?
I am sure most in the industry would say no, but this
amendment gives us very few tools to work with to
prevent this from happening.
The picky questions about food contact
substances arise from the fact that USDA has
already chosen to endorse a policy statement that
redefnes the term ingredient for the purposes
of organic food. The NOP stated in 2002 that
ingredients only include limited classes of FDA
approved food additives, that large numbers do not
have to be reviewed and included on the National
List, including those considered food contact
substances, which also meet the defnition of
processing aids. The FDA publishes a huge list,
continually enlarging, of chemicals considered
food contact substance, which FDA claims do not
have a technical effect in the food product. These
include antimicrobials that may be added to juice,
preservatives and slimicides added to packaging,
and many, many more. The fact that the OFPA
amendment specifcally allows synthetic ingredients
in processed foods (section 6510), and no longer
refers to synthetic substances that are prohibited,
appears to open the door for USDA to continue
this misguided interpretation of the defnition of
ingredient.
There are likely to be further legal debates about the
actual results of this amendment. The amendment
did not change a key provision in section 6504,
which states that no synthetic chemicals, other than
those permitted may be used, and this combined
with the change in 6510 may have the unintended
effect of prohibiting any processing aids. This kind
of ambiguity, along with the fact that there was no
public discussion or report of Congressional intent
issued, will likely cause further disagreements
down the road, surely an outcome that could have
been avoided, given a more public vetting of the
language.
Commercial Availability
The Court ruled in the Harvey suit that all non-
organic ingredients must appear on the National
List, including the agricultural ingredients not
commercially available used in 5% of a product
labeled organic. The amendment language now
states that the Secretary of Agriculture may
develop emergency procedures for designating
agricultural products that are commercially
unavailable in organic form for placement on the
National List for a period of time not to exceed
12 months. Previously this decision was made
Changes to the Organic Food Production Act,
November 2005.
(underlined words were added, deletions are struck
out)
6504 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR
ORGANIC PRODUCTION.
To be sold or labeled as an organically produced
agricultural product under this chapter, an
agricultural product shall
(1) have been produced and handled without
the use of synthetic chemicals, except as
otherwise provided in this chapter; [no changes
to this section]
6510 HANDLING
(a) In General. For a handling operation to be
certifed under this chapter, each person on such
handling operation shall not, with respect to any
agricultural product covered by this chapter
(1) add any synthetic ingredient not
appearing on the National List during the
processing or any post harvest handling of the
product;
6517 NATIONAL LIST
(a) In General. The Secretary shall establish a
National List
(b) Content of List. The list established under
subsection (a) of this section shall contain an
itemization, by specifc use or application, of each
synthetic substance permitted under subsection
(c) (1) of this section or each natural substance
prohibited under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
(c) Guidelines for Prohibitions or Exemptions.
(1) EXEMPTION FOR PROHIBITED
SUBSTANCES IN ORGANIC
PRODUCTION AND HANDLING
OPERATIONS. - The National List may
provide for the use of substances in an
organic farming or handling operation that are
otherwise prohibited under this chapter only if
-
(A) the Secretary determines, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency,
that the use of such substances
(i) would not be harmful to human
health or the environment;
(ii) is necessary to the production or
handling of the agricultural product
because of unavailability of wholly
natural substitute products; and
(iii) is consistent with organic farming
and handling;
(B) the substance
(i) is used in production and contains
an active synthetic ingredient in the
following categories: copper and
sulfur compounds; toxins derived
from bacteria; pheromones, soaps,
horticultural oils, fsh emulsions,
treated seed, vitamins and minerals;
livestock paraciticides and medicines
and production aids including netting,
tree wraps and seals, insect traps, sticky
barriers, row covers, and equipment
cleansers; or
(ii) is used in production and contains
synthetic inert ingredients that are not
classifed by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency as
inerts of toxicological concern; or and
(iii) is used in handling and is non-
synthetic but is not organically produced;
and
(C) the specifc exemption is developed
using the procedures described in subsection
(d) of this section.
(d) Procedure for Establishing National List.
[(1)- (5) describes the role of the Secretary and
NOSB in establishing the National List]
(6) EXPEDITED PETITIONS FOR
COMMERCIALLY UNAVAILABLE
ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
CONSTITUING LESS THAN 5 PERCENT
OF AN ORGANIC PROCESSED PRODUCT.
The Secretary may develop emergency
procedures for designating agricultural
products that are commercially unavailable
in organic form for placement on the National
List for a period of time not to exceed 12
months.
6509 ANIMAL PRODUCTION PRACTICES
AND MATERIALS.
(e) Additional Guidelines.
(2) Dairy Livestock
(A) IN GENERAL. Except as provided
in subparagaraph (B), dairy animal from
which milk or milk products will be sold
or labeled as organically produced shall be
raised and handled in accordance with this
chapter for not less than the 12-month period
immediately prior to the sale of such milk
and milk products.
(B) TRANSITION GUIDELINE. Crops
and forage from land included in the
organic system plan of a dairy farm that is
in the third year of organic management
may be consumed by the dairy animals
of the farm during the 12-month period
immediately prior to the sale of organic
milk and milk products.
photo by Jim Riddle
Typical packed room at a NOSB meeting, this one in Feb 2005
(continued from page 11)
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 13
by certifcation agents, so many farm groups were
particularly upset about this provision as it hands the
decision over to the Secretary, without even NOSB
review.
There has been little discussion or details provided
as to how this will work, and seems at best to be a
poor solution to the problem. This is an idea that
needed much more development before a rash
change to the Act was made that gives unrestricted
authority to the Secretary. The original OFPA
carefully limited the Secretarys authority, especially
regarding materials used in food production, and
this addition certainly breaks with that precedent.
Big Problem Looms for Dairy Transition
The new amendment allows third year transitional
feed produced on farm to be fed as organic to a herd
of animals converting with the farm, avoiding a
four-year transition (crops and then livestock). This
provision is non-controversial, and is the current
practice under the existing regulation.
The USDA remains under Court order to issue
revised rules by June 9, 2006 that eliminate
the allowance of 20% non-organic feed in the
conversion year. This limited change will result in a
huge problem, however if NOP decides to drop the
requirement for organic management of young dairy
stock once the herd is converted, which is linked to
the 20% feed allowance section in the regulation.
According to some who have discussed this with
NOP staff, the USDA is planning to do exactly that.
Some dairy processors are telling farmers now that,
after June 9, anyone can buy non-organic heifers
and transition them for 12 months into an organic
herd.
This will allow non-organic animals as
replacement stock on a continuing basis; thus
allowing confnement, the use of non-organic feed
including GMOs and slaughter products, as well
as antibiotics and other drugs for young animals.
In the Northeast, certifers have been requiring
organic management of young stock, once the herd
is initially converted since even before the 2002 rule
was implemented. This weakening of standards will
not beneft small farmers in any way; it will harm
the market for organic heifers, destroy incentive
for organic herd management, and could cause lack
of consumer confdence. It will certainly beneft
large-scale operators, who want to rapidly convert
large numbers of animals, and fnd it more effcient
and cheaper to ship off young stock for non-organic
management when young.
The NOSB has been on record since October of
2002 with a position requiring organic management
from last third of gestation once a herd has
converted to organic production. Since the OFPA
amendment opened the door on this signifcant
issue, we are now faced with another looming battle
to ask NOP to step up to the plate on this issue.
The Next Steps
The biggest lesson learned in the last year, is that we
all need to pay attention. We cant assume that the
Organic Trade Association represents all interests
of the organic community, although of course we
can work together when interests of farmers, trade,
and consumers do coincide. As the organic industry
has grown, it is time for the various sectors to step
forward and speak up. This will strengthen the
support for organics overall, when more diverse
stakeholders are consulted and included. We cant
assume that the work on standards is done, or is not
important. The public outcry over harmful proposals
has been incredibly effective in the past 5 years,
and this attention must be maintained. Despite the
noise, and sometimes dissonance created, organic
production continues to grow and thrive, in what
must be considered an organic manner!
Here is a short list of critical actions at USDA and in
Congress to plan for in the coming year:
Pasture rules will be proposed shortly, after
many years of farmer and NOSB demands for
clarifcation. A summit in State College PA on
April 18 will provide NOP and NOSB with more
expert input, to be used in crafting the fnal rule.
New rules will be issued by June on organic
dairy transition and replacement animals, and may
allow problematic loopholes for non-organic dairy
replacement animals.
Synthetic materials will continue to be
added to the rules for organic processing: insist
that careful criteria and limits are applied, that all
synthetics used in direct food contact are reviewed
by the NOSB, and that the USDA policy on food
contact substances be withdrawn.
Farm bill discussions are underway by
many groups working to include organic programs
and incentives. Strengthening of OFPA may be
needed, if USDA is unresponsive to public input
on regulation changes regarding pasture, dairy
stock, and synthetics in processing.
All NOFA members can help, by staying in touch
and providing input to their chapter leadership on
organic policy issues in the coming year.
Emily Brown Rosen is currently Secretary of the
NOFA NJ Board of Directors, member of the NOFA
Interstate policy committee, works as Materials
Manager for Pennsylvania Certifed Organic (a
USDA accredited certifer), and also operates
Organic Research Associates, a consulting company
that provides technical services on organic issues.
photo by Emily Brown Rosen
At this October, 2004 NOSB meeting CNN had a camera rolling the whole time. This is the
meeting at which the NOP announced all directives from April were rescinded.
photo by Emily Brown Rosen
NOSB chair Jim Riddle with A.J Yates, October 21, 2002, in
Whole Foods Market in Washington DC
(5 W x 8 H)
The Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance
(NODPA)
Join NODPA and support NODPAs work in
keeping organic family dairy farms in business, maintaining the integrity
of the organic standards and ensuring that accurate information is available
to everyone. NODPA is the largest organization of organic dairy farmers,
run by farmers to protect the interests of farmers
Visit our Web Site:
www.nodpa.com and www.organicmilk.org
Yes! I would like to Join NODPA and receive the quarterly
NODPA News, plus support the NODPA list serve, NODPA
web site, Action alerts, Field days and much, much more
_______ $35 covers NODPA News
_______ $50 NODPA supporter
_______ $100 Friend of NODPA
________ Other
Name:______________________________________________________
Address:_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Phone: ______________________________________________________
Email: ______________________________________________________
Make checks payable to: NODPA
Mail to: Ed Maltby,NODPA,30 Keets Rd
Deerfield, MA,01342,emaltby@comcast.net.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 14
A NOFA DREAMER
Young widower seeks organic land west of
Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts
Areas of Interest
New Salem
North New Salem
Wendell
Lake Pleasant
Montague
North Leverett
Moores Corner
Locks Village
Shutesbury
Leverett
East Leverett
Pratt Corner
Pelham
West Pelham
Dwight
Belchertown
Proposed Land Use
Orchard: diverse as possible, either es-
tablished or I will establish
Nursery: organic practices only, low
volume, high quality, non-invasive,
specimen plants
Green House: propagation of trees and
shrubs, year round salad greens
Composting Site: small scale, compost
tea brewing center
Tree and Landscape Business: small
scale, organic practices only
Log Home: environmentally conscious,
composting toilets, solar panels, etc.
Recently at the MAOLC Program, I mentioned to Julie Rawson
about my strong desire to acquire some organic land. She laughed and
said it sounds like a NOFADream. Thank you, Julie, for suggesting
the Natural Farmer.
As an Arborist, I am used to going out on a limb to get done what
needs done and I understand that entertaining the public is a natural
part of it. So, once you have had your little chuckle about my ad,
would you please consider that I have invested some hard earned
money to get your attention. I am serious about relocating to the West
Quabbin Area and marrying someone in the area.
Bottom line; I deeply appreciate all who are willing to assist me in
making this dream a reality.
Atrustworthy soul,
Kevin Stitt Home: 781-932-3828
10 Cross Street Cell: 781-983-4086
Woburn, MA01801 Email: info@organicsoilcare.com
Web Site: www.organicsoilcare.com
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 15
by Cynthia Barstow
The corporate takeover of organics? Or an opening
of the organic door to corporate? Either way you
look at it, there is little question that corporate
America is beginning to embrace the organic
standards. Most would agree with this statement
because it omits the principles and values of
organic agriculture. Big business now provides a
considerable percentage of the certifed organic
products now stocked on supermarketand many
natural groceriesshelves.
According to the 2005 Whole Foods Market
Organic Trend Tracker, 65% of Americans have
tried organic foods and beverages, jumping from
just over half (54%) in both 2003 and 2004.
Although my heart will always be with small-scale
local production, two-thirds of Americans simply
are not exposed to that farming universe. Most of
our population is witnessing the organics infux on
the shelves of their super-sized supermarkets.
The more exposure argument has been the
consistent message I have heard from Gary
Hirshberg over the years, far before his own
company moved under the rubric (but maybe not so
much control) of international corporation, Danone.
More exposure means more sales means more
organic acres. This has been my stance too. And yet,
like many others, the atrophy of organic principles
under the organic seal continues to be a concern of
mine.
The green advocate website Treehugger recently
(January 26, 2006) held an instant survey: How do
you feel about companies like Kraft and Starbucks
getting in on the organic biz? Sixty-two agreed with
the statement, It sucks; just another way to keep
small business down. Eighty-two agreed with It
is okay, you know, a necessary evil. And far ahead
of both, at three hundred and seventy: It is a great
way to bring organic products and sustainable
living to the broader public. Interestingly, one
of the comments posted by a man named Sid
suggests the internal turmoil most of us go through
when considering the issue: I agree with other
respondents that this kind of issue is just too hard to
boil down to a few pat answers. I tend to agree.
In the winter of 2002/2003, I spent an extended
period of my life on the road with The Eco-Foods
Guide: Whats Good for the Earth is Good for You.
The motivation behind writing and touring with the
book was simple: increase public awareness of the
need for a sustainable food system. I now know that
my little effort was a blip on the screen compared to
what one multi-national corporation can do with one
little can of tomatoes labeled with the organic seal.
Since that time, I have redirected my efforts to
teaching food marketing and natural products
marketing at the university in order to instill the
principles while simultaneously providing the
tools to launch new sustainable businesses. I also
work with small start-ups interested in breaking
into the natural and organic industry through my
consulting company, Seed to Shelf: Marketing
for Sustainability. Recently, however, I was asked
to speak at a national conference in San Diego to
mainstream food companies transitioning to natural
and organic products.
After spending a few days with representatives from
these big businesses, I believe there is both good
news and not-so-good news about the organic seal
being brought into the product mix of conventional
brands.
Im learning that behind many of these corporate
America facades are real people--nice people who
have a value set not that dissimilar to our own.
They are happy, albeit skeptical to be considering
the venture into organics, and most seem eager
to learn. Some of the big brands that have most
recently emerged with an organic version of their
traditional product--like ConAgras Hunts ketchup
or Campbells Prego spaghetti sauce--have actually
taken quite a leap to source organic ingredients
and rearrange or build anew processing facilities
to meet the standards. I was impressed with
the presentation from Campbells Soups Steve
DeMuri as he detailed the rather arduous venture
to bring us Campbells organic V8 and Swansons
broth. Youll pay from 15 to 300% more for your
ingredients, he said. And fnding enough supply,
such as organic basil, for us, can be quite diffcult.
Is that virtuous?
It does seem that the individuals charged with the
task of bringing organics into the company go out
on a limb in a very personal way. When you pitch
higher management numbers that will cause them
to keel over, and can still convince them it is worth
it, it does seem rather virtuous. The company may
not be considering carrying organic products for
altruistic reasons, but the individuals undertaking
the task seem dedicated.
These companies did not start with a passion to
preserve our soils, hold dear our family farms,
entrust our children with a healthy food system
instead of burdening them with one in total
disrepair. Thus, they often do not get it. The mindset
is different. Some of the individuals, as convinced
as they seemed, were also perplexed. One couldnt
understand why a strategic alliance with Monsanto
might be a negative thing. Another was curious why
I thought his wife wanted to buy this stuff?
There was little question that the motivating
factor behind the companies organic certifcation
considerations was fear of losing a customer base
that they either already have or could have down the
road. Nonetheless, it was one of the most gratifying
moments Ive known in my work when one very
large food manufacturer said clearly, this is neither
a fad nor a trend this is the way it will be in the
future. This attitude permeated the conference.
This is good news, in my opinion. It means a
pressure on the supply side, certainly. That will
be the challenge to our organic growers. But, in
its most simple expression, it means more acres
on Mother Earth grown using organic practices.
Ultimately, it means less toxicity for our children,
for our community.
And what has happened to the philosophy, the spirit
and reverence true organic farmers have brought
to their practice? Consumers dont yet really
understand the organic seal, (Natural Marketing
Institute) although they recognize it more each year
(40% are noticing the logo and labeling, according
to the 2005 Whole Trends Tracker.) Will it become
what many who started the movement declare:
nothing but a bunch of standards with none of the
value-set we all once shared?
Whos Taking Over Whom?
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 16
My guess is that the seal will be but a beginning
for other qualifers to emerge. An interesting NMI
survey result was that in 2005, 48% of the general
population sample said they were interested in
products grown using sustainable agriculture.
That these consumers know the term at all was
a surprise, since they still struggle with organic.
Yet, the terms sustainable and socially responsible
have emerged in reference to a variety of non-food
activities. This may have helped create the very
large awareness of sustainability.
So, it is quite possible that other words will be
necessary to describe a commitment to the original
and deeper meaning of organic. It means doing a
better job expressing the philosophy. Will another
eco-label emerge to trump the federal label? There
is more interest these days in whether or not
biodynamic and its Demeter certifcation will take
its place. A quick call to Jim Fuller of Demeter-USA
last week confrmed that the number of companies
looking for certifcation has grown substantially as
have requests for his presence at events to describe
biodynamic agriculture.
Does this mean deep organic growers need to
start again, developing standards that include a
philosophical component? More seals may be more
confusing to consumers. One of the most important
elements of marketing I teach my students is the
development of a brand personality: defning a
shared vision, developing values and missions
and communicating those through everything they
do. All companies need to express their value set
consistently and authentically. Of course, given the
Enrons of the world, not every one does.
Social responsibility and sustainability are moving
in, however. An interesting study done by market
research frm, Datamonitor, in December 2005,
indicates that 86% of European and U.S. consumers
agree that they have become more skeptical about
corporations in the last fve years. Nearly three-
quarters considered a good track record in business
ethics to be infuential in (re)gaining consumer
trust. This may be an indicator of future media
reports and consumer advocacy around corporate
responsibility.
For this reason, those with line extensions such as
Heinz Organic Ketchup or Gold Medal Organic
Flour feel more authentic, even though their identity
is not what most would consider principled. It
does feel more transparent than Muir Glen or Seeds
of Change, who are often perceived with a value
set which may not be in line with their corporate
owners, primarily because most consumers dont
know their new parents.
Authenticity, transparency, trustworthiness,
consistency: these are the attributes consumers
will seek. If the organic seal means simply that
certain production standards have been met, it may
be that companies will need to share their own
philosophical component additionally. This happens
already. Certainly the perception of Organic Valley
is extremely different than that of Horizon although
they both bear the organic label on their milk
cartons.
While it may be true that the original principles
of organic agriculture may not be lived by the
corporations carrying the organic seal, the increased
presence of the seal introduces more consumers to
organic production standards. As consumers approve
the practices and buy more of these products, the
number of acres under organic agriculture will
increase. Consumers will question conventional
and become more aware of a food system in need
of recovery. Their demands for authenticity and
trustworthiness will increase. A positive feedback
loop encouraging a set of principles very similar to
the original may just emerge.
So, the questions remain, but I am a little less quick
to judge. A little nave, maybe, but in the end, I
wonder whether this corporate America takeover
of organics may just be the organic takeover of
corporate America. Lets hope.
A Grower Friendly Company
1-800-544-7938
www.harrisseeds.com
355 Paul Rd., PO Box 24966, Rochester, NY 14624-0966
A12
ORGANIC & UNTREATED SEED CATALOG
FOR THE PROFESSIONAL GROWER!
For over 126 years, Harris Seeds has been supplying growers in the
Northeast with the highest quality seed and service. Located in nearby
Rochester, New York, we stand ready to prove to you that we are truly a
Grower Friendly Company!
We are the first company to offer you a selection of market-leading
organically grown hybrid vegetable varietiesvarieties that are the
preferred ones to grow in the NortheastZucchini Elite summer
squashLady Bell pepperSorcerer pumpkinMultipik summer
squashand more!
We also offer an extensive listing of untreated varieties for most
vegetable species.
Check out our big cash discounts for prepays and our grower
friendly credit terms.
We have a full staff of product specialists to assist you with all of
your growing needs.
Call us Toll Free (800-544-7938) or visit us on the web:
www.harrisseeds.comfor easy ordering.
Ask about our Ornamentals Catalog for the Professional Grower
its full of annual and perennial flower seeds and plugs and liners.
F
R
E
E
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 17
by Phil Howard
While grocery store shelves appear to provide
abundant choices, most of these products are
marketed by a small and decreasing number of
frms. Gigantic multinational corporations are
consolidating their control over our food system,
including the organic sector. The trend raises
concerns about how this power is exercised, as
most of these corporations are accountable to their
shareholders, not to the communities in which they
operate. While the situation may currently appear
bleak, corporate dominance is being challenged by
groups that have been adversely affected, such as
farmers, workers and consumers.
The Dynamics Of Consolidation
The food system can be thought of as a long chain,
with food passing through a number of steps or links
in the chain on the way from farmers to consumers,
such as food storage and processing. In 1999,
Dr. William Heffernan and his colleagues at the
University of Missouri identifed a worrying trend,
the emergence of clusters of frms that are working
to put a padlock on this chain and control it from
the gene to the supermarket shelf.
1

There are three processes by which this is occurring:
1) horizontal integration,
2) vertical integration. and
3) global expansion.
Horizontal integration refers to consolidation of
ownership and control within one stage of the
food system, such as processing, for one particular
commodity. Heffernan and colleagues have been
documenting the ratio of the market share of the
top four frms in a specifc industry compared to the
Consolidation in Food and Agriculture:
Implications for Farmers & Consumers
total market, called the concentration ratio (CR4),
since the mid-1980s. The CR4 is important because
economists suggest that when four frms control
40% of the market, it is no longer competitive.
This means that the largest frms will have a
disproportionate infuence on not just the price of
a commodity, but also the quantity, quality and
location of production. The table above shows the
CR4 ratios for a number of food commodities,
indicating the current extent of horizontal
integration. All of these ratios exceed the 40%
threshold, and have been increasing over the last
few decades.
The second process, vertical integration, involves
linking frms at more than one stage of the food
chain, such as upstream suppliers or downstream
buyers. An example would be Smithfelds
involvement in both pork production and pork
packing, as shown in the table above. Another is
ConAgra, which distributes seed, fertilizer and
pesticides; owns and operates grain elevators,
barges and railroad cars; manufactures animal feed;
produces chickens, processes chickens for sale
Concentration ratios of the top agricultural frms
2
, 2001
Beef packers (Tyson, ConAgra, Cargill, Farmland) 81%
Corn exports (Cargill-Continental Grain, ADM, Zen Noh) 81%
Soybean crushing (ADM, Cargill, Bunge, AGP) 80%
Soybean exports (Cargill-Continental Grain, ADM, Zen Noh) 65%
Flour milling (ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, General Mills) 61%
Terminal grain handling facilities (Cargill, Cenex Harvest States, ADM, General Mills) 60%
Pork packers (Smithfeld, Tyson, ConAgra, Cargill) 59%
Broilers (Tyson, Gold Kist, Pilgrims Pride, ConAgra) 50%
Pork production (Smithfeld, Premium Standard, Seaboard, Triumph) 46%
Turkeys (Hormel, ConAgra, Cargill, Pilgrims Pride) 45%
in meat cases; and further processes chickens for
frozen dinners.
The third process, global expansion, is the attempt
by agribusiness frms to increase their market share
worldwide. This is most apparent on the retail end
of the food chain, as some analysts have predicted
there may soon be only 6 global food retailers
3
. A
massive wave of mergers has been occurring in this
industry recently, spurred by the recent entry of Wal-
Mart into food retailing and its expansion to other
continents (such as South America and Europe). In
fact, Wal-Mart may be the only US based company
big enough to compete with European frms like
Carrefour, Ahold and Metro (each of which has
stores in more than 20 countries). Before Wal-Mart
became a major player in food sales the top 5 retail
chains in the US controlled less than a quarter of the
market (1997 data). Current estimates suggest that
the top 5 now share more than half the market.
Food chain clusters are formed when groups of
frms join together to control every step in the
food chain through these processes of horizontal
info@pfeiffercenter.org www.pfeiffercenter.org
845.352.5020x20 260 Hungry Hollow Road Chestnut Ridge NY 10977
Internships
Available
Organic Beekeeping
Workshop
April 28/29
APPLY NOW TO START SEPTEMBER:
One Year Part-Time Training
Biodynamic Gardening
Gardening in Education
Organic Beekeeping
Courses, Workshops
Environmental Education
and Outreach
Bread Baking
Workshop
June 10
The Pf ei f f er Cent er
Biodynamics and the
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 18
integration, vertical integration and global
expansion. The links may be through formal
or informal agreements, including mergers,
acquisitions, joint ventures or strategic alliances.
Although their boundaries are constantly shifting,
several potentially emerging clusters have been
identifed. For instance Cargill and Monsanto
form a cluster, with Monsanto providing genetic
material and seeds, and Cargill involved in grain
collection and processing, and meat production
and processing. Kroger, the largest supermarket
chain in the US, is linked to this cluster through an
agreement with Cargill to receive case-ready meat.
DuPont/ConAgra and Novartis (Syngenta)/ADM
have similar ties
4
. Although predictions are very
diffcult, based on other industries that have formed
global oligopolies rather than monopolies (such
as automobiles, pharmaceuticals and oil) there are
likely to be as few as four to six clusters worldwide.
Effects Of Consolidation
The implications of what such a system will mean
for farmers can already be seen in the poultry
industry in the US. Ninety-fve percent of chickens
produced for meat are grown under production
contracts with fewer than 40 companies. The farmer
furnishes the land and labor, and is required to
invest hundreds of thousands of dollars for buildings
and other equipment. The company provides the
chicks, feed and medicine and agrees to pay a
guaranteed price per pound. In the 1950s, when
there were more than a thousand companies, most
poultry farmers benefted from such contracts
because they were protected from price fuctuations.
Now that four vertically integrated frms control
50% of the market, the terms of the contracts are
much more favorable to the companies. Their power
is so great that some companies have been found
to systematically cheat farmers by underestimating
the weight of birds, overestimating the weight
of feed, or providing poor quality chicks or feed.
A farmer who complains is likely to have their
contract canceled and be placed on a blacklist
5
.
Although most poultry farmers are making poverty
level wages or below, without a contract they cant
pay off their mortgages and face foreclosure. Some
cynics have suggested why buy the farm when you
can own the farmer? and describe chicken farmers
as serfs who are never able to escape their debts.
Grain and vegetable growers may soon fnd
themselves in a similar situation. Genetically
engineered (GE) crops are controlled by just six
multinational corporations, and the technology
is being used as a tool to consolidate the seed
supply. Crop farmers are then being locked into
food chain clusters through bundling, or linking
patented seeds with contracts, chemicals and credit.
Monsantos Roundup Ready seeds can only be
used with Roundup herbicide, even though cheaper
versions of this herbicide are available. Pioneer
DuPont seed gives better interest rates on fnancing,
depending upon how much approved products
the farmer buys, and approved chemicals include
those from Syngenta, Bayer/Aventis, and Dow. The
precedent set with GE seeds is also being extended
by bundling chemicals and other inputs with
conventional seeds. In the UK, Syngentas hybrid
barley can only be purchased in conjunction with
the companys growth regulator and fungicides.
Consumers are also harmed by consolidation. GE
foods have been introduced into the food system
without public consent, or even public knowledge,
as recent polls have shown
6
, thus limiting the
freedom to choose non-GE products. Price gouging
is another way that food conglomerates may
exploit their increasing power. Although farm
milk prices are the lowest they have been since the
1970s, prices paid by consumers have not declined.
Consumers Union has reported high retail milk
prices at California supermarkets when compared to
smaller markets, and suggested these prices do not
follow farmer and processor costs
7
. A recent class
action lawsuit accused two major supermarkets in
Chicago of fxing the price of milk over a four-year
period, costing consumers up to $125 million. This
is somewhat of an exception, however, as most food
prices have remained low over the past few decades
(aside from products like carbonated beverages,
snacks and breakfast cereals, which are already
dominated by a small number of brands). Although
consumer pocketbooks have been much less
affected by consolidation than farmers and workers,
this situation may change if a handful of food chain
clusters gain control of the global food supply.
Consolidation In Organic
Organic agriculture is not immune from these
trends. Many organic brands have been acquired by
giant food processors such as General Mills, Kraft
(Philip Morris) and Kellogg, as the accompanying
illustration indicates. Slightly smaller global
food processors not shown in this fgure are also
establishing their own organic product lines (such
as Dole, Chiquita, and McCormick & Co.) or
acquiring existing organic brands (J.M. Smucker
bought R.W. Knudsen, After the Fall and Santa
Cruz Organic; Novartis subsidiary Gerbers bought
Tender Harvest). The market share for some of
these brands is extremely high Horizon, White
Wave and Earthbound Farms control over 60% of
the market for organic milk, organic soymilk, and
organic bagged salad mix respectively. Earthbound
Farms is a brand of Natural Selection Foods and a
vertically integrated seed to salad operation - it
contracts with over 200 growers. It is one of just
fve farms that market half of the organic produce
sold in California
8
.
In the rapidly consolidating food retailing industry,
the top 4 supermarkets, Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway
and Albertsons, are increasing the amount of
shelf space devoted to organic products. Kroger,
for example, has a natural and organic section
in 43% of its 2400 stores
9
. Fast growing natural
foods chains such as Whole Foods (currently the
21
st
largest supermarket by sales
10
), Wild Oats and
Trader Joes have had success with their own brands
of organic products, prompting mainstream retailers
such as Kroger, Safeway, Piggly Wiggly and Harris-
Teeter to introduce organic brands as well. Such
growth is unlikely to beneft small farms because
many supermarkets no longer allow managers to
buy directly from local farmers or food processors.
Instead, these corporations prefer to deal with
operations that can supply huge volumes for their
increasingly centralized supply chains.
.+ : `..
'. : `::
Naturally
Aza-Direct's unique fornulalion resulls in lhe highesl
levels of bioaclive conponenls. This process conlribules
lo lowesl levels of inpurilies which naxinizes
effecliveness and nininizes unpleasanl odor.
OF lisled & approved for organic produclion
Sofl on Benefcial nsecls, effeclive on danaging pesls
EPA labeled for use on greenhouse & ouldoor food crops
nsecl populalion decline is evidenl 35 days
following nulliple applicalions
Apply al frsl sign of insecl aclivily, as innalure slages are nosl susceplible.
Adjusl spray lank waler lo 6.06.5 pH prior lo adding AzaDirecl. Cood spray
coverage is crilical rainfasl in 3 hours.
A
z
a

D
i
r
e
c
l

i
s

a

r
e
g
i
s
l
e
r
e
d

l
r
a
d
e
n
a
r
k

o
f

C
o
w
n

C
o
n
p
a
n
y
.

A
l
w
a
y
s

r
e
a
d

a
n
d

f
o
l
l
o
w

l
a
b
e
l

d
i
r
e
c
l
i
o
n
s
.
Dave Pieczarka 315.683.5469
Visil our web sile al www.azadirecl.con
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 19
Challenges To Consolidation: Alternative Futures
Despite the predictions of some economists, this
global industrial food system is not inevitable. Dr.
Mary Hendrickson and Dr. Heffernan believe that
although the current system appears very powerful,
it also has potential weaknesses. They state, To
succeed (alternative agriculture) movements must
organize where the dominant system is vulnerable
by making ecologically sound decisions, by
relying on time and management rather than capital,
and by building authentic trusting relationships
that are embedded in community.
11
Examples
of this approach can include CSAs (Community-
Supported Agriculture), roadside stands and farmers
markets that connect consumers directly with local
farms. Other emerging alternatives include farmer
marketing cooperatives with retail brands (such
as Organic Valley), and eco-labels that represent
ecological and social criteria that go beyond
organic. These eco-labels include: fair trade,
which guarantees a fair price to the farmer and a
fair wage to farmworkers; humane, which assures
consumers that livestock have not been treated
cruelly; and region-specifc labels.
The power of food conglomerates is also being
challenged in the political arena:
In 1998 South Dakota voters passed by a
constitutional amendment that placed restrictions
on corporate involvement in agriculture (although
it was overturned by an appellate court in August,
2003). Fed up with factory hog farms and the
application of toxic sewage sludge to farms,
two townships in Pennsylvania went further and
passed ordinances that declare corporations are not
persons under the US Constitution.
Checkoffs, or mandatory payments to commodity
promotion boards have been ruled unconstitutional
for pork, beef, grape and mushroom farmers (the
pork and beef decisions are currently still being
fought in the court system, but are widely expected
to be upheld). Many independent farmers feel
these funds help agribusiness at their expense, and
courts have agreed that they violate producers First
Amendment right to free speech and association.
The 2002 Farm Bill included provisions that
require labeling the country of origin for perishable
agricultural commodities, which will become
mandatory by September 30, 2004. Surveys have
consistently found that more than two-thirds of
consumers are willing to pay more for meat and
produce from their own country
12
.
Regulations that ban Wal-Mart Supercenters and
other big box grocery stores have been enacted
in Oakland, Martinez, San Luis Obispo and Arroyo
Grande in California, and in at least 18 other cities
in the US
13
.
Finally, many efforts are underway to create a
more decentralized food system, involving both the
creation of alternative structures and addressing
the political power of oligopolies. In Chicago,
for example, an initiative to create a regional
organic food system advocates new consumer food
cooperatives, farmers markets and community
gardens, as well as increasing farmland protection,
reducing subsidies to agribusiness and increasing
public funding for sustainable food systems
14
.
Consolidation in food and agriculture has many
negative consequences for the majority of those who
grow, harvest, process and eat food. These include
lowering incomes and purchasing power, limiting
choices, and harming human, animal and ecosystem
health. However the importance of food makes it
likely that as more people become aware of these
consequences, the power of corporate agribusiness
will be more effectively confronted.
1. Heffernan, W.D. 1999. Biotechnology and
Mature Capitalism, Presented at the 11
th
Annual
Meeting of the National Agricultural Biotechnology
Council. Lincoln, Nebraska.
Heinz
#25
Hain
Celestial
ShariAnn's
Dole
#47
M&M
Mars
#9
Kraft
#3
Tyson
#7
Coca-Cola
#8
Unilever
#4
General
Mills
#16
Cargill
#5
Danone
#10
Pepsi
#6
Dean
#23
ConAgra
#12
Campbell
Soup
#34
Kellogg
#24
Walnut
Acres
Milina's
Finest
Fruitti di
Bosca
Muir Glen
Celestial
Seasonings
Imagine/Rice
Dream/Soy
Dream
Little Bear
Arrowhead
Mills
Bearitos
Farm Foods
Lightlife
The Organic
Cow of
Vermont
Breadshop
Alta Dena
Westbrae
Mountain
Sun
DeBole's
Earth's Best
Nile Spice
Health
Valley
Westsoy
Cascadian
Farm
Kashi
Garden
of Eatin'
Casbah
Horizon
Odwalla
Tostito's
Organic
White Wave/
Silk
Organic Industry Structure
June 2005
Phil Howard, PhD
Center for Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems
University of California, Santa Cruz
October 2001
$181 M
July 1998
13% Equity
January 2004
100% Equity
$216 M
Morningstar
Farms/Natural
Touch
November 1999
$307 M
Ragu
Organic
Ben &
Jerry's
Organic
March
2005
Food
Processors*
Organic Brand
Introductions
Organic
Brands Partial
Equity
Organic
Brands Fully
Owned
Strategic
Alliances
*Rank in global food
sales according to
Food Engineering,
10/01/2004
Cadbury
Schweppes
#18
Dole
Organic
Nature's
Farm
Heinz
Organic
Sunrise
Organic
Gold Medal
Organic
Stonyfield
Farm
September 1999
$100 M
16.7% Equity
October 1997
$23.5 M
June 2003
October 2001
June 2001
September 1999
From Heinz
March 2000
$390 M
December
2002
April 1999
$80 M
April 1998
$80 M
December 1998
Back to
Nature
Boca
Foods
French
Meadow
Green &
Black's
Nantucket
Nectars
Organic
Campbell's
Organic
Seeds of
Change
April 2003
1997
2001
July
2000
January
2001
September
2003
June 2002
August 2003
December 1999
March 1998
2002, 5% Equity
May 2005
100% Equity
May
2004
March 1999
1995
October 2001
40% Equity
January 2004
80% Equity (all non-
employee stock)
May 2002
$189 M
May 1999
April 1999
June 2000
July 2003
February 2000
September 2003
Hunt's
Organic
Orville
Redenbacher's
Organic
September
2005
October
2005
May
2002
Nestled in the
hills of western
Massachusetts
near the cultural
resources of the Five
College Consortium,
CSLD is accredited
by the New England
Assn. of Schools and
Colleges
332 S. Deerfield Rd.
PO Box 179
Conway, MA
01341-0179
413-369-4044
info@csld.edu
www.csld.edu
Master of Arts in Landscape Design
The Conway School of Landscape Design teaches the application
of ecological principles to the design and management of land and
resources. By planning and designing projects for residential, municipal,
and non-profit clients, students learn a constellation of skills including
design graphics, practical problem-solving, ability to communicate design
solutions, and ecological advocacy.
Founded in 1972, CSLDs ten-month program stresses self-direction
and team learning, and prepares graduates for a rich and diverse range
of jobs in such fields as community planning, conservation, site design,
land stewardship, and site management.
Conway School of Landscape Design
Graduate Program in Landscape Planning, Design, and Management
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 20
2. Hendrickson, M. & W.D. Heffernan 2002a.
Concentration in Agricultural Markets, National
Farmers Union.
3. Hendrickson, M., W.D. Heffernan, P.H. Howard
& J.B. Heffernan. 2001. Consolidation in Food
Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and
Consumers in a Global Food System, National
Farmers Union.
4. Heffernan, W.D., M. Hendrickson & R. Gronski.
1999. Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture
System, National Farmers Union.
5. Fesperman, D. & K. Shatzkin. The Plucking
of the American Chicken Farmer, Baltimore Sun,
February 28, 1999.
6. Hallman, W.K., W.C. Hebden, H.L. Aquino,
C.L. Cuite & J.T. Lang. 2003. Public Perceptions
of Genetically Modifed Foods: A National Study
of American Knowledge and Opinion, Rutgers
University.
7. Odabashian, E. 1999. White Liquid Gold,
Consumers Union, West Coast Regional Offce.
8. Baker, L. 2002. The Not-So-Sweet Success of
Organic Farming, Salon, July 29.
9. Forster, J. 2002. Look Whos Going Organic,
Business Week, October 9.
10. Weir, T. 2003. Wal-Marts the 1: Americas 50
Largest Supermarket Chains, Progressive Grocer,
May 1, 35-48.
11. Hendrickson, M.K. & W.D. Heffernan. 2002b.
Opening Spaces Through Relocalization: Locating
Potential Resistance in the Weaknesses of the
Global Food System, Sociologia Ruralis 42(4):
347-369. Quote p. 361.
12. Umberger, W.J., D.M. Feuz, C.R. Calkins &
B.M. Sitz. 2003. Country-of-Origin Labeling of
Beef Products: U.S. Consumers Perceptions,
Presented at the Food & Agriculture Marketing
Policy Section Conference, Washington, DC.
13. DeFao, J. 2003. Oakland Bans Mega Grocers:
Wal-Mart Blocked by City Council Vote, San
Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, October 23, A19.
14. Slama, J. 2002. The Land of Organic
Opportunity: Steps to Building a Regional Organic
Food System Serving Chicago Sustain.
Phil Howard is a postdoctoral researcher at the
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems at UC Santa Cruz where his research
addresses the role of consumers in fostering
sustainable agriculture. He is a co-author of the
Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy study
conducted for the National Farmers Union.
Originally printed in CCOF Magazine, Vol. 20, No.
4, Winter 2003-2004. Reprinted with permission.
www.ccof.org
3 Days on Our Diversified, 3 Days on Our Diversified, 3 Days on Our Diversified, 3 Days on Our Diversified, 3 Days on Our Diversified,
Horse Powered Family Farm Horse Powered Family Farm Horse Powered Family Farm Horse Powered Family Farm Horse Powered Family Farm
Small Classes & Home Grown Meals Small Classes & Home Grown Meals Small Classes & Home Grown Meals Small Classes & Home Grown Meals Small Classes & Home Grown Meals
Draft Horse Workshops Draft Horse Workshops Draft Horse Workshops Draft Horse Workshops Draft Horse Workshops
Horse Training
Draft Horses I & II
Women & Draft Horses
Farming with Draft Horses
Jay & Janet Bailey Family
www.fairwindsfarm.org
511 Upr Dummerston Rd.
Brattleboro, VT 05301
802-254-9067
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 21
by Laura Sayre
Pop quiz: Wheres the worlds most valuable
organic market?
The United States? Japan? Australia? Guess
again. Its Western Europe. Thanks to a series of
nightmarish food scares, a strong euro and what
politicos call a favorable policy environment,
the European Union has outpaced the U.S. in
organic sales as well as in organic acreage and
number of organic farms. Retail sales of organic
products in the EU-15 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom) for 2003 totaled
9.966 million, according to a recent report from
the USDA Economic Research Service, compared to
8.019 million for the United States.
The recent admission of ten new member states--
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and
Slovenia--and the possible future admission of
Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey promise
to make the EU an even more formidable presence
in the global organic marketplace in coming years,
both for production and consumption. (Estonia,
Poland and Slovenia in particular have shown
spectacular growth in organic acreage in the past
few years). Unconfrmed reports peg the 2004
European organic market at a whopping 20.7
billion, with projected continued expansion in the
double digits.
Those are not the kind of numbers that escape the
eyes of the world's biggest food companies. It
should come as no surprise, then, that in a stroll
down the aisles of an average supermarket across
the pond you may encounter such items as Lipton's
organic tea, brought to you by Unilever, Kenco
organic instant coffee, brought to you by Kraft,
and Billington's organic sugar, brought to you by
Associated British Foods, a multinational processor
and supplier of sweeteners and oils.
While here in the U.S. a series of acquisitions of
successful organic startups over the past decade has
focused attention on the increasingly powerful role
of corporate food giants in the organic marketplace,
allied trends at work overseas have received
relatively little notice from U.S. organic food and
farming advocates. In many cases--again not
surprisingly--the same corporations are involved.
Some companies have used their international
reach to introduce organic product lines originally
developed in the U.S. into European markets. In
Britain you can now buy pasta sauces and other
packaged organic foods under the Seeds of Change
label (owned by M&M Mars, the ninth-largest food
and beverage company in the world). Hain Celestial
Group has brought its organic Rice Dream brand
to Europe. Heinz, which owns a stake in Hain and
ranks 25th on Food Engineering magazines list
of the 100 largest food and beverage companies in
the world, markets Heinz Organic ketchup, canned
tomato soup and other products in the U.K. and
elsewhere.
In other cases, as in the United States, large food
corporations are acquiring successful independent
organic brands or launching new organic products
within select markets. To complement its repertoire
of organic brands in the U.S., Hain holds a number
of European brands that are either all organic
or have organic lines, including Biomarch, the
leading distributor of organic fruits, vegetables,
and prepared salads and other convenience foods in
Belgium, and Grains Noirs, a Belgian catering outft
In the EU, corporate inroads into the
organic world are following different
paths than in the U.S., but debates about
potential consequences for farmers and
consumers sound familiar
Euro-ganics
supplying meals on the regions high-speed rail
networks. Switzerland-based Nestl, currently the
largest food and beverage corporation in the world,
has entered the European organic market with a
line of organic juices and teas aimed specifcally at
pregnant and nursing mothers. Another brand in the
Unilever stable is Bertolli, the worlds leading olive
oil label, which now offers Bertolli Organic in some
countries.
One of the highest profle European organic buy-
ups was of Rachels Organics, a phenomenally
successful organic yogurt company founded at
Britains frst certifed organic dairy, Brynllys Farm
in west-central Wales. Brynllys has been farmed
by Rachel Rowlands family since 1942, but in
1999 they sold the brand to Horizon. Two years
later Horizon partnered with Dairy Crest, the UKs
leading conventional dairy company, to create
Rachels Organics milk. (As most Natural Farmer
readers probably know, Horizon was acquired by
Dean Foods in 2003.) Dairy Crest seems to be
taking a cue from the success of its organic venture
with its announcement of St. Ivel Advance, a non-
organic milk enriched with omega-3, expected on
supermarket shelves by early summer of this year.
Another overseas acquisition Americans may have
heard about was Cadbury Schweppes purchase
of Green & Blacks, the leading European organic
chocolate brand and one that is also available in the
U.S. Green & Blacks was originally a division of
U.K.-based Whole Earth Foods, a pioneer in organic
foods processing and distribution in Europe.
Supermarket heavyweights
Examples like these make one wonder if it even
makes sense to talk about agribusiness industry
structure on a country-by-country or continent-by-
continent basis. Patterns of consolidation do vary
broadly across global regions, however, thanks
to a variety of historical, cultural and economic
factors. A basic difference between food sector
consolidation on either side of the Atlantic is that
in Europe the most dramatic market concentrations
exist at the retail level. Consider this: As of 2005,
just six of the worlds top 25 food retailers were
U.S.-based, and only two of those were exclusively
U.S. operations (Kroger, #6, and Albertsons, which
was #12 but in January of 2006 was broken up and
sold to a fstful of buyers including SuperValu and
CVS). According to fgures from M + M Planet
Retail, the top fve global food retailers--Walmart
(U.S.), Carrefour (France), Metro Group (Germany),
Ahold (Netherlands), and Tesco (U.K.)--operate a
total of 28,871 stores in 68 countries. Now thats
globalization.
Mary Hendrickson, a professor in the Department
of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri
who has tracked agribusiness consolidation for
many years, points out that although multinational
corporations like ADM and Cargill are well
represented in the European feed and seed sectors,
you still dont get the kind of market control from
the processors and traders that you have over here.
This is partly due to the power of large farmer
cooperatives, which have traditionally played a
major role in European agriculture. Farmers were
less able to fex their collective muscle farther
along the food chain, however, so consolidation
developed in supermarkets instead.
(Interestingly, these two patterns of consolidation
are being replicated in other parts of the world as
well: Brazil and Australia mirror the U.S. situation,
with processors and traders wielding a great deal
of power in the food economy; other Eastern
European and Latin American countries, agricultural
economists point out, seem to be following the
European model with a handful of supermarket
chains grabbing large chunks of the retail food
dollar within a few years of their initial arrival.)
Hendrickson is affliated with the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative (AAI), an advocacy and
research collaborative supported by the Center
of Concern and the National Catholic Rural Life
Conference. According to data assembled by Bill
Vorley, a senior researcher with the International
Institute on Environment and Development and
another AAI collaborator, four supermarket chains
in the U.K.--Tesco, Asda (a division of Wal-Mart),
Sainsburys, and Safeway/Morrisons--accounted
for 76.5 percent of retail grocery sales in 2005. The
top four supermarkets in France--Carrefour, ITM,
Leclerc, and Casino--represented 63.2 percent of
retail foods sales in that country in 2003. Similar
levels of concentration exist in Germany.
This situation has caused concern among European
farmer and consumer groups for some time and
has presented special dilemmas for organic food
advocates. On the one hand, the supermarkets
dominance gives them enormous power to dictate
photo courtesy Laura Sayre
Organic food is big in Italy. Over 8% of agricultural land is farmed organically.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 22
prices, infuence supply and set quality standards.
As Hendrickson puts it, Supermarkets are the main
players, [and so] they are driving the quality issues,
particularly for fresh fruits and vegetables. On
the other hand, in most of the European countries
(as in the United States), decisions on the part of
mainstream supermarkets to carry organic foods
have been critical to the overall expansion of
organics.
To take just a few examples:
In Denmark--the frst European country to create
a national organic standard, in 1987--a retail
supermarket chain called FDB began a major
marketing campaign for organic products in 1993,
which helped stimulate consumer demand. Two
years later, a number of the countrys large dairy
companies started purchasing organic milk at a
substantial, guaranteed premium, which stimulated
supply. Denmarks jump on conversions to organic
enabled it to target export markets in other European
countries as early as 1999. Denmark now boasts
the highest per capita spending on organic food in
the EU by a wide margin (113.6 vs. 48.9 in the
country with the next highest fgure, Austria, and
35.7 in the U.S., according to fgures cited in the
USDA-ERS report).
France was an organic pioneer in the 1970s and
in 1980 could boast 40 percent of Europes total
organic acreage. Further expansion of organics
remained modest, however, until 1997, when the
French Ministry of Agriculture began actively
promoting organics, including a declared goal of 1
million hectares and 25,000 organic farms by the
end of 2005. (National totals had reached 550,000
ha and 11,377 farms by 2003, as reported by Agence
Bio, the French agency charged with promoting
organic agriculture.) Also in the mid-1990s Frances
major supermarket chains, including Carrefour and
Monoprix, created their own Bio product lines,
and conventional processors like Danone (the
10th largest global food company) and Besnier
entered the organic market. Although France is
known for its large number of small-scale artisan
organic processors, Agence Bio recently reported
a reduction in number and increase in average size
of certifed organic food processors, suggesting that
some consolidation has taken place.
Luca Rosseto, a lecturer at the University of Padua
in Italy, credits the what he calls the LSRs, or
large-scale retailers, with helping to improve quality
and consistency and expand domestic markets
for Italys considerable organic output. All of
the major Italian supermarkets (including Coop,
Esselunga, Giesse, and Pam) had launched their
own organic product lines by 2002; most of these,
Rosseto notes, were preceded by low-input or
integrated pest management labels. Thanks to
strong governmental support in the 1990s, Italys
organic acreage expanded to 1.2 million hectares
in 2001, but it has since contracted to less than 1
million ha; organic advocates are striving to bring
consumer demand in line with farm output before
more organic farms re-convert.
Britains organic marketplace changed radically
in early 2002 when seven supermarket chains got
behind a national objective to make 30 percent
photo courtesy Laura Sayre
Not all foods are processed at an industrial scale. These bottles are in the
on-farm shop of Celestino Benetazzo, a farmer in the Veneto who has a CSA
and also does some value-added products.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 23
of the countrys agricultural land organic by
2010. (This now looks pretty ambitious; the U.K.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
reports that in 2005 organic and in-conversion land
had reached four percent of total agricultural land.)
Still, retail organic sales in Britain totaled 1.78
billion in 2004, with a staggering 75 percent of
organic product purchases made in supermarkets.
As in other countries the major supermarkets feature
a wide range of private-label organic foods: Of 241
organic items called up in a search of Sainsbury's
online supermarket, for instance, around three-
quarters carried the store's "Sainsbury's Organic"
label, including everything from bananas and
ground beef to rolled oats and Chardonnay.
Overall, the percentage of organic sales fowing
through different retail sectors varies across the
continent: in the Scandinavian countries, Britain,
Hungary and the Czech Republic, over 60 percent
of organic sales were made in supermarkets; in
Belgium, Germany, France, Greece, Luxembourg,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, the
majority of organic sales were made via direct
marketing channels or in specialized shops
(including bakeries and butchers' shops as
well as smaller natural foods stores). But as a
recent European Commission report on organics
emphasized, "Specialists are convinced that
where organic products are mainly sold through
supermarkets, growth and market shares are (and
will remain) higher than in other Member States."
Setting a higher standard
So if the success of organics is inextricably tied
to market concentration, what is to be done? One
approach being explored by the Soil Association,
Britains leading non-proft group supporting
organic farming, emphasizes consumer education-
-encouraging the public to buy local and organic,
to shop at farm stands and producer-only farmers
markets, to subscribe to box schemes (similar to
CSAs) and to demand country-of-origin-labeling
on organic products sold in supermarkets. The Soil
Association has also launched a name-and-shame
campaign against the supermarkets to encourage
them to source as much of their organic products
domestically as possible, gathering data on the
percentage of organic potatoes sold at Tescos that
were imported, for instance, and publicizing the
results.
In a recently released market study for 2005, the
group reported that these efforts appear to be
working. Although organic sales at supermarkets
are still increasing, their rate of growth has slowed
relative to organic sales directly from farmers or
through independent retailers. Of course other
factors may be at work as well: the London-
based market-research frm Organic Monitor says
that a shaking-out process is going on at the big
supermarkets, with chains reducing the number
of organic items they offer by eliminating the less
proftable products.
Another, complementary strategy is to link organic
certifcation with fair trade standards. David Boselie
of AgroFair Europe Ltd, a Fair Trade and organic
produce trader selling primarily to supermarkets
in 11 European countries, says that his company
is trying to do this both as a way of distinguishing
themselves in the market and as a way of averting
the damage that big supermarkets can do to small
farmers. The organic and fair trade standards
enable us to plug smallholder producer groups [in
Central America, Latin America and Africa] in[to]
the high-end supermarket segment in Europe, he
wrote by email. Ultimately, the fair trade approach
could also help European farmers who have
converted to organic relatively recently and are
now struggling to adjust to reductions in subsidies
combined with eroding organic price premiums
caused by the availability of cheaper organic foods
from countries with lower production costs.
Complicating factors
As other analysts of the agribusiness world have
pointed out, consolidation characterizes almost
every stage of the food chain from feld to fork.
More often than not, those corporate linkages are
international in scope. Increasingly, they include
both organic and non-organic elements. Tree
of Life, which divides the national U.S. natural
foods distribution business with United Natural
Foods, is owned by Koninklijke Wessanen, a
Dutch conglomerate and one of Europes largest
food companies. Koninklijke Wessanen also owns
Distriborg, the leading distributor of organic and
specialty foods in Europe, which also runs a chain
of natural foods stores in France. Trader Joes,
which many U.S. shoppers think of as a small-scale
maverick compared to its larger rival, Whole Foods,
in fact belongs to Germany-based ALDI, #11 on the
worldwide food retailer list. In 2004, Whole Foods
acquired a small chain of organic markets in London
called Fresh & Wild as a frst step toward moving
into the British natural and organic retail sector.
Now the U.K.s frst Whole Foods Market is under
construction in Londons fashionable Kensington
district.
Meanwhile, the Soil Association touts the expansion
of box schemes, but many box schemes in the U.K.
have found a successful strategy in supplementing
their own on-farm production with exotic organic
produce--bananas, oranges, fgs--purchased
from wholesalers. According to an export study
conducted by the Organic Trade Association in
2000, a Welsh distributor called Organic Farm Food
has been serving this market while also selling to
mega-retailers like Tescos.
As these examples begin to suggest, fguring out
how to contend with global market forces for
the beneft of small- and medium-scale farmers--
and consumers--is a tricky business. First-world
subsidies harm third-world farmers, but (for reasons
that are not well understood), yields on organic
farms in Europe are typically signifcantly lower
than yields on conventional farms, so organic
farmers need price premiums (or subsidies) to
remain viable. This situation may be related
to another little-known feature of the European
organic farming scene: the average organic farm
size (40 ha) is signifcantly larger than the average
size of non-organic farms (15 ha). Is that a type
of consolidation organic advocates should be
concerned about?
One thing appears certain: as trade agreements are
worked out and harmonization and equivalency
agreements are established for international organic
standards, the interdependence of global and local
organic farming is probably only going to increase.
To read more about global and European organic
markets...
Stephan Dabbert, Anna Maria Hring and Raffaele
Zanoli, Organic Farming: Policies and Prospects
(Zed Books, 2004).
Carolyn Dimitri and Lydia Oberholtzer, Market-
Led Versus Government-Facilitated Growth:
Development of the U.S. and EU Organic
Agricultural Sectors (USDA Economic Research
Service, 2005). Available online at http://www.ers.
usda.gov/Publications/WRS0505/.
Michael Sligh and Carolyn Christman, Who Owns
Organic? The Global Status, Prospects, and
Challenges of a Changing Organic Market (RAFI-
USA, 2003). Available online at http://www.rafusa.
org/pubs/puboverview.html.
Helga Willer and Minou Yussef, eds., The World
of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging
Trends, 2005 (IFOAM, 2005). Available online at
http://www.ifoam.org/press/press/Statistics-2005.
html.
Organic Farming in the European Union: Facts
and Figures (European Commission Report, 2005).
Available online at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/
agriculture/qual/organic/index_en.htm.
Laura Sayre is an independent food and agriculture
writer based in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Shes
currently working on a book about the student farm
movement
photo courtesy Laura Sayre
Plenty of organic brands grace this shelf in Sicily.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 24
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 25
Back-Door Deal Weakens
Organic Standards
Last October, Republican leadership
tacked a tiny rider loaded with big
repercussions onto the massive 2006
Agricultural Appropriations bill. Inserted
at the behest of lobbyists working for
the Organic Trade Association (OTA),
the rider benefts large food processors
-- altering provisions of the 15-year-old
Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) and
weakening organic standards in a single
stroke. The secretive deal also pulled an
end-run around the democratic process
-- excluding the minority Democrats on
the conference committee and attaching
the rider without debate or vote after the
meeting was adjourned.
Written in obscure legal language,
the rider effectively nullifes a 2005
Court decision affrming OFPAs ban
on synthetic ingredients in processed
organic foods while reinforcing a loophole
allowing the use of hundreds of synthetic
processing substances without review.
It also allows dairies to use non-organic
replacement animals and gives the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
unprecedented power to grant emergency
exemptions to allow non-organic
ingredients without citizen review when
organic ones are deemed not commercially
available.
Holding On to
Organic!!
A Grassroots Perspective
Concerning Big Foods
Threat to Organic Standards
by Steve Gilman
Note: At its Retreat last December the NOFA Interstate Council voted to address this matter in this issue of The Natural Farmer.
The Council also voted to fund a Flyer project as a way to reach out to the larger organic community -- to inform members, shine light
on what happened (in an effort to keep it from happening again) and prompt action. As a Council rep from NOFA-NY concerned about
the integrity of organic standards, I was later selected to research the details and write the Flyer. This article, based on my research to
date, contains some (much-needed) edits and contributions from other members of the review committee.
Any opinions expressed herein, however, are my own.
Whos What --Acronyms
used in this Article
GMOs - Genetically Modifed
Organisms
NOP National Organic Program
NOSB National Organic Standards
Board
OFPA Organic Food Production Act
of 1990
OTA Organic Trade Association
USDA United States Department of
Agriculture
The integrity of the USDA
green-and-white organic label
is at stake. Many members
of the grassroots organic
community have fought
long and hard to maintain
the spirit and substance of
organic standards. Despite
OTAs justifcations, this
action is viewed as a
brazen attempt by Big Food
processors to water down
regulations and muscle in on
organics good name.
Remember we vote with our wallet
on a daily basis. Conventional
food manufacturers regularly use
thousands of unlabeled synthetic
processing substances in everyday
foods. Buy Organic, but read organic
labels carefully. Choose 100%
Organic products and select fresh,
local, whole foods over processed
ones. Support Fair Trade items in
the marketplace.
The Interstate Council is planning to
expand the NOFA website (www.nofa.
org) to present more information and
talking points.
Strategies are still being considered
by organic groups on how best to
address the OTA action, including:
repealing the rider; modifying it in the
upcoming rulemaking process; and
initiating new legislation. Bookmark
the Organic Allies websites for
updates and stay tuned for Action
Alerts.
Contact your representatives in
Congress to protest the corporate
attack on Organic standards. Urge
House members to join the Organic
Caucus (sample letter and talking
points will be on NOFA website).
Protest the undemocratic rider
action. Demand real ethics reform in
Congress.
Write to food manufacturing
companies: protest the OTA
processors action and hold them to
the spirit and substance of higher
organic standards.
Support your local Food Coops,
Farmers Market, CSA (Community
Supported Agriculture) Farm, and
restaurants sourcing local produce.
Encourage school and college food
programs to purchase local and
organic produce and products.
Encourage consumers to join and
support your local NOFA
What We Can Do About It!
The organic community learned of the
rider only after OTA privately circulated
the amendment in Congress shortly before
its enactment. The public reacted quickly
to alerts from the National Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture, Center for Food
Safety, Organic Consumers Association
and other public-interest group allies,
fooding Congress with over 320,000 let-
ters, phone calls and emails in opposition.
Even though the insider rider strategy
prevailed, there is still opportunity for ac-
tion by the organic community to infuence
the fnal outcome. There is an upcoming
rulemaking phase that will be open to
public comment, as well as direct action
initiatives underway to persuade Congress
to repeal the legislation. Thanks to the
current lobbying scandals in this election
year, representatives are also particularly
vulnerable to ethics issues. Although the
OTA action seems like a done deal at this
point, there is still much we can do.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 26
Organic Label At Risk
The big food companies clearly understand
how much consumers have come to
trust the organic label. The Court rulings
would have required them to use the
lesser Made with Organic designation,
which OTA claims does not command the
higher premiums they are seeking in the
marketplace. To qualify for the full USDA
Organic label they would be required to
replace synthetic chemical ingredients like
pectin (used in making organic jams and
jellies) with naturally occurring versions
such as those derived from fruit waste by-
products.
Even though the Court decision gave
manufacturers until July, 2007 to comply,
OTA argued processors would fnd it too
diffcult to reformulate their ingredients -
- hurting farmers, putting companies out
of business and limiting the availability of
organic food in the marketplace. Heavily
infuenced by their newer Big Food
members, OTA unilaterally rushed into the
rider action to rewrite the law instead.
The Background
This legislative intrigue is just the latest
round in a continuing struggle over
defning and preserving organic standards.
In 1998, for instance, a huge public
reaction forced USDAs National Organic
Program (NOP) to rescind and revamp their
frst attempt at a Rule, which included
the use of GMOs, sewage sludge and food
irradiation as acceptable organic practices.
Some organic insiders contend that these
obviously non-organic items were put
in as a red herring, designed to defect
attention from a number of questionable
rulings made by the NOP, including a
1995 processor-friendly interpretation
of the organic law approving a National
List of 38 synthetic processing chemicals
that could qualify for the organic label.
A NOP interpretation also created a
loophole allowing a category of processing
chemicals called substances not needing
review that are not on the National List.
The National Organic Standards Board
(NOSB) was created as a citizen review
panel to safeguard organic standards by
the Organic Food Production Act of 1990
and was given sole legal responsibility for
determining additions to the National List.
Despite warnings from observers (some
within NOSB itself) that synthetics were
not allowed under OFPA, the list took
shape with considerable input from the
processor representatives on the NOSB as
well as open participation from the greater
organic community.
Despite the underlying legal controversy,
the National List of Synthetic Substances
was instituted as part of the NOPs fnal
Rule, which went into effect in October
2002. Two days after the Rule was
launched, an organic farmer from Maine
took the matter to court. Arthur Harvey,
an organic blueberry grower, processor and
farm certifcation inspector, fled suit at
his own expense against the Secretary of
Agriculture to turn things around. But as
the lawsuit began its slow journey through
the courts, the synthetic provisions of the
new Rule became the status quo for the big
food processors business as usual.
In 2002, a Maine District Court ruled
against Harvey. But he persisted, fling an
appeal with the help of a growing list of
Amici (friends of the court). Finally in early
2005, a Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
substantially in Harveys favor, throwing
the organic industry into
turmoil.
In a reply to criticism from OTA
consultant, Grace Gershuny, (www.
restoreorganiclaw/gershuny_andreply.
html) Harvey maintains: If industry
people succeed in stamping out this
principle [of no synthetics added] there
will be nothing to stop industry lobbyists
as they team up with USDA to convert
organic standards into nothing more than
a label which takes advantage of gullible
consumers.
Groups of stakeholders met repeatedly
in summer 2005 to deal with the fallout.
Processors in OTA claimed the industry
needed to return to the pre-Harvey status
quo to maintain production and insisted
that changing OFPA was the only way
to do it. They also argued (legal issues
aside) that using the courts to change
policy was undemocratic because
acceptable standards had been worked
out by a number of participants through
the rulemaking process. This argument
overlooks the considerable organic
community input that went into the
formulation of OFPA in the late 1980s,
however, before Big Food had much
interest in organic markets.
Many other groups were reluctant to
open the law to legislative changes
because they saw it as an opportunity for
further tampering by special interests.
Discounting the Rule modifcations
suggested by the National Campaign
for Sustainable Agriculture Organic
Committee, OTA hardened its position
and left the bargaining table -- secretly
launching a preemptive strike aimed at
permanently changing the organic law
instead. In September, the US Senate
passed a resolution requiring USDA to
study the ramifcations of the Harvey
suit, giving more time for the organic
community to reach consensus. Refusing
to compromise, however, OTA unilaterally
set out on its own strategy, culminating
in the placement of the rider into the
appropriations bill in October.
Despite the claims of OTA, the rider goes
much further than simply restoring the
pre-lawsuit status quo. The following
is a brief comparison of the three items
changed by the Rider, showing: (a) the
USDA/NOP Rule; (b) the Harvey Appeals
Court ruling, based on OFPA and (c) the
OTA Rider changes to OFPA which still
must go through a public rulemaking
phase.
1) Synthetics
a) The USDA rule allowed a NOSB-
approved National List of 38 synthetic
ingredients to qualify for the organic label,
as long as they constitute 5% or less of the
total ingredients in the product.
b) Under the Harvey judgment, the
Court invalidated the USDA regulation,
ruling that OFPA prohibits the use of
synthetics.
c) The OTA Rider language reinstates
the use of the NOSB-approved National
List ingredients -- but also builds in a
loophole allowing the use of over 500
synthetic substances such as processing
aids and food contact chemicals with no
restrictions or review.

2) Dairy Herd Conversion
a) The USDA rule allowed dairy herds
to be converted to organic production in
one year by feeding them at least 80%
certifed feed for 9 months and shifting to
100% certifed feed for the last 3 months of
the conversion.
b) Based on OFPA, the Harvey ruling
negated USDAs 80/20 provision and
required dairy farms to convert to 100%
organic feed for one year prior to the sale
of milk products as organic.
c) The OTA Rider changes OFPA to
allow farmers to feed their herds farm-
grown, third-year transitional feed, so
that the milk could be sold as organic
as soon as the land qualifes for organic
certifcation -- but also allows replacement
animals to be fed conventional feed
containing Genetically Modifed Organisms
(GMOs), antibiotics, hormones, etc. even
after farmers had converted their farms
and herds to organic, up to one year before
the cows milk products are marketed as
organic.

3. Commercial Availability
a) The USDA rule empowered
accredited certifers to allow processors to
substitute non-organic ingredients if the
processor can demonstrate the organic
form is not available.
b) The Harvey ruling ordered that only
NOSB-approved ingredients placed on
the National List could be considered for
commercial availability determinations.
c) The OTA Rider changes OFPA by
creating a new, open-ended allowance that
bypasses NOSB citizen review and enables
food companies to appeal directly to the
Secretary of Agriculture to substitute
non-organic ingredients whenever organic
sources are ruled not commercially
available.
There are four organic labeling
designations permitted by USDA:
100% Organic means that no
synthetic or non-organic ingredient
may be added to a product. The
name of the USDA accredited
certifer must appear on the label,
and it may bear the USDA seal.
Organic, which means at least
95% of the packaged ingredients
are certifed organic. The remaining
non-organic ingredients must be
approved on the USDA list. The
name of the USDA accredited
certifer must appear on the label,
and it may bear the USDA seal.
Made with Organic means
at least 70% of the products
ingredients are organic. The
remaining non-organic ingredients
must be approved on the USDA
list. The product must be certifed
and bear the name of the USDA
accredited certifer on the label, but
it may not bear the USDA seal.
Processed products containing
less than 70% organic ingredients
are not allowed to make organic
claims on the front of the package
but may list specifc organic
ingredients on the side-panel. These
products cannot be certifed or bear
the USDA seal.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 27
A Small Victory
Another contentious issue arose in early
2006 concerning USDAs latest appoint-
ments to the NOSB. Even though the se-
lection process is open to public input, the
procedure is secretive and USDA has the
fnal say over who is placed on the Board.
The panel consists of 4 organic farmers, 3
consumer/public interest advocates, 3 en-
vironmentalists, 2 handlers/processors, 1
retailer, 1 scientist, and 1 certifying agent
whose positions are flled for three-year
terms on a rotating basis.
In January, USDA-watchers were startled
to fnd that the new NOSB appointees in-
cluded a bureaucrat from General Mills (a
Big Food rider supporter) in the consumer
advocate category and an OTA founder/
rider supporter in the certifer slot. Creat-
ed by the 1990 Organic Act, the NOSB was
clearly intended as an independent citizen
review panel. USDAs ability to potentially
pack its ranks with industry insiders rep-
resents a threat to legitimate decision-
making and organic standards.
This time USDAs action was
thwarted, however, but by a circular route.
Consumers Union, in league with other
national consumer groups, sent letters to
both USDA and General Mills protesting
the processors appointee. While there was
no response from USDA, General Mills,
fearful of public backlash in the market-
place, ended up withdrawing its candidate.
The process demonstrates that consumer
pressures sometimes have a better chance
of challenging governmental actions when
they are directed at business entities in-
stead.
Overall, the organic community has been
well-represented by the NOSB appointees.
There have always been some outstand-
ing people with the public interest at heart
serving on the board. However, only organ-
ic policies that are approved and adopted
by USDA are offcial. Currently, over 30
NOSB recommendations based on exten-
sive public comment, molder away unac-
knowledged by the NOP.
Wag the Dog
Organic farming has long been treated
like an unwanted stepchild by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture sometimes referred
to as the Department of Agribusiness
because of its domination by big chemical
fertilizer, pesticide and seed manufactur-
ers. Relegated to the niches, the organic
movements pioneers developed networks
of small-scale growers, concerned eaters,
health food stores and grassroots advocacy
organizations. NOFA, founded in 1971, is
one of the oldest organic farming educa-
tional groups in the nation.
Because of its proven benefcial environ-
mental and health effects organic is be-
coming even more of a threat to the toxic
practices of agribusiness-as-usual. Big
Food corporations got a taste of the or-
ganic pie in the late 1990s, however, and
have been going after a bigger slice ever
since. While growth in overall grocery sales
has been fat for decades, the market for
organic food has racked up a growth rate
of over 20% a year over the same time
frame. Fueled by bona fde consumer de-
mand instead of pricey food industry ad-
vertising campaigns, organic food sales
have exploded -- from $3.5 billion in 1997
to $15 billion in 2004. Its not lost on food
corporations that the organic markets
prospects are the brightest light on the
horizon: sales are projected to more than
double by 2009.
The covert rider action was devised and
executed by Big Food processors working
through the Organic Trade Association
and carried out by corporate lobbyists with
insider connections. Although the OTA
Board gave Executive Director Katherine
DiMatteo a broad go-ahead to fx the law,
a small cadre of executive and processing
committee members oversaw the rider de-
tails. The action came as a complete sur-
prise to the overall OTA membership (in-
cluding NOFA-NY and NOFA-VT) who was
never consulted. Over 200 OTA members
signed a letter protesting OTAs executive
action. Executives at Earthbound Farm,
the leading supplier of organic lettuce and
greens in the U.S., publicly announced
their dismay at fnding their name on an
OTA letter supporting the rider.(1)
OTA was founded by a handful of fedgling
small-scale organic food companies and
farm groups twenty years ago and cur-
rently represents over 1600 business and
farmer organizations. OTAs ranks have
grown substantially over the past decade
and the association recently restructured
to better accommodate the higher mem-
bership level of giant food processors that
are relative newcomers to the organic
world. The associations dues schedule is
based on gross annual organic revenue
with members making under $50,000 pay-
ing $100 and ranging to a $20,000 fee for
companies selling $200 million and over.
For corporations looking to be frst among
equals, theres a special Leadership Cir-
cle category with membership dues set at
$100,000 a year.
According to OTAs own research, the or-
ganic processors sales of packaged food,
snack food and sauces/condiments rep-
resent less than 20% of overall organic
industry activity. Further, the Big Food
corporations are a distinct minority within
OTAs membership. This is therefore a
case of a small special-interest tail trying
to wag a very large dog, which includes a
wide range of organic consumers, big and
small farmers, farming organizations, en-
vironmentalists, social justice advocates,
health practitioners, congressional sup-
porters, food organizations, food distribu-
tors, campus food purveyors, health food
stores and food retailers big and small.
Who Done It?

To maneuver their secret legislation
through the back halls of Congress, OTA
retained a well-connected litigator, Wil-
liam Jay Friedman, a government af-
fairs attorney with the Washington D.C.
based law frm, Covington & Burling -- an
international law frm with a long history
of representing food and tobacco corpora-
tions as well as most of the major bio-
technology and pharmaceutical companies
in the United States and Europe with a
large team of seasoned deal lawyers who
spend substantially all their time engaged
in life sciences transactions throughout
the world.(2) Jay Friedman also had pre-
vious insider experience as an appoin-
tee to the National Organic Standards
Board (NOSB) in the mid-1990s and has
emerged as Covingtons go-to guy to han-
dle organic regulatory issues brought to
the frm for litigation and lobbying.
Although their tracks were well covered,
reportedly(3) Abigail Blunt, a lobbyist for
Kraft Foods, played a major role in getting
the rider attached to the appropriations
bill. She also happens to be the wife of Roy
Blunt (R-Mo), the Republican Whip who
temporarily took over House leadership po-
sition when Tom Delay was forced to step
down due to ethics charges. Roy Blunt is
well known for establishing Republican
fund-raising networks with special interest
lobbyists on K Street in Washington. He
was deemed too closely allied with special
interests, however, and in February his
Republican colleagues elected John Boeh-
ner (R-OH) to permanently fll the Majority
Leader post instead.
Thanks to recent plea deals in the
Abramoff lobbying scandal, Congressional
political machinations are fnally being
exposed and ethics have become a major
campaign issue in the upcoming midterm
elections. Many of the proposed reforms
proposed by Republicans and Democrats
alike are laden with loopholes and are de-
signed to mollify public opinion and get
congressional corruption out of the lime-
light, back to politics-as-usual. As fur-
ther revelations emerge from the lobbying
scandals, however, voters in the upcoming
election have the opportunity to hold Con-
gress to a higher standard by demanding
substantive changes guaranteeing trans-
parency, ethical behavior and integrity in
governmental affairs.
Sleazy Is as Sleazy Does
For the grassroots community the sneak
attack on organic standards by the OTA
rider was just the latest in a series of
insider attempts to co-opt organic stan-
dards. Back in February, 2003 a Georgia
congressman working on behalf of cam-
paign supporter, mega poultry producer
Fieldale Farms Corp, buried a one-sen-
tence rider in a 3,000 page, $397 billion
omnibus spending bill that created a loop-
hole in organic standards allowing poultry
and dairy producers to use non-organic
feed. The rider was attached surrepti-
tiously and without debate by Rep. Nathan
Deal, R-GA with backing from Georgias
seven other House members.
When discovered, there was a huge out-
cry from the organic community, OTA
included. Advocates mustered a barrage
of over 20,000 communications to Sena-
tors and Representatives. Since the deal
had already gone through, it took an act of
Congress to repeal the loophole. The Or-
ganic Restoration Act, introduced by Sena-
tors Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Olympia
Snowe (R-ME) put together a bi-partisan
coalition and defeated the back-door pro-
vision. The price of this repeal, however,
Organic Allies
A number of consumer and public-
interest groups are long-time
supporters of organic standards:
-- National Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture
www.sustainableagriculture.net
sign up for Action Alerts in the Get
Involved pages.
-- Consumers Union
www.consumersunion.org Publishers
of Consumers Reports; information
on Eco-Labels; sign up for Action
Alerts
-- Center for Food Safety
www.centerforfoodsafety.org Action
alerts and legal action
-- Organic Consumers Association
www.organicconsumers.org Action
alerts; mail campaigns; position
papers
-- Cornucopia Institute
www.cornucopia.org Support for
family-style farming; dairy ratings for
organic milk factory farms or family
farms?
-- Arthur Harveys website:
www.restoreorganiclaw.org
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 28
was another change in OFPA -- allowing
the organic label on wild fsh, a payoff to
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska for his criti-
cal support. Positively, the political activ-
ity also created the Congressional Organic
Caucus, currently with 48 Representatives
from around the country, Republicans and
Democrats alike.
Commenting on the Deal rider a spokes-
person for the Organic Trade Associa-
tion reportedly said, It was such a sleazy
way of going about it because consumers
wouldnt know what they were buying.(4)
Katherine DiMatteo, OTAs executive direc-
tor at the time said, OTA feels strongly
that it is more important to meet the re-
quirements of national organic standards
to safeguard the integrity of organic than
have the market fooded by products that
fall short of what consumers want.(5)
Insider pressures from USDA itself also
have a history of skewing organic stan-
dards. In 1997, the frst Rule proffered
by the NOP allowing genetic engineering,
sewage sludge and food irradiation was re-
soundingly sent back to the drawing board
by a record number of responses from the
greater organic community. Currently, a
battle is on over OFPAs requirements for
access to pasture for ruminant livestock.
Despite NOSB recommendations to uphold
the grass-fed standard, USDA is allowing
huge western dairies like Horizon and Au-
rora to confne their cows with a grain-fed
diet during lactation and then put them
out to pasture when they are no longer
milking.
OTA recently announced a change in lead-
ership in response to the long-planned
retirement of Katherine DiMatteo. The new
Executive Director is Caren Wilcox, who
has extensive policy experience in USDA
and the U.S. House Appropriations Com-
mittee. This shift gives OTA the opportu-
nity to mend fences and to work with the
organic community in an open and trans-
parent manner. While their recent policy
proposals on upcoming Farm Bill provi-
sions would beneft farmers and proces-
sors alike, they also strongly emphasize
new business research saying a shortage
of organic supply is stifing sales -- result-
ing in empty supermarket shelves, food
companies leaving the market and increas-
ing importation of organic produce from
other countries. Its still an open question
whether Big Food will push USDA to use
the new powers granted by the third part
of the OTA rider, allowing them to sub-
stitute non-organic ingredients whenever
organic items are deemed commercially
unavailable.
Growing Organic
As veterans of many battles upholding or-
ganic standards, members of the organic
community sporadically question the wis-
dom of being involved with the agribusi-
ness-infuenced USDA bureaucracy in the
frst place. The issue comes back to verif-
cation of practices and prevention of fraud
to protect consumers. For years, farming
organizations and some state governments
ran independent certifcation programs
that verifed farmer practices for consumer
certainty without federal government in-
volvement.
Although NOFA supported the concept of
a National Organic Program early on to
promote organic agriculture and provide
research, statistical and extension ser-
vices, we warned against placing USDA in
the certifcation-accreditation role. Indeed,
USDA has primarily promoted the inter-
ests of the big industrial players. Its ac-
creditation is uneven, the NOP has never
appointed the Peer Review Panel that
OFPA mandated to oversee the fairness of
accreditation and no inspections have ever
been conducted on any of the off-shore
certifers.
While organic certifcation is mandatory
for interstate sales, a number of farmers
who market locally (including some origi-
nal grassroots pioneers) have decided to
opt out of the certifcation system altogeth-
er, relying instead on their local reputation
in the community. The Farmers Pledge
is an alternative approach where farmers
promise to follow bona fde organic prac-
tices and open their farms to community
verifcation. The NOP governs the legal
use of the organic label, however, and only
certifed farmers are allowed to sell their
produce as organic. Very small-scale pro-
ducers are protected by a provision allow-
ing them to market as organic without be-
ing certifed if their sales are under $5,000
a year.
Despite recent growing pains, the grass-
roots NOFAs would like to see the entire
agricultural system transition to organic
and welcomes new farmers and business-
es into the organic community. Farmers
are fnding expanding markets supplying
the new organic product lines of previously
conventional food companies. Faced with
going out of business, a number of grain
and dairy operations have found a new
organic lease on life. Newly arrived practi-
tioners attracted solely by the prospect of
higher prices are cautioned, however, that
organic does not just mean substituting
some organic inputs for chemical ones.
Organic agriculture represents a complete
paradigm shift to non-toxic, holistic, eco-
logical practices requiring substantial soil
fertility enhancements as well as consider-
able farmer between-the-ears adjustments.
Further, the transition to organic doesnt
stop at the farm. Consumers understand
the spirit as well as the substance of or-
ganic. It is not just a marketing label -- it
stands for a broader green food system
with social justice, environmental pro-
tection, fair trade, ethical behavior and
healthy nutritious food free of pesticides
and other toxic synthetics. The hallmark of
the grassroots organic community has al-
ways been open and transparent dealings
between farmers, businesses and consum-
ers. Big Companies who are just looking
for a slice of the organic pie are put on
notice: they are being held to higher stan-
dards all around, not only for food quality
but also of ethics, in the way they do busi-
ness.
Sources: (hot links available on NOFA
website)
(1) Consumer Reports; When it Pays To
Buy Organic, Feb 06, www.ConsumerRe-
ports.org
(2) SourceWatch, a project of the
Center for Media and Democracy,
(3) Melanie Warner, What Is Or-
ganic? Powerful Players want a Say; New
York Times; November 1, 2005
(4) Mike Lee, True To Its Roots
Organic Industry Wins Fight on U.S.
Standards; Sacramento Bee; April 18,
2003
(5) Jeff Nesmith, Agribusiness
& USDA Ponder Degrading Organic Stan-
dards; Atlanta Journal-Constitution;
June 5, 2002
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 29
by George DeVault
Todays $15 billion a year organic foods industry --
the darling of both proft hungry multi-national food
conglomerates and well-heeled though aging baby
boomers in search of greater health and longevity -
- was born humbly enough in an old iron kettle hung
over an open wood fre more than half a century
ago. The scene was a rundown farm in rural central
Pennsylvania, a place called Walnut Acres by the
previous owners. Taking turns over the steaming
kettle with a large wooden ladle were Paul and
Betty Keene, young, idealistic homesteaders who
were struggling to care for two babies and pay off
a whopping big mortgage by bringing 100 worn-
out acres back to life with a team of horses and
unconventional organic farming methods.
It was a time of great change in America. World
War II had ended the year before. The Baby Boom
was just beginning. Bogie and Bacall sizzled on
the silver screen as suburbs, hastily built to house
returning vets, greedily gobbled up farms from Long
Island to Los Angeles. TV had yet to invade the
American living room.
Yet a growing number of disaffected young
Americans werent buying the new American
Dream. They longed for a simpler, more
meaningful life. Theyd had their fll of big cities,
cookie cutter cottages in the suburbs, traffc jams
and commuter trains. Like generations of pioneers
before them, they yearned to go back to the land.
They didnt have to look for someone or something
to show them the way home.
Helen and Scott Nearing were already living
the good life in their frst hand-built stone home
in Vermont. Ed and Carolyn Robinson, recent
refugees from Manhattan, had just written the
suburban homesteaders manifesto, The Have-
More Plan, the blueprint for a little land -- a lot of
living from their homestead in rural Connecticut.
And J.I. Rodale was promoting organic gardening
and farming through his magazine by the same
name.
The Keenes frst harvest from their six old apple
trees wasnt much, maybe 10 to 15 bushels of
fruit. But Paul and Betty werent about to let it
go to waste. By blending tart and sweet apples
instead of adding sugar, they cooked the apples
down to 100 quarts of apple butter -- worth $1 each
-- that helped their young family survive their frst
winter at Walnut Acres. In the process, they quietly
revolutionized our food system, eventually forcing
no less a power than the federal Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to change its regulations.
Change did not come easy, though. Federal
standards stipulated that blanched peanuts must be
used to make peanut butter. The contrary Keenes
used whole, unblanched peanuts, complete with
the vitamin-rich red skin and the nutritious heart or
germ of the peanut. Federal regulations allowed up
to 15 percent of non-peanut products such as sugar
and saturated fats in peanut butter. The Keenes
used only their unblanched peanuts, no added fat
and just a pinch of salt. The result was that, in the
beginning, Walnut Acres had to label its peanut
product imitation peanut butter. Why? Because
it did not meet FDAs minimum standards. Simply
put, Walnut Acres peanut butter was too good. The
Keenes urged their thousands of loyal customers
throughout the country to bombard Washington
with letters of protest. They did and, in time, FDA
changed its regulations. The Keenes fought -- and
won -- similar battles over organic beef and pastas
made with whole wheat four.
For more than 50 years, Walnut Acres remained
a leader of the movement. The farm and its retail
store served as a Mecca as organic faithful from
throughout the United States and many foreign
countries beat a well-worn path to tiny Penns Creek.
For many, the highlight of Walnut Acres catalog of
wholesome foods was Paul Keenes homey columns
about life on the farm. Paul kept customers in touch
with Walnut Acres back-to-the-land roots as the
movement matured into an industry that, with 20
What Became Of Walnut Acres?
Walnut Acres once had one of the premier logos of the organic market.
percent annual growth in recent years, became a
venture capitalists dream come true.
But suddenly, it all came to an end. Walnut Acres
granolas, soups and canned vegetables, peanut
butter and apple butter quietly disappeared from
Americas grocery shelves. The farms popular
catalog mysteriously stopped showing up in
mailboxes of 40,000 loyal mail order customers.
Today, the farms devoted customers are asking,
What Became Of Walnut Acres?
Our story ends where it began, on the walnut-
lined banks of Penns Creek, near a crossroads
Pennsylvania village by the same name.
* * * * *
PENNS CREEK, PA. (Feb. 15, 2001) -- The
uniformed private security guards are edgy. Their
walkie-talkies crackle back and forth with reports
from distant corners of the cavernous warehouse on
the conduct and mood of the growing crowd milling
around inside the maze-like building.
Some 40 to 50 former -- possibly disgruntled --
employees are thought to be in attendance. They
were among more than 100 people thrown out of
work in August, 2000, when Walnut Acres, with
shelves full of organic foodstuffs and crops standing
in the felds, was abruptly shut down by the new
owner David C. Cole, former president of America
Onlines internet services, who sank some $4
million into the operation.
The result has been bad blood and bad press. No
one knows quite what to expect today. Anything
may happen.
Outside, the parking lots are flling up with
cars, vans and trucks with license plates from
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Michigan and North Carolina. A lone horse and
buggy from a nearby Amish or Mennonite farm is
tied to a bush near the front door.
This is the end of the farm known as Walnut Acres,
which a big red sign on the side of the faded red
building proclaims is Americas Original Organic
Farm.
BUSINESS CLOSED reads the auction notice in
the Feb. 3 edition of Lancaster Farming. Canning,
baking and mill equip. Also to be sold: 12 +/- acres
with approximately 100,000 +/- square foot food
processing facility with outbuildings, including
grain processing facility, (8) silos and refrigerated
warehousing. Real estate to be sold at 10:00 a.m.
You cant be here! a guard warns, advancing on
a handful of prospective buyers. The curious, all
registered bidders, are crowding in to check out two
upright coolers and solid oak display shelves. They
are armed with tape measures and 27-page auction
catalogs that break Walnut Acres into 681 lots to
be sold to the highest bidder. Everything Must
Be Sold! emphasizes the auction notice on the
Michael Fox web site. That means everything from
1 pallet of small pieces of plywood (Lot 108) to
1 Chester Jensen 500-gallon, 100 psi cooker/cooler
(Lot 229).
You cant be back here. Thats where theyre
handling the money, the guard says, nodding
his head toward the uniformed auction workers
hovering around tables set up just behind the two
custom-built oak checkout lanes that recently rang
up the purchases of organic granola, four and other
health foods at Walnut Acres retail store.
But there is no money to handle yet. Its early, only
about 8:30 a.m. Yet money seems to be the word of
the day.
If you bid $100, we charge you $110, says Bob
Sherman, opening auctioneer for Michael Fox
International, Worldwide Asset Services Since 1946.
Thats how the auction company gets paid.
If you spend more than $2,500 today we need
a cash deposit. How much do you plan to spend
today?
There will be no abandonment. Take it all. Dont
cherry-pick.
Bid-rigging is a felony, Sherman warns.
By the time he fnishes explaining the legal fne
print and promoting nine upcoming Michael Fox
International auctions -- including a box company
in New Jersey, a bakery in Indianapolis, a printing
plant in Ohio and a Michigan paper mill -- it is
nearly 10:30 a.m.
Sherman begins by offering the entire business --
grounds, buildings and contents -- for one money.
He asks for $1.5 million. There is no bid. Asking
price fnally drops to $200,000. Still no bid.
Sherman moves on to the real estate in its entirety.
Asking price fnally drops to $100,000. Again, there
is no bid.
Sherman shifts to the entire contents of the ware-
house, retail store and offces. Again, no bid.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 30
No one says a word. The crowd of several hundred
stands deathly silent in Walnut Acres large garage,
stirring slightly to ward off the cold that freezes
fngers and makes noses run.
Sherman takes it all in stride. While an auction
worker snaps digital pictures of the action, a helper
holding a large red arrow on a long stick to identify
the item now up for bid steps up to Lot 1, the frst
of 25 fans on stands. By the piece and take your
choice, Sherman says. The fans sell for $40, then
$30, then $20 and fnally $10 apiece.
By noon, Sherman is only on Lot 157 1 3-ton long
ram jack engine hoist. Its going to be a long day.
* * * * *
Mussoorie, INDIA, 1939 -- How can a young
person best serve humanity and his world? was my
question.
Ah, my friend, came the answer, when you
return to your home in America, you must give
away everything you have. Dont own anything.
Then you will be free to talk and to act. Doors
will open for you. Mohandas K. Gandhi was
suggesting a recipe for my future.
Mr. Gandhi, shining eyes peering over his old-
fashioned glasses, had not answered my question,
but he had lifted it and me to a higher plane. He had
stated a principle, set a direction that I have tried
ever since, sometimes in faltering ways, to follow. I
have certainly not adopted his counsel completely,
but it has set a lifetime pattern for me.
So explained Walnut Acres founder and organic
farming pioneer Paul Keene in the prelude of
his 1988 book Fear Not To Sow Because of the
Birds. The book is a collection of essays written
by Keene from 1949 through 1986. Published frst
in the popular Walnut Acres catalog sent to mail-
order customers throughout North America, Keenes
homey columns trace the history, philosophy and
evolution of Walnut Acres and the organic farming
movement over the last half century. (The books
title comes from an inscription Keene found on
an old tombstone. He adopted it as the motto for
Walnut Acres, saying that he always tried to sow
enough for birds and people, and then to move
through our days trustingly.)
At the time of his soulful stroll with Gandhi along a
dusty road in India, Keene was on holiday from the
Woodstock School in the Himalayan foothills where
he was teaching on contract for two years.
I was on leave from my position of teaching
(college) mathematics in the States, he continued in
his book. After years of preparation and teaching,
my work there seemed somehow fat and empty.
An unreality about it gnawed at my spirit. Had I
become too separated from life at the roots?
It was Gandhi -- his simple life, his powerful
personality, and his philosophy -- who inspired
me upon return to the States to spend four years
studying and learning homesteading and organic
food production. Thus prepared, with only a few
dollars, some ancient furniture and farm equipment,
and a team of horses, the family began buying
a lovely farm called Walnut Acres. Since that
beginning, things had always come as they were
truly needed. A surprised observer, I have been
swept along by life as in a miraculous stream.
I have found that answers do not come by
concentrating on ones own desires or fancied wants
or needs. Somehow, by seeking out the larger
framework, as Gandhi did, one rises here and there
above the choking limits of self into a freer, fresher
atmosphere, to where one simply sees farther,
through an expanded, more beautiful landscape.
The next year, Keene found his soul mate in
Betty Morgan, a shy, sickly girl who was born to
missionary parents in India. In 1940 the couple
returned to the United States a few months after
their marriage. They lived on a friends farm in
the Catskill Mountains of New York and soon
discovered the how-to pamphlets of Ralph Borsodi,
a Columbia University economist, and his wife,
Myrtle, who Keene described as original thinkers,
indefatigable doers, born teachers.
It didnt seem quite fair for us to go back to
teaching mathematics and physics for one year.
Whenever I should have been working on a doctoral
thesis, before my eyes swam visions of fertile felds
and growing crops, of barns and animals and small,
tender, living things. My heart belonged now, in a
way both exciting and calming, to another world,
at the doorway of which I stood awestruck. It was
hard to fnish that year of teaching.
With friends recently returned from India, Paul and
Betty Keene went to Suffern, NY, to check out the
Borsodis School for Living. In 1941 they moved
there. They stayed on for two years as co-directors
earning $5 per week. The school had a board of
directors that Keene described as visionaries from
among church groups, university faculties, political
parties, and fnancial institutions.
When these persons gathered, the thrill of a
new hope could be felt coursing through their
deliberations. Here were people pioneering their
way into the future. Those of that early group
still living today must view the present scene with
knowing smiles and not a few chuckles, Paul
wrote in 1986. It is good, so long before, to have
seen into the future and to have shaped ones life to
ones own dreams. To know that earlier one has not
been all wrong can generate occasional warmth and
glow.
Our journey had begun most encouragingly. Here
were intellectuals for whom writing and telling
were not enough. They were doing things with
their own two hands. Growing, grinding, baking,
preserving, building, weaving -- homesteading, they
called it -- they were actually controlling much of
their own lives. They even printed some of Ralphs
books themselves. Little did we realize then what a
lifelong ecstasy awaited us through these seemingly
chance contacts.
Nearby was Three Fold Farm in Spring Valley, NY.
It was operated by the Anthroposophical Society
on the biodynamic teachings of Rudolph Steiner.
The Keenes began teaching Steiners principles and
composting to their students.
The Keenes soon learned that Dr. Ehrenfried
Pfeiffer, a Swiss soil scientist who had worked with
Steiner in Europe, was now farming and teaching
in the United States. The very thing we now
wanted most was there, waiting, in Kimberton, near
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Keene continues in his
book.
We were always on the edge fnancially. The
fve dollars per week we received at the School
of Living, in addition to room and board, had not
greatly distended our purses, with the arrival of
the frst baby and all that. But when the offer of
$50 a month for the three of us came through from
Kimberton Farms School, out of which we had to
pay all living expenses but housing, we jumped at
the chance.
At Kimberton, 10 to 15 men and women students
managed 1,000 acres. Paul and Betty worked
there for two years. During that time they met J.I.
Rodale, a former IRS accountant and industrialist
with dreams of launching a publishing empire.
Rodale had recently bought a rundown farm outside
of Emmaus, PA. He was trying to restore it to
productivity using organic methods. Rodale came
to attend a lecture on natural farming methods
around 1942.
J.I. told me he was thinking about starting up
a little magazine called Organic Farming and
Gardening. He asked me if I wanted to become
the assistant editor. I laughed and said, No sir, I
think Id rather farm. Keene is quoted as saying
in a history of organic farming found on the Natural
Foods Merchandisers web site.
(Rodales frst effort to launch that magazine failed
miserably. He sent subscription offers to 10,000
rural boxholders, asking them to send him $1 for
a years subscription of 12 issues. They sent back
a grand total of $12. Rodale quickly changed
the name of his magazine to Organic Gardening
and Farming. At its peak in the 1980s, Organic
Gardening had more than 1 million subscribers.)
Meanwhile, the Keenes continued to farm. Only
when we felt we had learned what we needed to
know to go on our own as full-fedged farmers
did we decide to leave, Keene writes. Shortly
after they moved to a rented farm in Easton, PA,
the Kimberton school closed. The Keenes were
practically wiped out by heavy hail and rain. In
1945 they began looking to buy a place of their
own. They fnally found 100 acres near the center
of Pennsylvania, borrowed $5,000 and bought it.
In March (1946) we moved there -- two children,
two parents, Bettys elderly missionary father, a
team of horses, our dog Lassie, and an old car.
Never was a new-born babe more beautiful to a
relieved mother than was Walnut Acres to us as
we rattled proudly up the winding lane on that
bright March moving day so long ago. Glory was
everywhere. The tin roofs are rusted through in
spots? Set buckets under the drips until we fnd
time to patch the holes. The house and barn havent
been painted for 20 years, the windows are falling
out? Ah, but the wood is sound -- and just paste
paper over the holes for now. The place has no
plumbing, no bathroom, no telephone, no furnace --
we must heat with a wood-burning stove? Thats all
right. Isnt it great to pioneer? We must pay off the
mortgage with that one team of horses, plus an old
plow and an old harrow -- and live besides? Tut,
tut -- weve lived on nothing before; we wouldnt
know how to live otherwise. Oh, the wonder of it
all. We had a house and barn and outbuildings and a
hundred acres. Did you hear? One hundred acres!
* * * * *
Paul and Betty Keene around 1940
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 31
A little after noon, the auction crowd moves into
Walnut Acres cannery. Lot 191 (1 Panama 303
closing machine), the huge, aged gray device that
for at least 9,522 hours, according to its hour meter,
closed countless cans of Walnut Acres vegetables,
soups and other organic products brings $700.
Lots 192-211 consist of 20 retort baskets, round
perforated rust-colored steel tubs. Each is 20 inches
deep and about three feet across. They weigh at
least 100 pounds each. For years, a half-ton chain
hoist lifted them into giant pressure cookers nearby
and the contents were processed for canning.
Bidding is slow. Finally, a burly man in a green
stocking cap and a tattered fannel shirt says he will
take them for $10 each.
Sold! snaps the auctioneer.
What are you going to do with all of those?
someone asks.
Theyre cheap! the buyer replies.
After the chain hoist, the three pressure cookers
themselves come up for sale.
There is no bid. No one has any use for such
ancient technology.
In the next room, there is more modern equipment.
A 500-gallon steam jacketed kettle brings $8,500, a
200-gallon cooker $1,600.
In the mill room a 40-hp high-effciency hammer
mill fetches $6,000. Most items bring less, much
less. Lot 267 (74 assorted plastic barrels w/lids and
dollies) goes for $125. Lot 268 (55 plastic totes w/
lids and dollies) commands $175.
The crowd loosens up, breaks apart into smaller
groups scattered around the huge building as people
wait patiently for the special items they came to bid
on.
The undercurrent of conversation grows louder
behind the chant of the auctioneer.
Its a sad day. Sure am glad Paul Keene isnt here
to see this, says a man in a John Deere cap.
Oh, it would just kill him, replies a man in a black
hat and the plain garb of a Mennonite farmer.
Then 90 years old and suffering from Alzheimers
Disease, Paul Keene resides in an assisted-
living facility near Harrisburg, PA. Most days,
acquaintances say, he doesnt remember Walnut
Acres. But other days, he excitedly tells people hes
very busy, working the new price list. Thats what
he called the typewritten and mimeographed sheets
that he and Betty carefully collated on the kitchen
table in the early days. The price list. Its what later
became the glossy, four-color catalog that more than
40,000 loyal Walnut Acres mail-order customers
throughout the United States and Canada so eagerly
awaited. Each new issue contained a homey column
by Paul Keene, written as if he were talking to them
across the kitchen table. There were snapshots
of the children, the animals -- Mollie and Prince,
the Belgians that pulled the McCormick-Deering
reaper-binder used to harvest the wheat, and runt
lambs named Pooh and Eeyore -- and scenic vistas
of the gently rolling farm that customers felt
belonged to them, too.
In the fall of 1946, the six old apple trees at Walnut
Acres produced their frst crop for the Keenes. The
harvest wasnt huge, just 10 to 15 bushels. But the
thrifty homesteaders werent about to let any of it go
to waste. Using a big kettle and a tripod they had
bought at a farm sale, the Keenes began cooking
up batches of apple butter over an open wood fre.
Instead of adding sugar, they experimented until
they found just the right combination of sweet and
tart apples. Voila! Apple Essence was born. It
was a staple in the Walnut Acres price list from then
on.
That frst year, the Keenes made 100 quarts of Apple
Essence. It sold for $1 a quart.
Word of Walnut Acres, Apple Essence and the
farms growing list of other products quickly spread
far and wide. So did the price list.
All the time we were falling in love with our felds
we were being made aware of increasing outside
interest in their returns, Paul wrote in February,
1986.
A frst postcard, then a frst letter, then a visitor
came from New York City, which was 200 long,
winding, rough miles away. I was sitting on the old
barn roof, painting over the rust at last when that
frst auto appeared. I almost fell off.
The Keenes had a lot of help from their many
friends along the way.
I am a customer from way back. We knew
Paul and Betty for years and years. We were
good friends. We met through Scott and Helen
Nearing, originally, recalls Florence Mickie
Haase, who with her husband Marty lives in Nova
Scotia. Helen gave me their catalog. It was three
typewritten pages at the time. We ordered Apple
Essence. We were very pleased with that and
told people to order from them. Were probably
responsible for several thousand people becoming
Walnut Acres customers.
Over the years we got to know the Keenes very
well because we went to natural foods conventions
together. My husband had a publishing company
and we often had a booth near the Keenes.
We were younger than they. We always looked up
to them because it seemed like they were always the
spirit of the whole Natural Foods Association and
everything that went with it. They spoke all over
whole Northeast. Paul was in great demand as a
speaker. He was just so marvelous. The auditorium
was just always flled. He was always giving
everybody a big lift. It took us quite a few years to
go to Walnut Acres, to go to Mecca to see it. That
just made me even more excited about promoting
them.
Walnut Acres business boomed. Draft horses
were replaced by a classic Ford 9N tractor, then
other, bigger tractors and new, larger modern
farm implements. In 1958, the old dairy barn was
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 32
converted to a custom-grinding mill and store. A
new wing for a mill and refrigerated storage was
added in 1964-65, along with a cannery, freezer
room, offce and new retail store. More storage, a
huge kitchen and even bigger retail outlet went up in
1972. The farming operation now totaled 360 acres.
The world was beating a path to Walnut Acres door.
Unbeknownst to the Keenes, their unassuming
farm at Penns Creek was also producing a totally
unexpected crop -- new organic farmers.
I was reading Paul Keenes catalog and in each
catalog was inspirational prose about life on
the farm. I was an English Lit. dropout from
grad school at the University of Washington. I
said, Thats what I want to do ... be a vertically
integrated farming, and manufacturing sales
company, recalls Gene Kahn, president and CEO
of Small Planet Foods and a vice president of
General Mills.
In 1972, Kahn founded Cascadian Farm on 51
remote and hilly acres in Washingtons logging
country. By the middle of that decade, following
the Walnut Acres model, he began manufacturing
organic jams and pickles himself. The business
was not successful. Kahn says he soon switched
to outside packers, providing benefts of scale that
Walnut Acres never enjoyed. The whole idea was to
make Cascadian Farm products much less expensive
and more mainstream. Cascadian was bought by
Welchs in 1990, then acquired by the General
Electric pension fund in 1996. General Mills
bought the company in January, 2000. I am getting
nothing but help and support from them, Kahn
says. The only thing they have done is make us
better. His company projects sales of $100 million
in 2001.
Walnut Acres was my inspiration for entering into
business. Paul Keene gave me a real model and a
reason to enter business and paved the way for the
whole industry. Walnut Acres was Americas frst
organic farm of any scale involved in interstate
commerce.
Paul Keene took it all in stride. Weve wondered
sometimes about our growth, he wrote in February,
1986. We would not want to grow so large as to
limit our ability to apply our idealism fully to all
portions of our work. We do not think we have
done so; we dont know how large we could grow
and remain sound. We feel of late that we have
come close to a size that seems ideal.
The solid virtues of the small farm remain. The
time may yet come when we will see our countrys
greatest task as that of making land available to
those who would use it wisely, on a small scale. We
may learn to order things so that millions of families
can once more make a substantial portion of a
complete, satisfying living from the soil. Perhaps
we can once again realize the virtues of simplicity
and frugality.
As we see it most people on this Earth gain
strength from closeness to the soil and from thinking
in small terms. Perhaps these are both basic needs,
on which continuing life on this planet is predicated.
Perhaps it has always been this way, and we are
just relearning what those who went before already
knew. In the midst of so many rapid changes that
toss us about like leaves in the wind, it is good to
know that Earth abides, and that small is beautiful.
But Walnut Acres wasnt so small anymore. Neither
was organic farming. By the mid-1980s, the natural
foods movement was becoming big business. As
annual industry sales fgures grew into hundreds of
millions and then broke into the billions, organic
food companies naturally attracted the attention
of giant corporations controlling the nations food
supply. The industrial world was quickly catching
up to little Walnut Acres, then passing it by, despite
management efforts to stay on the cutting edge.
The catalog changed. Things I had ordered for 20
or 25 years suddenly werent there anymore, Haase
recalls. Techno kitchen gadgets replaced the 8-grain
medley cereal that she delighted in giving to friends.
More and more of the catalog was going into glitzy
things not related to the farm, things for personal
care and more imported items.
She was so upset about the changes that she
mentioned it to Keene. The young people (the
second generation of the family business) are
running it, Paul said. They do things differently.
They seem to think that this is important to get the
upwardly mobile type of population. You have to
go with the times.
After all, Paul Keene had other, bigger worries.
Then in his mid-70s, his mind wasnt as sharp as it
used to be. He became increasingly confused and
forgetful. The realization that he was slipping made
him anxious. That made everything worse. He
spent less time dealing directly with the business
and retreated to the log springhouse that became
his study and eventual hideaway. Even worse,
his wifes health was deteriorating rapidly. Betty
suffered from a genetic condition called Alpha 1
Anti-trypsin Enzyme Defciency in which the body
digests its own protein and eventually destroys its
own organs. Long the victim of a wracking cough,
she eventually developed serious emphysema.
Hospitalized in May of 1987 for respiratory
problems, Betty suffered a massive heart attack and
died. She was 75.
Paul was devastated by Bettys death. Without
Betty around to guide him, family members, friends
and business associates suddenly realized just
how much she had been covering for him. Day-
to-day business operations increasingly fell to the
Keenes middle daughter Ruth and her husband
Bob Anderson. The couple soon completely
took over management of Walnut Acres and also
played a leadership role in the organic industry,
with Anderson serving on the National Organic
Standards Board in the early 1990s. Despite
annual sales of $10 million, Walnut Acres was
not prospering and growing as other organic food
companies were.
We needed capital to upgrade, says Shawn
Brouse, former printing and labeling supervisor
at Walnut Acres. The company enjoyed a great
stand in the 80s and was resting on its laurels.
Nobody looked ahead to see that in the 90s, others
were going to make organic cereals. And here we
stood with 50s equipment trying to compete with
Campbells. Our prices were so high and we had
so much overhead. Everybody knew it was old-
fashioned.
Dilbert Meets Doonesbury
Demand for organic foods exploded in the 1990s,
with sales soaring by 20 percent a year. No longer
the cuisine only of sandal-clad environmentalists,
organic food is coming of age. It is clearly big
business, The New York Times reported on Oct.
26, 1996. The article, headlined A Widening
Popularity Brings Acquisitions, detailed a long
list of giant food corporations snapping up smaller
organic frms in what one natural foods executive
described as a buying frenzy.
Enter David C. Cole, the former president of
America Onlines internet services. Described
by The New York Times as a venture capitalist,
philanthropist and organic farmer, the then 42-year-
old Cole bought a farm in 1995, paying a reported
$11.5 million for Sunnyside Farms, a 539-acre
spread in Washington, Va.
In March, 1999, Cole bought controlling interest in
Walnut Acres. He promptly invested $4 million to
increase Walnut Acres online presence, according
to Organic Food Business News.
We were all told that they (the Keene-Anderson
family) were so excited that they had found
someone who shared our ideals for organic and
sustainable agriculture, says Brouse. But soon
it was, Internet here we come! To hell with the
catalog and the store. Internet sales soared. Mail-
order sales slumped. E-commerce was simply
draining existing business from old sources. Walnut
Acres was not reaching many new customers. The
problem was nothing unique to Walnut Acres.
Wall Streets 1999 dot.com boom went bust in
2000, with companies such as MotherNature.com,
Whole Foods (owner of Fresh Fields), Wild Oats
Market and Balduccis pulling out of the internet
market after heavy losses. There were more than
63,000 layoffs in the internet feld since December,
1999. At Walnut Acres when it became apparent
that change was not going to be as easy, quick or
proftable as frst expected, former employees say
what seemed a friendly partnership in the beginning
quickly soured, turning into something resembling a
hostile takeover or at least a marriage of two popular
comic strips -- the dot.com parody of Doonesbury
and the dysfunctional corporate dealings of Dilbert.
We were busier in my department and many
other departments than we had ever been, recalls
Brouse. We were running a third shift. Food
was really fying in wholesale. New guidelines
were constantly being set. Then, the next month
management would do a 360. It was impossible to
accomplish tasks, but we were doing it.
Ruthless corporate America came to little Penns
Creek and Penns Creek had its eyes shut. The
Walnut Acres of today has nothing to do with
Walnut Acres of eight months ago. What Walnut
Acres stood for it stands for no more. If the world
knew what happened at Penns Creek they would
never buy another Walnut Acres product again, he
adds.
Cole named a new CEO in early in 2000. Then, on
June 20, 2000, company press releases announced
the beginning of the end: Remote geographic
location of the plant is detrimental ... that changes
necessary to modernize the aging plant would
prevent the company from achieving proftability by
continuing to manufacture goods there. Catalog
operations were suspended June 23.
Well all right, responds an editorial in the local
newspaper, The Daily Item, two days later. Weve
all heard jokes about living in Central Pennsylvania
and being centrally isolated from everywhere.
But we would have thought that a state whose top
industry is agriculture might be, dare we say it, a
central geographic location for an organic farming
operation. Walnut Acres will continue, but not from
Snyder County. Were too remote, we hear. Not
good for business. Unless your business happens to
be farming.
Local residents, including many farmers who
supplied Walnut Acres, had no idea what was
happening. Usually, Walnut Acres employees
were at Leon Kuhns farm a mile and a half from
Penns Creek checking regularly on the progress
of his organic peach and apple crops. For the past
35 years, Kuhns father and then Kuhns supplied
Walnut Acres with organic fruit. Their only contract
was a handshake with Paul Keene, who promised to
buy everything they produced. Kuhns was born and
raised there and went to school with the Keene girls.
Finally, a month before the peaches would have
come in, I hadnt heard from them. So, I called and
talked to the man in charge, and he said he didnt
think this year they would take any peaches or
apples, Kuhns recalls.
There was no warning. We had to hunt other
markets for our crops. We were fortunate. I bought
a computer, got on internet and sought out different
people who dealt in organic fruit. We got rid of
everything that we had. We got about a third more.
Lets say the Lord smiled upon what we did. He
helped us out tremendously, which was something
that we really needed at the time. It was a big
lump to swallow when, all of a sudden, where you
delivered all of your fruit theyre not taking none
anymore.
Other area farmers and residents were not so
fortunate, according to Kuhns. They fnd it rather
rough going until they get onto an organic market
that they can sell to. It really hit hard. People who
worked there for 30-plus years are fnding different
jobs. Some do rather well and others dont do so
good. What Walnut Acres has done did not do this
area and these people any favors. Boy Ill tell you,
it hurt.
The shock was felt as far away as California.
Everyone I told the Walnut Acres story to -- family
owned, not corporate, organic pioneers -- they
bought whatever I told them about. I was selling
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 33
left and right, recalls Jules Michael, former retail
sales representative for Walnut Acres in northern
California. Any store I went into, everybody was
buying Walnut Acres soups.
Michael says the new management wanted her to
stay on. They sent me a contract. It contained a
clause that if I left I couldnt work for any other
organic manufacturer anywhere in the country for
up to a year. They werent willing to change any of
the clauses or compensate me in any way.
I think they were sleazy. They ruined a family
business that was a pillar of the natural foods
industry. I cannot believe that the company could
not have survived. There is no reason why they
had to shut everything down. We all wanted to do
something about it, but there was no time. It just
doesnt seem like it had to happen that way. She
was laid off the beginning of August, 2000.
On Aug. 19, 2000, the Penns Creek facility was
offcially closed. When Mr. Cole slammed the
doors shut on the plant, he did so with our company
store stocked with shelves of food, along with
our retail packing line, Brouse wrote in a letter
published in the November, 2000, issue of Organic
Food Business News. He stopped tractors from
rolling on the farm with felds full of healthy crops
of corn, hay, soybeans, barley and rye. People need
to know about this.
The same issue of the newsletter carried two widely
contrasting articles. One called Walnut Acres a
fnancial loser. The other predicted total organic
sales in 2000 of $7.8 billion. The continuation of
the Walnut Acres article was headlined, Walnut
Acres Exec Denies Charges. Mark Rodriguez,
Acirca/Walnut Acres CEO, denied reports that
crops in the feld had been left to rot. In fact, they
were harvested in the second week of November
and remaining packaged products were given to
food shelters and specialty distributors. All the
employees were given a 60-day notice of the plant
closing, and many received up to six and seven
weeks of vacation pay, even though the company
was not obligated to provide the payment. With
the help of local job counselors, more than 60
percent of the workforce found new jobs.
Is There A Downside? asked the headline on the
editorial in that issue.
This issue is flled with glowing reports about the
growth of the organic food industry. However, we
have been troubled by recent reports that indicate
the bloom is coming off the rose. Is the industry
going through the same fallout as the dot.com high
tech fallout?
In the last two months, we have seen a major
California produce distributor, Earthstar, declare that
it has no money to pay off $900,000 in bad debts.
Hurt by poor crops, the well-known Pavich Family
Farms has declared bankruptcy. In this issue, the
new CEO of Walnut Acres tells us the company was
losing money for years.
On the plus side, publicly held companies such as
Horizon Organic Holdings and Hain Celestial say
their profts are up, but their stock is down.
Are these all early warning signs to keep a closer
eye on fnances? The organic food industry holds
great promise. Sales this year could reach $7.8
billion, one new study reports; and, while we are
certainly optimistic about the future, perhaps we
should also be wary of the downside.
Organic Means More Than Money
The Natural Foods Merchandiser took a much
broader view when reporting the closing of the
Walnut Acres plant in Pennsylvania: Though
the brand name may live on, for many consumers
the farm itself best represented the vision of the
founders Paul and Betty Keene, who learned organic
farming techniques in India and later supported
a variety of charitable and community-building
programs both locally and around the world with
profts from their ground-breaking business. Even
if the brand name returns, the Keenes vision for
the company may be irrevocably lost, many in the
industry said.
Count Travis Tabor among the many feeling a loss.
The industry lost the heart of its heart, right along
with Arrowhead Mills (recently sold to Hain), says
Tabor, president of Sunbelt Sales and Marketing in
St. Augustine, FL. The Frank Fords (Arrowhead
Mills founder) and Bob Andersons of the world,
they dont grow on trees. They are the true stewards
of the land.
Organic means so much more than just no
pesticides and no fertilizers. People were displaced
from that farm that had literally grown our industry
from zero. The next day they were literally off the
farm for the sake of co-packing in glass, which
further destroys the product with light. Other than
oxygen, light is the strongest killer.
To take something that precious and stamp it the
way it was done is just not humane. We lost the
heart of the heart of the industry. I am just very
grateful that I got to be in the industry between 1970
and 2000, while it was coming of age.
Increasingly, Tabor says, the most pressing question
in organics today seems to be the same as in any
other business: What did our stock price do
yesterday?
It is just a shame that such people could get their
hands on a company of that stature. Walnut Acres
and Arrowhead Mills were always two heads above
the rest. Thats what made it hurt so much. It was
like a slow-motion train wreck. It was a crying
shame. I shudder to think whats next.
The next thing for Penns Creek was a short-notice
auction sale in October, 2000, when the bulk of
Walnut Acres farm equipment was sold at the local
fairgrounds.
Rising From The Ashes
Americas Original Organic Brand Begins Life
Anew, proclaims the headline on a Jan. 12, 2001,
press release produced for Walnut Acres-Acirca by
the New York public relations frm of Patrice Tanaka
& Co., Inc.
This month, Walnut Acres parent, Acirca, Inc.,
re-launches the pioneering brand with a new line of
certifed organic soups that will bring great taste,
convenience and healthful favor classics with a
twist to todays consumer.
Established in 1946, Walnut Acres is a brand of
Arlington Va.-based Acirca, Inc., makers of fne
organic foods. The Acirca name derives from
A Circle of Life, underscoring the companys
commitment to organic foods and its intent
to manage products which give back to the
environment, the press release concludes.
There is no mention in press releases or on the
companys website of Walnut Acres founder
Paul Keene, who was given the annual Organic
Leadership Award for his lifetime of work during
the Natural Products Expo in 1998. There is no
mention of his farm at Penns Creek.
Why? What happened? Many other organic food
companies such as Cascadian Farm prospered when
taken under the wing of larger companies. What
went wrong at Penns Creek? Why does Walnut
Acres now exist only as a brand name, its founders
and past completely ignored?
I cant say anything, replies former Walnut Acres
president Bob Anderson. Legal documents that
reportedly assured former Walnut Acres employees
their pensions and other benefts strictly forbid
him and other family members from discussing the
business.
They have just been muzzled, says family friend
Mickie Haase. Mr. Cole has done a wonderful job
of keeping the public and organic loyalists in the
dark about all of this.
In March of 2001, Acirca CEO Mark Rodriguez
and Michael Neuwirth, corporate communications
director, gave their side of the story in a three-way
conference call.
The company was in fnancial trouble and thats
why it went out and secured a majority investor in
July, 1999, says Rodriguez. What happened is
that they brought in a guy named David Cole and a
$4 million capital infusion that was badly needed.
David Cole worked alongside the Andersons to
try to develop a new, refned strategy to turn the
company around. At the time they believed that
developing internet sales would promote sales of
product across America and be a greater conduit for
the network of organic farms that they were trying
to develop (in conjunction with Coles Sunnyside
Farms in Virginia). As they started to put more
money into the business, the business started losing
more money. Were not quite sure why.
Cole, working with Bob and Ruth (Keene) Anderson
chaired a global search committee that brought
Rodriguez in as CEO in April, 2000. That month
Rodriguez founded Acirca, Inc., a venture capital-
fnanced packaged goods company targeting the
rapidly growing, $20 billion worldwide market
for organic food and beverages, according to
Rodriguez corporate biography. Core investors
reportedly included venture capitalists such as
media mogul Ted Turner and America Online
founder Steve Case. From 1990 to 1999, Rodriguez
was CEO in North America for Great Brands of
Europe, Inc., and Danone International Brands,
Inc. Annual sales during that time rose from $68
million to $800 million through internal growth and
acquisitions.
I came in and evaluated the business and very
quickly it became apparent that as the Walnut Acres
product offering had expanded to answer their
consumers demands, more and more and more of
the farming inputs required to produce the products
or fnished goods that were being sold through the
catalog were coming from other parts of the country.
Less than 10 percent were grown on the farm. The
supplies were coming from throughout the United
States and even Mexico.
There was no buying leverage. They were
purchasing inputs in less than truckload quantities
and paying the highest possible costs. The huge
winner in this model was the trucking companies. It
was putting pressures on the company and its brand.
Walnut Acres was in dire straits, says Rodriguez,
adding that suppliers were not being paid on time.
After 10 weeks of intense study, he says, we
presented a new strategy to our board that said
the key to the business has to be providing access,
providing the brand to more people to take
advantage of the growing organic food movement.
In our current business model it is impossible,
because the more we sell, the more we lose. The
key is to produce the same or better high-quality
products closer to the point of crop harvest and
closer to the point of consumption. That was point
number 1.
Point number 2 was: Lets bring this brand back
to its roots (certifed organic) and eliminate all of
the product offerings -- 80 percent of what was in
catalog was either not certifed or was someone
elses trademarks.
As for the Walnut Acres manufacturing plant at
Penns Creek, PA, Rodriguez says management and
employees asked, What if we focus on one or two
categories that we are the absolute best at and try to
bring other product in to co-pack? At the end of the
day, we found we would only need to employ the
plant 14 days a year. It was closed Aug. 19, 2000.
The distribution center was shut down Feb. 1, 2001.
We are trying to make the brand approachable to a
much wider audience than it has ever been exposed
to before. We have moved this business from a
direct mail-order business that had 40,000 core
customers to a retail business where Walnut Acres
will be available in 5,000 stores across America.
Our mission is to bring packaged organic food to
the people to make it easier for them to access and
enjoy the tremendous health benefts of consuming
products that do not have a lot of bad stuff in it,
says Rodriguez.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 34
The most important thing for us and what we
consistently tell people we work with or talk to
is that the new management and the new owners
of this company really take our responsibility of
stewarding this great brand very seriously and our
aspirations are to enhance its position within the
organic movement.
The last thing that I want to do is cast a shadow
on the organic food industry or the pioneers in the
organic food industry.
We are trying to fnd a balance in terms of a deep-
held and earned respect for the founders and the
development of a new business model. The last
thing I would want to do is disparage the former
owners.
The sad thing for us, Rodriguez adds, is that the
public does not seem to understand the business
reasons behind all of the changes. Yet, when we
tell the story in a straightforward, truthful way,
he adds, people say it suddenly makes sense. Its
really discouraging.
Has he ever thought about issuing a press release
saying exactly that? Such a corporate mea culpa
might go a long way toward appeasing loyal Walnut
Acres customers such as Mickie Haase.
Not a bad idea, replies Rodriguez, telling Neuwirth
to make a note of it. Already on it, says the
corporate communications director.
In July, 2001, Walnut Acres/Acirca mailed out a
big press packet. Americans Fear Their Food, is
stamped on the outside envelope in red ink. Eight
in 10 Americans say they are unsure how safe their
food really is, explains the press release about
Walnut Acres Certifed Organic Future, a random
telephone sampling of 1,000 adults by Roper Starch
Worldwide.
The explosion in popularity of organic food is
largely attributable to the barrage of headlines
about Mad Cow, growth hormones, foot-and-mouth
disease, and other threats to food safety, says
Olivier Sonnois, Acircas vice president of strategy
and development. There is a palpable fear of the
unknown and an increasing belief that what you
cant see might hurt you.
There is no mention in the press packet of Paul or
Betty Keene or the farm they founded in Penns
Creek, PA. Established in 1946, Walnut Acres is
Americas original organic brand and is owned by
the Arlington, VA-based Acirca, Inc., makers of fne
certifed organic foods and beverages, the press
releases say.
Americans may, indeed, fear their food. But
longtime Walnut Acres customers
also fear a corporate rewriting of organic
history. Its scandalous that they have not even
acknowledged Pauls existence, says Mickie Haase.
This is a tragedy. The organic industry and its
customers should know what has happened. I just
get so boiling mad about this. Im telling everyone
I know who bought from Walnut Acres not to buy
their products, adds the woman who once brought
thousands of new customers to Walnut Acres.
* * * * *
No wonder the auction security guards are edgy.
Just how far things have degenerated becomes clear
when the auction moves into the Walnut Acres retail
store in early afternoon. Auctioneer Sherman holds
up a rectangular cardboard sign bearing the Walnut
Acres logo on both sides.
The name has been sold. It cannot be used in
advertising. This is for nostalgic purposes only, he
warns the bidders. The sign brings $20.
The auction moves through the warehouse, then into
the bakery. Dirty dishes and utensils are still piled
in sinks and wherever else employees left them
when the business closed a few months earlier. A
thin flm of sticky, rancid grease covers many items.
This is depressing. I shoulda stayed home, says a
man in the back of the crowd.
Did it to themselves. Shoulda sold to somebody
else, his companion replies.
Five times the money, barks the auctioneer.
Lets go!
Lot by lot, the auction moves upstairs into
main offce, then the third foor offces. Former
employees are there to bid on the new computers
they used not long ago. Everything goes,
typewriters, chairs and desks, cubicles, fax
machines, computers, monitors, printers and boxes
of software.
In the upstairs peanut room, an antique 25-pound
coffee roaster brings $600.
Two peanut roasters go for $3,000, each. The
peanut butter mill brings $2,200. Soon, the auction
moves outside for the last odds and ends. A shed
full of wooden bushel baskets and crates -- enough
to fll two pickups and a fatbed truck -- brings $100.
The old Farmall tractor brings $1,300, a wrecked
1994 Dodge Caravan $1,100. Other items, mostly
old, rusty equipment, sell -- on the frst bid -- for as
little as $5.
Its getting dark. Weary buyers begin piling inside
to pay for their purchases. The auction clerks are
overwhelmed. Waiting buyers start talking about
their purchases, the auction, the demise of Walnut
Acres. A woman in a blue jacket identifes herself
as Marge Hartley, Paul Keenes daughter. The other
buyers are suddenly naturally curious, yet their tone
is reverent, almost like theyre paying their last
respects to an old friend.
Marge says she bought a pizza oven. She might
use it to make granola. Her sister, Ruth, bought
the peanut processing equipment. Ruth is thinking
about getting back into making peanut butter. The
old Farmall tractor was bought by Marges son and
daughter-in-law who live near Pittsburgh. They
want to move to Penns Creek, maybe in a year or so.
Why? Why, to farm, of course.
We still have the land, Marge tells the other
buyers on her way out. Well be fne.
EPILOGUE
In addition to taking over Walnut Acres, Acirca,
Inc. bought other small natural food companies
and spent lavishly on advertising in what Boston
investment banker Scott Van Winkle told the
Natural Foods Merchandiser (NFM) was an insane
strategy.
According to NFM, Too many investors were
stirring the broth at Acirca ... with no background
in the naturals industry. Said Ben James of North
Castle Partners, Acircas lead investor: We had the
wrong business model with the wrong management
team. On June 17, 2003, the Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. bought Acirca, Inc. -- including the
Walnut Acres brand soups and salsas -- for an
estimated $13.5 million.
It was a small price to pay, considering that sales
of natural and organic products in the United States
totaled $19.7 billion in 2004.
Hain Celestial is the worlds largest natural and
organic products company, Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Offcer Irwin D. Simon said
in the companys 2005 annual report. In fscal
year 2005, Hain Celestials net sales totaled $620
million.
Even in their wildest dreams, Paul and Betty
Keene probably never imagined such astronomical
numbers might someday be possible as they stirred
$100 worth of apple butter in an iron kettle over an
open fre in the fall of 1946. They are both gone
now, but their legacy is not yet forgotten.
In a news obituary last spring, The Washington
Posts Pat Sullivan reported, Paul Keene, 94, one
of the founders of the U.S. organic food movement,
died April 23 at Messiah Village Nursing Home in
Mechanicsburg, Pa., not far from the farm where he
launched the modern commercial market for natural
foods.
2005 by George DeVault
Reap profits from
Direct Marketing
with our Labels!
G
R
O
W
E
R

S
D
I
S
C
O
U
N
T
L
A
B
E
L
S
growersdiscountlabels@tds.net
request a free catalog
1-800-693-1572
We design and print labels
for berries, vegetables, sauerkraut,
soap, lip balm, yoghurt, cheese,
meat, eggs, pastured poultry
labels for almost anything!
Since 1975
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 35
by Elizabeth Henderson
NOFA is dedicated to a vision of interconnected
healthy communities living in ecological balance,
deeply rooted in a sense of place, grounded in
organic care of the land.
For thousands of people in this country and millions
around the world family scale organic farming is a
way of life based on cooperation and harmony with
nature, building more socially just and sustainable
communities, producing healthy, safe, nutritious,
and minimally processed food, reducing food miles,
energy waste and pollution, and trading on fair
terms both with neighbors and with people in distant
regions. Organic farming is part of the striving for
peace among humans and between humans and all
the other creatures of the earth above and below
ground.

The values underlying the organic movement are
expressed in the Principles of Organic Agriculture
revised in 2005 by a task force of the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM). Several people from the US, including
Brian Baker of the Organic Materials Review
Institute (OMRI) and myself, contributed to the
discussions of these principles. After a full year of
intense exchanges, in September, 2005, the IFOAM
World Assembly in Adelaide, Australia, ratifed
these principles:
Principle of health
Organic Agriculture should sustain and enhance the
health of soil, plant, animal, human and planet as
one and indivisible.
A Part Is Less than the Whole:
How Does the NOP Stack Up to the
Principles of Organic Agriculture?
Principle of ecology
Organic Agriculture should be based on living
ecological systems and cycles, work with them,
emulate them and help sustain them.
Principle of fairness
Organic Agriculture should build on relationships
that ensure fairness with regard to the common
environment and life opportunities.
Principle of care
Organic Agriculture should be managed in a
precautionary and responsible manner to protect
the health and well-being of current and future
generations and the environment.
(http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/
index.html)
By contrast, the Final Rule for the USDA National
Organic Program (NOP) offers this defnition
of organic: A labeling term that refers to an
agricultural product produced in accordance with
the Act and the regulations in this part. In response
to comments that criticized the organic law and
the Rule for failing to address standards for fair
treatment of farm workers, the NOP stated that this
was not in their purview.
Four years after implementation, I think we can
say that the NOP production standards do provide
an adequate foor for practices on organic farms.
The big exception is for livestock. Although the
law requires access to the outdoors, the NOP has
allowed certifers to grant the USDA organic label to
dairy and chicken farms that confne the animals to
barns or even cages for large portions of their lives.
Because the system is pass/fail, farms can qualify as
organic by avoiding all prohibited materials while
cutting corners on crop rotations, cover cropping
and maintenance of biodiversity. In Agrarian
Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in
California, Julie Guthman rated 144 organic farms
according to their agronomic practices. Of the
farms grossing over $1 million or $10 million or
more, none rated as most agroecological. (See
chart on p. 48).

Elsewhere in this issue of TNF, you can read about
the problems with the NOP and the processing of
organic foods.
Despite its very limited parameters, by helping
expand the acres under organic management and
increasing the market, the NOP does contribute
at least partially to the Principles of Health and
Ecology. Through its defnition of Genetically
modifed organisms as excluded materials,
the NOP introduces USDA to the precautionary
thinking embedded in the Principle of Care.
In our struggles to uphold the integrity of the USDA
Organic label, which is so important to the many
organic farms that cannot sell directly to consumers
and must bear the organic label to gain access to
markets, we should keep in mind that a marketing
label is only a small part of the meaning of organic
agriculture. The NOP is our toe in the door of
USDA. Sometimes, that door squeezes us painfully.
The challenge ahead is to get our whole foot and
then our bodies and spirits into the food system in
this country so that we can complete the agrarian
transformation that is the dream and the promise of
organic agriculture.
Tine Weeders with
working width
5 Feet
6 Feet
7 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet
20 Feet
30 Feet
40 Feet
50 Feet
60 Feet
68 Feet
80 Feet
Our Tine Weeders are used in all felds:
vegetable, potatoes, cash crop
seed bed preparation, aerate pastures, etc.
Pivoting 5 feet sections with
60 spring steel tines, adjust-
able from
aggressive to
non-aggressive
with one lever
Hydraulic Fold
Main Frame
standard on
models 15 feet
and up
Strong,
Quality
Steel Frame
19 inches long
spring steel
tines 1/4 inch
in diameter
Adjustable Gauge Wheels
WEED PROBLEMS SOLVED!
Importer for Canada
HWE Agricultural Technology Ltd.
B.P. 1515
CDN-Embrun, ON,
Canada K0A 1W0
Telephone: (613) 443-3386
Fax: (613) 443-1389
New Importer for USA!!
Mog Implements LLC
171 Church St., Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 723-7361
Fax: (843) 723-7362
gwillis@csroads.com

Principles of Organic Agriculture

Preamble
These Principles are the roots from which organic agriculture grows
and develops. They express the contribution that organic agriculture
can make to the world, and a vision to improve all agriculture in a
global context.

Agriculture is one of humankinds most basic activities because all
people need to nourish themselves daily. History, culture and
community values are embedded in agriculture. The Principles apply to
agriculture in the broadest sense, including the way people tend
soils, water, plants and animals in order to produce, prepare and
distribute food and other goods. They concern the way people interact
with living landscapes, relate to one another and shape the legacy of
future generations.

The Principles of Organic Agriculture serve to inspire the organic
movement in its full diversity. They guide IFOAMs development of
positions, programs and standards. Furthermore, they are presented
with a vision of their world-wide adoption.

Organic agriculture is based on:

The principle of health
The principle of ecology
The principle of fairness
The principle of care

Each principle is articulated through a statement followed by an
explanation. The principles are to be used as a whole. They are
composed as ethical principles to inspire action.





Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 36
by Samuel Fromartz
Standing in the parking lot of a 205,000 square-foot
salad processing plant in northern California, one
warm fall day in 2003, I saw how far organic food
production had evolved. A chilled 16-wheeler had
just arrived from the felds and a fork-lift was busy
unloading the truck and stacking bins of freshly
cut baby lettuce. Workers ushered the bins into
a giant vacuum-cooling tube, taking the produce
down to 38 degrees, and then into the refrigerated
plant, where three mechanized lines with cascading
water plumes washed, spun and then dropped the
salad through a chute into plastic bags. They were
among the 22 million servings of organic salad that
Earthbound Farm, the third-largest organic food
company, with more than $260 million in sales,
dishes up weekly for sale around the country. Those
who supplied this plant farmed big tracks of organic
acreage, because this 24/7 farming model only
works on a huge scale, and were paid $0.85-$1.10 a
pound, depending on the variety.
What had brought me here? I had been an organic
consumer since the mid-1990s, driven more by a
passion for good fresh food and a cooking Jones
than by any deep concern about nutrition, pesticides,
the environment or the plight of small farmers. But
the more I bought, the deeper I wandered into this
world, frst seeking out quality produce at markets
like Whole Foods, and then branching out to a
local farmers market where I met and befriended
farmers. One couple, Jim and Moie Crawford, of
New Morning Farm in south-central Pennsylvania,
who have farmed organically for 30 years, began
to provide my seasonal produce and helped bring
the philosophy behind organics into focus. With
a background as a business journalist, questions
naturally arose about what I was eating, where my
food came from, and how organics had evolved
from a scrappy back-to-the-land movement into a
$14 billion industry. This led to the book project that
became Organic, Inc. published by Harcourt this
spring.
I not only wanted to explain the organic method to
lay readers, who, like me, were only dimly aware
of what it meant; I also wanted to fnd out what
was behind the more recent conficts that had arisen
from the stunning success of organic food. So I went
back to the early British pioneers, who in the 1920s
articulated a post-industrial response to chemical
farming, and then dove forward into the more recent
growth of the movement since the 1970s. (I did
not delve deeply into biodynamics). I then focused
on stories of people like the Crawfords, who were
instrumental in bringing local foods to my city in
Washington, D.C.; met Jim Cochran, one of the
frst strawberry farmers on the central coast of
California to go organic, bucking two decades of
intensive chemical use in the industry; visited with
the founders of the biggest organic food companies,
like Earthbound and White Wave, the maker of
Silk soy milk; and then began to delve into organic
regulations, the battleground for many of the current
My Journey Toward Organic, Inc.
conficts. One abiding question I had was, what
drove farmers to try the method, the entrepreneurs
to build a natural foods market, and consumers like
me to buy the food?
What surprised me was how varied the impulses
behind the movement were no singular political,
ideological, religious or agrarian idea defned it,
though many intersected. It was a way to go back to
the land, to help small farmers, to keep chemicals
out of the food supply, to heal the environment, to
create an alternative food system, to change the
current food system, to go forward with agriculture,
to go backward with agriculture, to live on a
sustainable footprint, to change society at large,
to pursue nutritious food, to create local food
markets, to create mass market products. Idealism
and opportunism both played a role. One reason
organic food succeeded was that it appealed to
such a wide range of people, from fundamentalist
Christians to vegetarian Buddhists, from rural right-
wing libertarian farmers to left-wing liberals in San
Francisco and New York. Like jazz improvisers,
each had a unique take on the fundamental equation
that linked soil, food and health.
Earthbound and its ilk, then, were just one strand
in this cacophony. A lot of people have witnessed
the rise of companies like them and summed up the
progression of organic food as one of compromise,
sell-out, and rise of the Organic Industrial complex.
Other organic idealists looked at the same
picture and saw what they had sought all along
the triumph of organic food among mainstream
consumers and the conversion of farmers to more
environmentally sound organic practices.
What I saw was a paradox. Organic food was
envisioned from the beginning as an alternative to
conventional industrial agriculture, but the pioneers
were so convinced of their vision that only growth
could bring validation; growth that came from
convincing more people to eat organic food and
more farmers to switch to organic practices. (This
was J.I. Rodales mission in publishing). Ultimately,
the success of organic food overwhelmed the ability
of the small-scale model to feed it, which is why
companies like Earthbound grew so dramatically
once demand took off.
At the same time, after deriding organic food as the
lunatic fringe and the muck and mystery school
incapable of feeding the world, the mainstream
food industry woke up and saw a growth market
expanding at 20 percent a year in a business that
at best ekes out 2-3 percent gains. That is why the
largest dairy company in the nation, $10.5-billion
Dean Foods, bought Horizon and Silk, the two
biggest organic brands. Organic food thus was
embraced by the very food system it was supposed
to replace. This identity crisis and the meaning
of organic foods as an alternative has produced
many of the conficts you see today.
At the same time, there are also very real battles
over organic regulations. Witness the recent
regulatory interpretations to allow feedlot organic
dairies with 5,000 cows. But curiously, Big Food
is not always the foe when it comes to organic
regulations, because why kill the golden goose? Its
not in a companys best economic interest to do so,
especially with so many media savvy public-interest
groups watching every move. That is why, for
example, Horizon Organic supported a more strictly
worded pasture standard and Earthbound lobbied
against the rewriting of the organic law in Congress
this fall. Integrity is what gives value to the organic
brand and many, though not all, big companies
know it.
Although there is a worry that corporate organics
will mean the death of the small farmer, I found the
market wasnt a zero-sum game. Some in California
were incensed about the way Earthbound built its
business and said they could not compete in lettuce
at 85 cents a pound. But these farmers werent
farming 2-5 acre farms, but had 500 acre tracts.
In organic salad mix, the market had bifurcated
between big and small players, just as it has in the
rest of agriculture. The toughest spot to be was in
the middle, too big to depend on direct sales, but
too small to make it in wholesale markets. At local
farmers markets, California farmers sold salad
mix direct for about $4-5 a pound, undercutting
Earthbounds bags in the stores by nearly half with a
much fresher product.
Company Sales Market Share
Top Five Organic Brands
Horizon Organic (Dean) $327 million 8 percent
Silk (Dean) $321 million 8 percent
Earthbound Farm $261 million 7 percent
Organic Valley $190 million 5 percent
Amys Kitchen $189 million 5 percent
Top Organic Dairy Brands
Horizon Organic (Dean) $289 million 39 percent
Stonyfeld Farm $172 million 23 percent
Organic Valley $163 million 22 percent
Organic Cow of Vermont (Horizon) $34.5 million 5 percent
Clover $13.2 million 2 percent
photo by Link Nicoll
Samuel Fomartz
Organic dairy includes milk, half & half, cream, yogurt and kefr, other dairy and cheese;
it excludes non-dairy alternatives.
Industry source provided this SPINSscan data for 52 weeks ending Sept 10, 2005.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 37
Whole Foods Markets expanded rapidly in the
Washington, D.C., region, with more stores here
than in any other part of the country stocked full
of California organic produce (and a growing local
supply). But this growth brought more consumers
into the fold, raising awareness; a number of
them, like me, traded up to farmers markets. Jim
Crawford told me he has been able to sell as much
as he grows. Though he disliked Whole Foods,
because of the troubles his co-op had in selling to
the behemoth, he told me they had created new
customers for his market. Demand was never an
issue. In fact, demand often exceeds supply, leading
to the type of shortages and higher prices we now
see in organic milk. While a third of American
consumers buy some organic food regularly, it still
represents only 2 percent of all food sales, 1 percent
if you include the money spent eating out. So theres
still a lot of upside, whatever your ilk: CSA or
Safeway.
We all know the $14 billion organic movement and
industry is in confict; that it continues to grow at 20
percent a year; that large, mainstream manufacturers
have a foothold in the market; that growing numbers
of farmers are choosing to go beyond organic
and forgo certifcation. At the same time, organic
farming is the only sector actually drawing more
adherents while the rest of the farming sector
shrinks. There are about 20,000 organic farmers
nationwide, just under half of them certifed.
The root strength that has sustained organics
comes from the raucous culture that built this
movement and market, one in which consumers,
farmers, entrepreneurs, environmental advocates,
nutritionists, agrarians, certifers and chefs all
participated. They didnt always see eye to eye but
that was the point. All came together and hammered
out the meaning and method of organic food in a
way that has well served the market. That should be
recalled whenever an interest group comes up with
a singular vision for organic food, for that path leads
to weakness.
That was most evident recently, when the Organic
Trade Association pushed to rewrite the organic
law. It led to an outcry among public interest groups
denouncing the maneuver. The OTA, I believe,
was seeking to restore the consensus on the use
of synthetics in processed food hammered out in
1999 by the National Organic Standards Board, a
history I detail in my book. This consensus was
delicate, but worked out in good faith, albeit with
a faulty legal foundation that had been in place for
years. When Maine farmer Arthur Harvey sued the
USDA challenging the regulations on synthetics
and won, that consensus fell apart. Rather than go
back to the table and hammer out a resolution as
even Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy advised OTA
rammed its change through Congress. And now
OTA is paying the price in media reports about how
it sold out organics to industrial interests.
The biggest danger organics faces now is that these
conficts will lead to schism, so that organics loses
the raucous, conficted and democratic culture that
has served it so well in the past. If that happens,
if one interest group or one line of thought or one
vision about what organics should be triumphs, then
we will have a monoculture. And wasnt that the
enemy all along?
Samuel Fromartz is the author of Organic, Inc.:
Natural Foods and How They Grew, published by
Harcourt in April. Information about the author and
the book is available at http://www.fromartz.com
A support network for
Northeast new farmers
Searchable Directory of
programs & services
Tools and resources for
new farmers & service
providers
Growing
New
Farmers
Visit
www.growingnewfarmers.org
Certined Organic
Vegetable-Herb
Ldible Ilowering Plants
Gorgeous 8 Unusual
Annuals-Perennials
Ilowering Shrubs
Gins tor Gardeners
M
H
YBY THY CCCD TH1CS CBC
M
1800 Scituate Ave. Hope, RI
goodearthcox.net
401-826-3130
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 38
by Jack Kittredge
Michael Sligh, farmer, author, founding chair of the National Organics
Standards Board and director of the Sustainable Agriculture Program at RAFI-
USA, takes the long view. This is a crisis of success! he insists, talking about
the split in the organic industry caused by last falls amendment of the Organic
Food Production Act. We wouldnt be in this position unless we had been more
successful than any of us could have dreamed ten or ffteen years ago!
Sligh has been with the organic movement a long time. Growing up on a West
Texas ranch, he heard his grandfather and uncles argue about farm policies
from a tender age. His grandmother, however, ran the kitchen garden according
to the principles of a guy called J. I. Rodale who put out a magazine called
Prevention.
So when Michael left home he rented land in Florida and started growing
organically. All through the 1970s he farmed on his own as well as getting
involved in certifcation and becoming a farm inspector for a local certifcation
program. In 1983 he went to work for RAFI at a time when that organization
was turning its focus from share croppers and farmers coops to policy
issues such as farm credit, the spread of genetic engineering, and preventing
privatization of plant biodiversity. Through RAFI he got involved in Oregon
Congressman Jim Weavers ill-fated 1984 effort to set up an organic program,
and again when Vermonts Senator Pat Leahy tried in 1990.
I was quite worried that if we gave too much power to the USDA then it
would be a program that wouldnt work on the ground out in the countryside
he recalls. The founding legislation was very innovative and unique in federal
legislation. It created a mandate of power sharing that the NOSB would have
statutory authority over the National List was a very important piece that was
put there on purpose. So was the fact that we envisioned peer review of the
USDAs accreditation so there was this citizen oversight of the accreditors who
look over the certifers shoulder who look over the farmers shoulder. And
Congress admonished the USDA not to reinvent the wheel but to work with the
existing architecture that was out in the countryside. The USDA was so opposed
to the legislation that they testifed against it. It was a bit of a shotgun marriage
when it fnally passed.
Sligh:
Stay the Course
The disagreements were papered over in
the early years of the NOP. This amendment
ended the Age of Innocence in organics.
Michael Sligh
I think we underappreciated how big a deal
synthetics was how slippery a slope it was!
Michael Sligh
Sligh was the founding chair for the frst three years of the NOSB. None of the
members knew each other very well, there was no budget or resources, and the
frst thing they had to do was panhandle within the department to get the money
to have meetings.
A lot of people think you just go and pass a law and everything is fne he
sighs. But it is the implementation of laws where the real work is. This was
a bit of a cultural clash for the USDA from the get go. It was a department
that had already made a commitment to big business and biotech. For organic
to be embedded there was a bit of a problem -- there they were, in charge of
implementing a program that was diametrically opposed to the big business,
biotech approach they supported.
The key mistakes around synthetics occurred early on, Michael recalls. The
farmers put a few categories of exemptions for synthetics used in growing in the
legislation -- things like pheronome traps and mechanical pesticides. Processors
used that argument to get their own list, too. If the farmers were given a short
list of synthetics, people felt it was only fair to give the processors one, too. It
was sold as somehow not a permanent thing. But in fact the processors began to
build their industry around those synthetics. I think we underappreciated how
how slippery a slope it was!
A minority on the board, Sligh continues, thought we should not even vote
on it as it was not in the law. But the USDA said they would take it up with
their counsel and they thought there was a way to resolve it, and wanted us
to make recommendations. A majority of the board wanted to do that and the
disagreements were papered over. There was also the understanding that after
fve years these provisions would all sunset and expire unless people who
wanted them would come and repetition for them. Well, that didnt turn out to
be the case, they didnt sunset.
Asked what advice he has for long-time organic advocates who are outraged at
the OTA amendment, he urges them to stay the course.
We shouldnt squander all the work and time weve put into it thus far. We
shouldnt lose pride in organic, its not too late!
Michael points to the work of those in Europe who are taking long term
views of where they want the organic industry to be in 10 or 15 years.
Theyre developing national organic action plans, coordinating governmental
programs to bring new farmers into organic production while preserving the
price premium for those already doing it, setting organic production goals and
fguring out how to meet them.
Organic is becoming the conventional system, he asserts. Its happening
before our eyes. Weve had 7 of the top 15 multinationals come in and buy the
top 23 organic brands in the last 5 years. Thats a huge change of who we are.
So new people are focking into organics and education work has to expand.
Weve had a number of young NGOs and leaders emerge who were not at the
table in the 1980s.We need regional dialogs over the next year or so to fgure
out where to go next. We need to strengthen civil societys voice, as well as
the voice of organic farmer groups. Extra label claims fair trade, renewable
energy, just employment practices -- can add value and differentiate food.
We need to keep pushing forward the way we did in the past, confdent that
consumers will continue to follow our lead.
When it comes to organic feed, Natures Best
offers the most nutritionally balanced formulas.
Designed for peak performance, our special
blends are expertly prepared by our experienced
team and nationally recognized on-staff
nutritionist to ensure your livestock is healthy
and productive! We guarantee complete
nutrition - well even prepare custom feeds if
youd like!
Learn how your farm can
benefit from Natures Best
Organic Feeds
and poultry products,
call 1-800-767-4537 today
or visit
www.organicfeeds.com
for a dealer near you.
Helping to sustain the family farm
through knowledge and experience.
NOFA Videos
0501 Organic Turkeys Lynda Simkins
0502 Year Round High Tunnels Rusty & Claire Omer
0503 Keynote Talk Satish Kumar
0504 Plant Varieties/Disease Control Becky Grube
0505 Strawberries fromAto Z Dan Kaplan
0507 Renewable Energy: At What Price? Debate
0508 Work Horses in the Market Garden David Fisher
0509 Growing Great Lettuce Frank Albani
0510 Tour of Red Fire Farm Ryan Voiland
$15 each
Please send me the circled videos. I enclose $15 for
each in the form of a check to NOFA Video Project
NOFA Video Project, 411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005
New from the 2005 NOFA Summer Conference:
for a full list of the 146 videos available, visit
www.nofa.org/conference/video/index.php
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 39
by Amy Guptill,
Dept of Sociology, SUNY College at Brockport, and
Rick Welsh,
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Clarkson University
The ongoing crisis in US farming
In the words of Lobao and Meyer (2001) the twen-
tieth century has seen the national abandonment of
farming as a livelihood strategy (103). They point
out that farmers were about one-third of the Ameri-
can population in 1900, but less than 2 percent by
2000 (2001:103). In the current era, census of agri-
culture statistics reveal that 90 percent of the income
accruing to small farms (less than 250,000 annually,
98 percent of all farms) comes from off the farm.
Global agricultural markets combined with inter-
national challenges to agricultural subsidies, prompt
some analysts, like economist Steven Blank (1998),
to predict the end of agriculture in the American
portfolio. Creative solutions are needed to revi-
talize productive landscapes in rural America and
those solutions must build sustainably on the natu-
ral, cultural, and social resources of contemporary
American farmers. The economic viability of farms
is still a key component of rural development.
Rural sociologists and agricultural economists have
traced the cost-price squeeze undermining American
agriculture to a production-marketing-processing
system that maximizes the proft accruing to large
agricultural corporations at the expense of producers
This system is increasingly dependent on contract-
ing to maintain vertically integrated production
chains. There are several competing explanations
of why U.S. agriculture has changed in this way.
However, it is clear such changes could foster op-
portunities for farmers to organize themselves for
collective bargaining. Recent research shows that
farmers marketing together tend to gain more favor-
able prices and terms of trade than they can on their
own (Grow et al 2003; Levins 2005).
Farmers right to bargain collectively was estab-
lished by the Capper-Volsted Act of 1922 and
affrmed in the Agricultural Fair Trade Practices
Act of 1967. Essentially, Capper-Volsted exempts
farmers from the anti-trust legislation that prevents
other kinds of producers from sharing production
and price information. To qualify for privileges
under Capper-Volsted, farmers organizations such
as cooperatives, limited liability corporations, or
other entities, must be made up entirely of farmers
engaged in the production of agricultural products,
run in a one-member-one-vote system, and do not
pay more than 8 percent dividend on capital. These
organizations can handle the products of non-mem-
bers, as long as that produce does not exceed the
amount of member produce handled over the course
of the year (Volkin 1995).
Analysts predicted that as vertical integration and
contracting take hold, cooperative agricultural
bargaining associations as envisioned in the Cap-
per-Volsted Act would become more numerous and
more prominent. However, contrary to expecta-
tions, as contract growing has become a larger part
of the market, the number of active bargaining
associations has decreased. In 1978 there were 67
bargaining associations spanning 13 states but by
1997 only 19 associations existed in 9 states. Ana-
lysts tend to blame this trend on the lack of legal
protections for grower organizing efforts (Grow et al
2003). As analysts have noted, the federal Agricul-
tural Fair Trade Practices Act of 1967 affrms the
right of farmers to bargain collectively, but fails to
provide powerful enforcement mechanisms to make
such abstract rights a reality. A number of states,
like Michigan, have adopted laws that are stronger
than the basic federal rules -- which has been shown
to make a difference in the experiences and long-
term viability of farming in different states (Grow
et al., 2003). As the farm crisis of the 1980s has
extended into the following three decades, the rise
of organic agriculture has seemed to offer a way
to sustain independent production. While many
organic farmers are new to agriculture, the growth
of the organic market has drawn in conventional
growers, particularly in feld crops where organic
production is similarly mechanized and marketing
similarly commodifed.
OFARM: Organic Farmers Association for
Relationship Marketing
The founding of OFARM, and most of its member
organizations, coincided with a boom in the sale of
organic products beginning in the late-1990s. De-
spite the fourishing demand, organic grain growers
were fnding themselves disadvantaged in marketing
due to the lack of reliable marketing information.
Discussions of establishing an umbrella group for
organic producers began in 1998, and OFARM was
offcially founded in early 2001. OFARMs mis-
sion is to coordinate efforts of producer marketing
groups to beneft and sustain organic producers
(http://www.ofarm.org/). It currently includes 8
member organizations and, as described on their
website, represents the largest single organized
block of production in North America covering
producers in 18 states and Ontario.
In legal terms, OFARM is a marketing agency in
common, comprised of organizations that satisfy
the Capper-Volsted requirements of farmer owner-
ship and control. OFARM could market members
grain, but the board has decided that individual
organizations will continue to market grain while
OFARM provides an overall umbrella. Some of the
efforts of OFARM include the exchange of pricing
and marketing information, the education of policy
makers, collectively bargaining with buyers of
members products and assisting farmers in adopt-
ing new crops and agronomic practices in their crop
rotations. Currently, OFARM members interact in
monthly conference calls for marketers, monthly
conference calls of the board of directors, a fall
board meeting and a January annual meeting open
to any farmer-member of any organization.
OFARM is an interesting case for at least two rea-
sons. First, at this point, the organization represents
primarily feld crop producers in the Midwest, a
sector which has not received extensive attention in
the literature on organics but has been shown to be
quite different from fruits and vegetables in terms of
historical patterns and structure (Hall and Mogyrody
2001). In that way, it offers new empirical evidence
to further articulate the character and scope of the
conventionalization of organics (Guthman 2004),
particularly the impact of agribusiness on shaping
the possibilities for growers within the industry.
Second, as giant food corporations increasingly buy
in to the organic sector, the successes and disap-
pointments of OFARM will both reveal and shape
the extent to which organics will continue to offer
North American feld crop farmers a viable alterna-
tive to corporate-controlled conventional markets.
What are the prospects and possibilities associated
with preserving or generating family scale produc-
tion systems that enable the independence of smaller
scale production?
This article reports the results of a year-long case-
study of OFARM. The purpose of the case study
was to investigate the structure and functioning of
OFARM and preliminarily assess the capacity of
this organizational model to sustain the indepen-
dence and economic viability that drew their mem-
ber farmers into organics. The questions driving
the case study are basic: What are OFARMs goals?
How well is it working? How can OFARMs suc-
cesses and challenges be understood?
Research methods and results
To gather data the researchers (1) observed the work
of the organization in three conference calls and
two day-long face-to-face meetings, (2) conducted
seven individual interviews with members of the
board, marketing directors, and OFARM staff, and
(3) reviewed background documents and newslet-
ters of the organization. Most interviewees represent
member organizations as OFARM board members,
marketing agents, or both. One was an OFARM
staff member. They were asked for background
information on their own organizations, their views
on OFARMs strengths and challenges, and their
perceptions of the alignment of OFARMs goals
with those of member organizations. Two member
organizations were not represented in the inter-
views; one representative declined to participate,
and another was unreachable. However, the six
completed interviews produced remarkably similar
fndings which were reinforced by notes from mar-
keting calls and meetings. For this reason, the re-
searchers are confdent in drawing these conclusions
about OFARMs functioning and effectiveness. To
preserve confdentiality with a small sample size,
we have combined quotations from interviews and
observations in our discussion of results, and re-
ferred to all speakers vaguely as members. Drafts
of this and other writings from the project have been
reviewed by OFARM prior to release.
The results of our case study point to fve prelimi-
nary points:
(1) OFARMs goal is to prevent the convention-
alization of organics by amassing and exercising
economic power to create an orderly market in
organics. This goes beyond getting more of the
fnal food dollar, but rather collaborating with other
likeminded actors in the food chain to sustain the
industry.
(2) The main beneft of OFARM that members
describe is the exchange of information that enables
participants to know the value of their product
and, as a result, negotiate better terms with buyers.
More minor, but signifcant benefts include mentor-
ship and camaraderie.
(3) Factors contributing to OFARMs success
include the trust developed among members, the
fexibility afforded by the marketing-agency-in-
Is Relationship Marketing an Alternative
to the Corporatization of Organics?
A Case-Study of the Organic Farmers
Association for Relationship Marketing (OFARM)*
As giant food corporations increasingly buy in to the or-
ganic sector, the successes and disappointments of OFARM
will both reveal and shape the extent to which organics will
continue to offer North American feld crop farmers a viable
alternative to corporate-controlled conventional markets.
What are the prospects and possibilities associated with pre-
serving or generating family scale production systems that
enable the independence of smaller scale production?
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 40
common business model and the seemingly inex-
haustible demand for organic feld crops.
(4) Paradoxically, organizing nationally has led in
some cases to more regionally rationalized markets.
(5) The challenges OFARM faces come largely from
deep-pocketed food corporations undermining farm-
ers connections to organic marketing organizations,
the need to recruit more members, and the con-
straints imposed by the Capper-Volsted legislation.
We discuss each of these points in turn below.
1. OFARMs goals
In short, OFARMs main goal is to prevent the con-
ventionalization of organics. One member explains:
We want a fair and decent price for the grower,
consistency in the market. We want to unite the
organic community more than it is, so that it doesnt
become a product of the conventional market. We
dont want to conventionalize the organic market.
We dont want to let it be taken over by the big
conglomerates where were slave labor out here. We
want to maintain smaller farms.
Another member concurs:
On the conventional side weve seen whats hap-
pened: low prices for farmers and a market con-
trolled by the bigger buyers, like Cargill and the
rest. Something would have to be done. We talked
about the price of production and what you need to
make it workable. We didnt want to get involved in
government programs.
So while conventionalization, in this formulation,
is expressed in terms of farm-gate price, OFARMs
strategy for maintaining the viability of organic feld
crops is to exercise more power over the market. As
one member explains:
We didnt know what we would gain, but we had
to do something to stabilize the prices. There were a
lot of spikes in prices. We wanted to establish a mar-
ket and establish prices.
As another example:
We all get on the same page and put the same story
out there and regulate prices to have good orderly
marketing.
For these marketers, then, OFARM is understood
as not only a useful strategy, but a necessary one.
With something as simple as a monthly conference
call to discuss weather, crop, and market conditions,
OFARM hopes to change the balance of power in
the growing organic commodity market.
While stabilizing prices and keeping them up is
the shared goal of interviewees, it was clear from
the interview and observation data that price consid-
erations were tempered by a desire to stabilize the
industry. Some expressed worry that high organic
commodity prices were stifing the animal prod-
uct commodity systems they participated in, and all
were clearly concerned about supporting the indus-
try as a whole. In this sense, their desire for power
in the industry involves accepting responsibility for
planning an orderly growth of quantities and prices.
2. OFARMs key strengths
OFARM has maintained a committed core group of
members whose appreciation for OFARM continues
to grow. All interviewees voiced strong support
for OFARM as a critically important part of their
own organizations mission. The most frequently
emphasized beneft is the marketing information that
comes through OFARM . Several interviewees used
the same verbatim phrase to summarize the beneft
of OFARM: knowing the value of our product.
They learn the value of their product through the
prices buyers have paid others but also by informa-
tion about weather and plantings that help them
anticipate supply and quality. As one explains:
Our member producers beneft from the market-
ing knowledge I gain through OFARM, knowledge
about a nationwide area. We know the quantities
and qualities and prices out there. Our farmers feel
protected under the umbrella, theyre not going out
there all by themselves.
We know what the markets are going to be, in
advance of what they are.
From OFARM, we can really know what our
product is worth, through information on weather
and market trends, what the value of the product is
now.
One member points out that having such informa-
tion is not unusual:
Cargill has satellites out there, and thats how they
became successful. Now we have that too.
Similarly, another comments:
With OFARM, our members now have a sense of
being part of a larger organization, and a sense of
marketing power. Farmers havent had that sense of
marketing power.
All interviewees emphasized that the information
coming through OFARM was indispensable to their
work, and thus only strengthened their ability to
meet their obligations to their members.
In addition to the valuable market-related informa-
tion, some members note how OFARM provides
opportunities for mentorship, mutual support, and
joint promotion. Several of those relatively new to
national-scale organic marketing commented that
OFARM also provides them with relationships with
more experienced growers and marketers who they
can and do call for advice. Similarly, some noted
that they fnd it reassuring that, in the words of one
member, there are others trying to accomplish the
same thing you are -- stabilize prices and keep them
up. Others note that promotion of OFARM and of
member organizations goes together.
Since weve been marketing, the whole concept
has gained visibility, notes one member,

OFARM is pretty visible out there. They always
try to get some booth space where organic producers
are going to be. That and the website has helped our
visibility, and I get numerous calls from producers
saying they want OFARM to market their grain.
Overall then, the relationships formed through
OFARM go beyond the direct exchange of infor-
Naturally Fermented & Raw
REAL PICKLES
P.O. Box 40, Montague, MA 01351
(413) 863-9063
info@realpickles.com www.realpickles.com
WE SHIP 1/2 & 1 GALLON BUCKETS
Dill Pickles $21 / $26 Sauerkraut $23 / $30
Asian-Style Cabbage $28 / $38 Red Cabbage $26 / $33
Please call to order. We ship Fall thru Spring, within Northeast only.
Prices include shipping.
Our products are
made using natural
fermentation, which
was essential to
healthy human diets
before the advent of
industrial food
processing. As raw
products, they are
rich sources of
active cultures and
enzymes. 100%
vinegar free.
Call or check our website for a list of retailers.
NORTHEAST GROWN 100% ORGANIC
Supporting Our Regional
Growers and Processors
Only the highest quality organic ingredients go into our
Moosewood and Organic Classics products.
Fairfield Farm Kitchens is committed to nurturing the
relationships we have with our farmers, dedicated to
supporting sustainable agriculture and determined to always
employ business practices that are socially and
environmentally responsible.
Fairfield Farm Kitchens is proud to
partner with organic farmers!
Potential suppliers are invited to contact
John Weaver at jweaver@fairfieldfarmkitchens.com
or 508-584-9300, ext. 301.
www.fairfieldfarmkitchens.com
Brockton, MA
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 41
mation to other forms of mutual assistance. These
relationships have enabled OFARM to withstand an
initial hostile reaction by buyers and establish some
basic conditions for orderly marketing, with stable,
fair prices for organic commodities. In interviews
and at meetings, members frequently recount early
attempts by buyers to claim superior marketing infor-
mation. In one example, a buyer offers a low price
for a commodity, claiming a large harvest is under-
way in a different region of the country. So I got
on the phone, this member explains, and I fnd out
it isnt true. This marketer held out for the higher
price, which he eventually received. One member
reports taking the connection a step further, by refus-
ing to do business with one buyer until that business
paid an overdue bill for another OFARM member.
At this point, several members report, buyers facing
short supplies are coming to appreciate the ability of
OFARM members to direct them to other sources, fll
large orders by collaborating with other members, or
offer multi-year contracts.

OFARM has a reputation now for knowing what will
happen, one member explains. Everything weve
been saying about feed grains running out has hap-
pened.
Moreover, the network that OFARM represents has
some benefts for buyers. A member explains:
If we get a call and we are unable to fulfll an order,
then we are comfortable calling other members and
having them fll it -- it makes each of us a more
reliable supplier, working as a group rather than as
individuals. Theres a beneft for buyers to connect
into the OFARM group to have possible relationships
with a source.
As a result, some members believe, a lot of buyers
are starting to appreciate what OFARM contributes to
the value chain as a whole. For example, one member
comments:
Initially we were somewhat a threat to the buyers,
but they now know that we can be a reliable supplier
and well give them a fair price. Initially, theyre con-
stantly looking for lowest price. Thats still the case,
but not in all cases. A lot of buyers are looking for
supply at a reasonable price. Thats what we sell.
Overall, then, it is safe to say that OFARMs main
goal of collaborating to exercise more power in the
market is already being met.
3. Factors contributing to OFARMs initial success

OFARM has successfully galvanized a committed
core group of members that trust one another and the
OFARM umbrella. OFARM enables the exchange of
valuable information, members emphasize, because
they trust one another. As one member explains:
OFARM provides a comfort zone to share that
information. We know that none of us is going to en-
croach upon another organizations market. OFARM
gives us a neutral place to share information, and we
respect one another.
OFARM members make a point to have face-to-face
meetings twice a year rather than depend entirely
on telecommunications, because the group tends to
gel better, and generate the trust on which OFARM
depends. As a result, no one during the interviews
and observations voiced suspicions about untruthful-
ness on the part of others. And when interviewees
were asked about the weaknesses or challenges of
OFARM, no one mentioned bad faith among mem-
bers as a problem.
To further probe the degree of trust within OFARM,
member interviewees were asked to imagine the
conditions that would lead to them pulling out of
OFARM, and all concurred that the organization
would have to completely break down. They would
only pull out, members say, if it cant function, if
people stopped being truthful about what was go-
ing on out there and tried to take advantage of oth-
ers, and if we started to see organizations working
against each other. No one can imagine a situation
in which OFARM continues to function but going it
alone would better serve their organizations needs.
In this sense, respondents do not perceive any compe-
tition between their service to their own members and
their membership in OFARM as it now functions.

While it is probably impossible to pinpoint where
this trust came from, several members explain the
important role that the Institute for Rural America,
an organization affliated with the National Farmers
Organization (NFO) played in getting OFARM off
on strong footing. The NFO helped OFARM get
started by facilitating an early meeting, identify-
ing potential member organizations, connecting
OFARM organizers with people familiar with the
marketing-agency-in-common structure as an or-
ganizational umbrella, and providing initial in-kind
resources like legal counsel, offce support, and
conference-calling facilities. Some of OFARMs
initial success must be attributed to the catalyzing
role the NFO and the IRA played in making needed
connections.
The fexibility afforded by the marketing-agency-in-
common structure has turned out to be a key com-
ponent of OFARMs initial success. It has enabled
participants to begin with an activity entailing little
resource investment (monthly conference calls) and
then create the connections that enable more high-
stakes investments (perhaps joint shipping, market-
ing, and input purchasing) as trust and experience
builds. Meanwhile, because member organizations
continue to do their own marketing, they retain full
autonomy as organizations. In the words of one:
Every time we meet we gain new appreciation for
what OFARM does for us. We all see the benefts of
working together.
OFARM was able to start small and build on a
social infrastructure of trust. Contrariwise, projects
that begin with a heavy fnancial investment might
enjoy less time to make thoughtful, deliberative
decisions that maintain connections to the group.
Finally, OFARM as an organization has benefted
from the seemingly inexhaustible demand for
organic goods. The ever increasing demand has en-
abled the organization to set price foors, realize an
early tangible success, and make longer-range plans.
While several interviewees spoke of respecting one
anothers existing marketing relationships, the fact
that demand heavily outstrips supply makes that an
easy courtesy to extend. It also instantly affords
them power vis--vis buyers without having the vast
majority of the organic supply represented under the
umbrella. As one member puts it:
Ive been telling my buyers to make a contract, and
they havent been interested, but now theyre com-
ing to me wanting three-year forward contracts.
He adds:
We are writing the contracts rather than consider-
ing the buyers contracts.
While this situation wont last forever, it affords
OFARM an incubation period in which to build the
relationships both within and beyond the organiza-
tion to withstand more challenging times.
4. Regionalization of organic commodity markets

OFARMs goal of creating a stable, orderly market
for organic commodities is most often expressed
in terms of price, but members are also fnding
that OFARM helps bring rationality to the geo-
graphic movement of organic products. First, with
a birds-eye view of the available supplies, members
are more often able to connect to markets closer
to home, sometimes even encouraging buyers to
instead purchase from a closer source. As one
member put it:
Ive been looking to ship our grain much closer.
Now I can go hundreds rather than thousands of
miles. A little better price for the producers, less
freight, and not using so much energy. OFARM
didnt infuence or detract from that, but it support-
ed the idea that there is a market out there.
Another elaborates:
Our long-range goal is to have production orga-
nized that meets the needs of markets in our state
and the region. Through OFARM we actually get to
do a supply and demand situation.
Second, one regional farmers group has formed
specifcally under the OFARM umbrella and has
benefted from the early access to market intelli-
gence as well as technical assistance from OFARM
for forming their own group. Third, OFARM seeks
to recruit more growers to organics and more mem-
bers to OFARM in order to better supply the needs
of the growing market. They discuss, for example,
focusing on growers that are close to growing
markets. In this way, a national-scale network is,
somewhat paradoxically, supporting the rational
regionalization of marketing.
5. OFARMs current challenges
While the organic boom has several important ben-
efts for OFARM, it also has a drawback: it encour-
ages farmers within these organizations to market
to the deep-pocketed corporations now getting
involved in organics rather than through coopera-
tives. While OFARMs visibility has helped to
recruit members to these organizations, the boom
in organics means that buyers are knocking on
farmers doors.
The buyer side isnt the problem, one member
explains, the problem is farmer loyalty.
This member explains:
The demand dynamics have changed. Its a
paradigm shift. Before we had to push organics,
explain it and educate people. But now theres big
money involved and were being pulled. Demand
is outstripping supply. For farmers it creates a lot
of people knocking on their door and it undermines
loyalty.
Another member reports:
Farmers dont like to see that marketing charge
in there, they think they can do it on their own, but
theyre not seeing the bigger picture.

Several members reported farmers breaking con-
tracts as corporations pay extra high prices to se-
cure supply. The relationships OFARM is forming
will be important when the global supply of these
commodities grows and exerts a downward pres-
sure on price, but product needs to move through
OFARM now in order to establish those relation-
ships and nurture the overall network.
As a result, communicating the long-term value of
OFARM to the farmer-members of member organi-
zations has been a constant issue. One of the ques-
tions the organization will have to resolve is how
to approach promotion of the organization. Until
now, OFARM has grown by the growth of member
organizations and the addition of a new organiza-
tion that incorporated in December 2004. Now,
many in OFARM want to see the organization
make more connections with existing organiza-
tions and organic growers that are not yet part of an
organization. Most interviewees emphasized that
OFARM must grow to build on its initial success.
We need growth and fnancial stability, one mem-
ber explains, there is a lot we could do, but we
need the funding and personnel to do it.
Another comments:
Its been a struggle to get the word out, to get
other producers to come on board.
Ultimately, the goal is to organize more specifc
commodity groups within OFARM, which en-
tails recruiting members from dairy, livestock,
vegetables, and other sectors. Having proved
itself worthwhile, OFARM now has to capture the
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 42
resources that will enable its leadership role in the
organic industry. Towards that end, OFARM has
been staying appraised of current debates about
exemptions of organic producers from conventional
federal and state commodity check-off programs.

Finally, OFARM faces constraints stemming from
the legally circumscribed structure of the organiza-
tion. To comply with the Capper-Volsted Act of
1922, which exempts farmers from anti-trust legisla-
tion, all member organizations of OFARM have to
be composed entirely of working farmers whose
products represent at least 50 percent of that orga-
nizations sales. This law is based on the assump-
tion that all farmers have the same interests and that
farmers interests are naturally opposed to those of
others in the food chain. However, OFARM discus-
sions frequently center on the challenges of sus-
taining the entire organic industry and independent
businesses up and down the chain in a time of short
supply and corporate encroachment. In this sense,
the interests of OFARM are more closely aligned
with independent downstream businesses than with
corporate farms. Dairy farmers and livestock pro-
ducers are among the biggest customers of OFARM
members because they need grain for feed. OFARM
is working on bringing these producers under the
umbrella in order to better maintain an industry that
supports independent production. However, other
kinds of businesses in the value-stream (processors,
bakeries, etc) are not eligible to participate under
Capper-Volsted requirements.
Discussion
At the most basic level, we conclude that OFARM
is an interesting case that represents a promising
organizational and business model for creating more
spaces for producer autonomy in a more democratic
food system. They do not seek simply a higher
price, but rather a more powerful role for produc-
ers in shaping a fair and functioning industry that
sustains family-scale producers at all points in the
chain. As OFARM members report, the boom in or-
ganics, and now especially organic animal products
(dairy, eggs, and meats) has not been an unquali-
fed good for OFARM. While the trust and respect
among current participants enables them to pursue
distinct collaborative strategies, the unmet demand
for organic commodities means that giant food cor-
porations that are getting into organics (like Hood
and Dean in dairy) are offering extra-high prices to
farmers, reducing the fow of product through these
organizations.
The seeming inexhaustible and rising demand for
organic food products (made effective by the grow-
ing corporatization of the organic industry) carries
both benefts and detriments for organic producer
groups. Demand in excess of supply has allowed
producer associations to cooperate more fully and
establish trusting relationships. And it has strength-
ened the hand of organic producers in relationships
with buyers. However, it has also created condi-
tions that threaten to undermine the effort to orga-
nize at exactly the time when such efforts are critical
to sustaining family-scale farming in the long run.
Organizations such as OFARM are a fundamental
step toward preventing this type of erosion.
References
Blank, S.C. 1998. The End of Agriculture in the
American Portfolio. Quorum Books.

Grow, S., A. Guptill, T. Lyson, and R. Welsh. 2003.
The Effect of Laws That Foster Agricultural Bar-
gaining: The Case of Apple Growers in Michigan
and New York State, (www.winrock.org/GENER-
AL/Publications/AgBargfnal.pdf).
Guthman, J. 2004. The Trouble with Organic Lite
in California: a Rejoinder to the Conventionalisa-
tion Debate. Sociologia Ruralis, 44: 301-316.
Hall A. and V. Mogyrody. 2001. Organic Farmers
in Ontario: An Examination of the Conventionaliza-
tion Argument. Sociologia Ruralis, 41: 399-422.
Levins, R. 2005. Market Power for Farmers: What it
is and how to get it. Institute for Rural America.
Lobao, L. and K. Meyer. 2001. The Great Agricul-
tural Transition: Crisis, Change, and Social Conse-
quences of Twentieth Century US Farming. Annual
Review of Sociology 27: 103-124.
Volkin, D. 1995/1985. Understanding Capper-Vol-
sted. U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Business
and Cooperative Development Service, Cooperative
Information Report 35.
*This Research supported by a grant from the Leop-
old Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State
University in Ames, Iowa. An earlier version of this
chapter was presented August 8, 2005 at the RC-
40/Sociology of Agriculture Mini-conference on An
Agriculture Without Subsidies? Visioning a Market
Driven Agriculture in conjunction with the 68th
annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society,
Tampa, FL.
: :| || || | 1 1 h h? ?? ?H H
I Ia a d dc cr ra a t te ed d I Ie er rJ Ja aI I u uo oa a u u
b b a at tu ur ra aI I J Jo od dy y c ca ar re e
| | www.uIeeyoouoau.co
30--

www.organ|cva||ey.coop/farmer Farmer Hot|ine ~ 888-809-9297
Wouldrt you rathor bo a vital
mombor of tho farmorowrod
cooporativo thats providod
sovortoor yoars of stablo,
growirg pay pricos` is
Amoricas lifoliro for family farms.
rgaric Valloy has lod tho way.
Holp us carvo out a bottor futuro,
orjoy oxcollort cooporativo support, ard markot your milk locally.
Cull our furmer ho|lne |o leurn more ubou|
our orqunc Jury |runs|on uss|unce proqrum.





T
H
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
V
E
CHO
I
C
E





F
O
R OR
G
A
N
I
C
D
A
IR
Y FAR
M
E
R
S
IMDEPEMDEMT unJ FARMER-OWMED
CRFF CFE RATl VE
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 43
by Jack Kittredge
Organic Valley, the 700+ member farmer cooperative based in the Kickapoo
Valley of southwestern Wisconsin, is one of the countrys largest producers
of organic dairy products (knocking heads in the market with Aurora Dairy
and Dean Foods Horizon Organic Dairy). At $259 million in sales, the coops
products are sold in 10,000 stores from coast to coast. The group is making
a concerted effort to expand its operations in the Northeast, hiring Vermont
Organic Farmers John Cleary and partnering to supply bulk milk for yogurt to
Stonyfeld Farm. Besides their branded dairy line of milk, cream, cheese, and
butter they also sell soy milk, orange juice and, under the Organic Prairie brand,
organic meat.
Chief executive George Siemon, one of the original 7 farmers who founded
the coop in 1988, muses about their success: I dont like to say lucky. But
weve been fortunate. Weve avoided some of the binds that other coops have
gotten into. We had help early on from the National Farmers Organization -
- they helped us fnancially a few times when we needed it. We always had our
products processed at outside facilities so we never had that expense.
Organic Valley has also managed to avoid the Achilles heel of farmer coops,
undercapitalization. The coop requires members to invest a total of fve and
a half percent of their annual gross income from Organic Valley back into it.
They can do this with a 50 deduction per hundredweight on each check the
frst year, or a $1.00 deduction the second year. The cooperative pays 8% on the
investment, and if a farmer leaves the coop he gets it back.
Not all farmers are willing to give so much of their check back, says Siemon.
But you can look at it as a forced savings account. Farmers with a long term
view see it that way. For us it is equity capital, which is the best kind.
So far, Organic Valleys family farmer base has kept it supporting frm organic
standards. They support strong pasture standards for ruminants, and are among a
small minority of egg producers who support outdoor access for chickens.
I have 3000 birds on my farm, and they all have access to the out of doors. We
have standards for how many square feet birds have to have. You just have to
train them. You may laugh about training a chicken, but theyre like any other
animal. Dairy farmers know how to train cows to go out. We put chicks out at 4
days old. They get used to it. If they sit inside until they are 6 months old its no
surprise they dont want to go out.
Siemon doesnt believe Avian Infuenza is the threat to outdoor birds that others
The Way Forward: The View from LaFarge
worry about. Flocks which have been outside have better health records than
confned ones, he asserts.
Organic Valley has created a strong brand which consumers know and respect
-- something not all farmer coops manage to do. The brand has given them some
power in the marketplace, and Siemon says they are not too worried about the
competition from Aurora and Horizon. In fact, the real problems confronting the
coop are the opposite getting enough supply to meet growing demand.
You need sustainable supply, he says. Right now there is not enough supply
and wed like to get more. But that means paying the best price you can and
keeping those farmers with you for the long term. It means managing supply.
Weve been around since 1988 and seen supply problems come and go. In a
place like the Northeast it is probably a case of constant undersupply. More
dairy farmers are going out of business every day, there is strong demand, and
Stonyfeld Farm is taking a steady fow of organic milk to make yogurt for the
nation. But in other regions it comes and goes.
When the Harvey decision came down last June it delivered a blow to Organic
Valleys supply situation. The federal court ruling invalidated several USDA
interpretations of the Organic Food Production Act, including permission to
transitioning dairy farmers to feed 20% of their feed from conventional sources
during the frst 9 months of their fnal year of conversion. Although the law
clearly says 100% of feed must be organic, the USDA had allowed transitioning
farmers this exemption because of the high cost of organic feed, and many had
taken advantage of it. When it was yanked out from under them, many dairy
farmers felt they could not continue in the organic program.
All of a sudden they were facing 4 times the cost, explains George. Most
were producing their own forage, and buying in grain. Under the 80/20 rule,
the grain was the 20% of the ration that was conventional. After Harvey all that
grain had to be organic. For some that meant paying four times as much for
feed.
As a result Organic Valley found itself supporting the OTA in its controversial
effort to amend the OFPA last fall. While not asking for a return of the 80/20
rule, the dairy part of the amendment allowed transitioning farmers to feed their
own transitioning feed during the third year as organic, avoiding a four-year
transition.
Siemon was not happy to be involved in a bitter dispute within the organic
industry, and wants to prevent such an event from happening again. He feels two
things need to be done.
First, we need to educate the consumer. We need to talk about the quality of
the food but also about the kinds of farms it comes from. We need consumers
who care about keeping family farms alive, who want to buy locally and support
farmers markets and CSAs. Ive served on the NOSB, we talk about these
issues on our product packaging panels, we regularly put money into consumer
education.
Second, farmers need a face in Washington DC. We may not think its
necessary, but if you are not at the table, someone else will be. The OTA tries
to represent farmers, but it is primarily processors. That is who they really
represent. Farmers need their own voice. We have tried to help farmers get
organized, supporting groups like NODPA. Weve put aside money to deal with
this. Its hard, but things in this country are controlled from Washington DC.
Without their own organization, farmers will be left out.
photo courtesy Organic Valley/CROPP
Organic Valley CEO George Siemon
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 44
by Mark Dunau and Elizabeth Henderson
The Farmers Pledge declares in one page what the Governing Council of
NOFA-NY believes are the most important principles and practices of organic
farming. These include not only stewardship of the land, but commitment to
food safety, local agriculture, small farms, fair labor practices, and regional
ecology. If a member of NOFA-NY believes his or her farm is in compliance
with the Farmers Pledge, the farmer can sign the Pledge before a notary, and
mail it to NOFA-NY with $50. No one from NOFA-NY will come to the farm
to verify that it is in compliance with the Pledge; the Pledge itself states that
customers may visit the farm by appointment.
In 2003, the Governing Council of NOFA-NY offered the Farmers Pledge to
its membership. Currently, there are 85 farms in New York that have signed
the Pledge. They consist of farms that were never certifed organic, farms that
were certifed organic, but dropped their certifcation because of philosophical
disagreements with the National Organic Program, and farms that have
maintained their certifcation but wish to attest to standards not offered by
USDA Organic. NOFA-NY originally introduced the Farmers Pledge, and now
CT NOFA also offers it to their membership.
In New York, Pledged Farms receive labels for stationery and packing, and
a large exterior poster of the Farmers Pledge to identify the practices of the
farm and to display as an educational tool, as well as being listed in NOFA-
NYs Food Guide and NOFA-NYs website. The Farmers Pledge is now also
trademarked and copyrighted to keep it in good hands. $25 of each Pledge is
also designated by NOFA-NYs Governing Council to fund political policy
work; for instance, paying expenses associated with sponsoring a Safe Farms
and Food Lobby Day that promotes a mandatory GMO seed labeling bill in
New York.
The heart of the Farmers Pledge is the integrity of the farmer and the judgment
of the consumer. The Pledge does not focus on the details of organic farming
practices, but embraces the big picture by stating in the opening line that
knowing the farmer is the consumers best protection. The Pledge seeks to
emphasize the common ground between certifed and uncertifed organic farms
(when the National Organic Program was implemented, half the organic farms
in the United States were not certifed) that is in part responsible for the boom
in direct marketing sales over the last four decades. In 1964, there were only six
farmers markets in New York State; today there are over 200.
By establishing The Farmers Pledge, the Governing Council of New York also
Growing the Farmers Pledge
created a vehicle that enables its membership to continue to develop and defne
its understanding of organic farming without interference from the USDA. At
each NOFA-NY Annual Conference there is a workshop to discuss possible
changes to the Pledge. At the 2006 Conference, by consensus this workshop
arrived at additions to the Farmers Pledge that are now being considered
for inclusion in Pledge for the 2006 season. This article serves as a means
to communicate these proposed additions. The Pledge has 19 bullet points;
proposed changes include additions to four bullet points, and one new one.
Proposed changes are underlined.
* serve the health of soil, people and nature by rejecting the use of synthetic
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers:
* reject the use of GMOs, chemically treated seeds, synthetic toxic materials,
irradiation, and sewage sludge in our farming, and all synthetic substances in
post harvest handling;
* treat livestock humanely by providing pasture for ruminants, access to
outdoors and fresh air for all livestock, banning cruel alterations, and using no
hormones, GMOs or antibiotics in feed;
* practice minimal processing for all food products to preserve the natural
nutritional value of food: NO use of irradiation, ultra-pasteurization, excessive
heat, synthetic preservatives, or GMO processing agents or additives, and
include all ingredients on labels;
* encourage the distribution of unsold but edible food to people who need it;
If you wish to make comments about these proposed changes, please direct
them to Mark Dunau at mldunau@ny.tds.net or Elizabeth Henderson at
ehendrsn@redsuspenders.com The Farmers Pledge can be read in its entirety
and downloaded at www.nofany.org.
NOFA Video Project, 411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005
NOFA Videos
The Entire Pre-Conference on:
Biodiesel & Grease
Intro with Panel, Biodiesel and Grease
Production with Larry Union
Please send me this video, #0511, for $15.
Vegetable Oil in Vehicles with Lee Briante,
Biodiesel Basics with Joe Lambert
Please send me this video, #0512, for $15.
Biodiesel on the Farm with Ricky Baruc,
Peak Oil with Michael Klare
Please send me this video, #0513, for $15.
I enclose the total in a check to NOFA Video Project.
For each video I return in 30 days, rewound and in
good shape, youll refund me $10.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 45
by Kathleen Litchfeld
The classroom grew quiet and a dozen students
gathered near as Chuck Sherzi poured food-grade
blackstrap molasses (a bacterial food), water-
based humic acid, water-soluble kelp and a fsh
hydrolysate (fungal foods) into a fve-gallon bucket,
during his demonstration of compost tea creation.
Sherzi, a certifed Soil FoodWeb advisor and staff
at Boston Tree Preservation in Woburn, was one
of 17 speakers in the 5
th
Annual NOFA Course in
Organic Land Care in Massachusetts last month.
The demonstration was part of his comprehensive
presentation on the Soil FoodWeb, an integral piece
of practicing organic land care.
During fve days in January, 63 students participated
in the 5
th
annual Massachusetts course, setting a
registration record for the NOFA Organic Land Care
Program attesting to the fact that the trend for
organic landscaping services is increasing at a rapid
rate, driven by consumer concerns, environmental
awareness and regulatory pressures.
The students included landscape designers,
landscapers, gardening and nursery center owners
and staff, consultants, professors, entrepreneurs
and students. They ranged from their mid-20s to
their mid-60s and hailed from Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey and even Pennsylvania.
For Sherzi, teaching at the course taught him more
than when he was a student.
It was nice to come back and contribute that way,
said Sherzi, who took the Massachusetts Organic
Land Care Course in January of 2003. For what
is offered in the course, and for what we charge, I
think its probably the best kept secret in all of New
England. I think, really, the speakers at the course,
and the dedication that they have to the whole
program, after fve successive years, is all part and
parcel of why it is so successful.
The NOFA Organic Land Care Course is held
annually in January in Massachusetts and February
in Connecticut. It runs from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
each day and covers the following topics in depth:
Principles and Procedures, Site Analysis, Design
and Maintenance, Rain Gardens/Stormwater
Infltration, Soil Health, the Soil FoodWeb,
Fertilizer and Soil Amendments, Composting,
Lawns, Lawn Alternatives, Planting and Plant
Care, Wetlands, Pest Management (Turf Insects,
Perennials, Trees and Shrubs, Ticks and Lyme
Disease), Wildlife Management, Disease Control,
Weeds, Mulches and Invasive Plants Identifcation
and Control. A case study is also held each day,
to give students a chance to practice what theyve
learned in a group setting.
On the last day of the course in both states, an
accreditation exam is administered. Students
who pass join NOFAs esteemed community of
Accredited Organic Land Care Professionals,
advertised on the programs website www.
organiclandcare.net -- and in the annually published
NOFA Guide to Organic Land Care.
The last day of the course also features a Client
Relations panel, during which four professionals
working in Organic Land Care answer students
questions. Often, organic landscapers educate clients
about transitioning from using chemical applications
to using healthier, organic applications.
The Client Relations Panel gives the OLC
participants an opportunity to ask their burning
questions and receive information of special
interest, said Kevin Stitt, who served on the panel
for the frst time this year. Stitt took the Organic
Land Care Course in Massachusetts in 2004 and
owns Organic Soil Care Inc. in Woburn.
As an 04 graduate, being on the panel was
wonderful. I saw some familiar faces and met some
excited new friends, he said. The OLC program is
successful because of its broad scope of information
covered. People can relate to and implement
something in a real personal way.
Additional new course speakers in Massachusetts
this year were Plant Pathologist Cheryl Smith of
the University of New Hampshire at Durham, who
presented Disease Control; Stephanie White of
Stephanie White Landscape Gardening in Harvard,
who presented Planting, Plant Care and Weeds; and
Frank Crandall of Wood River Evergreens, Inc.
in Hope Valley, R.I., who introduced a brand new
course section addressing the Business of Running
an Organic Company which was extremely well
received.
A special thank you to all of the Organic Land
Care Course speakers, whom many of the students
in their course evaluations praised as the major
strength of the course.
In addition to those mentioned above, they are:
Donald Bishop of Gardens Are . . . in Marlborough,
Michael Nadeau of Plantscapes, Inc. in Fairfeld,
Conn., CT NOFA Executive Coordinator Bill
Duesing of Solar Farm Education in Oxford,
Conn., Dr. Kimberly Stoner of the CT Agricultural
Experiment Station in New Haven, Conn., Todd
Harrington of Harringtons Organicare and
Sustainable Growth, Inc. in Bloomfeld, Conn.,
Tim Abbey and Dr. Richard Cowles of the CT
Agricultural Experiment Station in Windsor,
Conn., Freelance Environmental Educator Heather
Crawford of Madison, Conn., retired UMass
Extension Vegetable Specialist John Howell of
Deerfeld, Restoration Ecologist Charles Katuska
of Southborough, Marion Larson of MassWildlife
Field HQ in Westboro, and Ann McGovern of
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection in Boston.
Additionally, special thanks go to course volunteers
Dawn Pavone of Fitchburg (2004 OLC course
graduate) and Julie Rawson of Barre (NOFA/
Mass executive director), to course evaluator
Bernadette Giblin of Northampton (2004 OLC
course graduate), and to caterer extraordinaire
Stacy Miller of Wellesley. With the help of Denise
Pegrum, the organic lunches served daily at the
course could not have been more delicious, healthy
or organic. Finally, and far from least, thank you
to the staff of the Doyle Conservation Center
particularly Lisa DeLucia, Dick OBrien, Steve
Fluet and Annie Simpson-DeRose, for working so
hard to meet our needs and helping to make the
course a great success!
Congratulations to the 50 newly Accredited
Organic Land Care Professionals who passed the
examination during the Massachusetts Organic Land
Care Course! Were looking forward to a great year
ahead.
For more information about the NOFA Organic
Land Care Program, including its upcoming
NOFA Organic Lawn & Turf Courses, visit www.
organiclandcare.net or call Kathy Litchfeld at (978)
724-0108 in Massachusetts or Bill Duesing at (203)
888-5146 in Connecticut.
Fifth Annual
Organic Land
Care Course
Educates 63
Professionals
photo by Kathy Litchfeld
Certifed Soil FoodWeb Advisor Chuck Sherzi demonstrates making Compost Tea during his
presentation at the 5
th
Annual Course in Organic Land Care in Massachusetts in January.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 46
Who Owns Organic? The Global Status,
Prospects, and Challenges of a Changing Organic
Market
by Michael Sligh and Carolyn Christman
2003, Rural Advancement Foundation International
USA, PO Box 640, Pittsboro, NC 27312,
downloadable at: www.rafusa.org/pubs/
OrganicReport.pdf
35 pages
review by Jack Kittredge
This report is an attempt to get a snapshot of
what is happening in the rapidly changing global
organic marketplace. The numbers are impressive:
23 million hectares (a hectare is 10,000 square
meters or about 2.5 acres) are in organic production
globally. Roughly half of that is used for grazing,
not cropping. The continent with the most organic
land is Australia, with 10.5 million hectares, or
2.3% of its agricultural land. The continent with the
highest percentage of organic farmland is Europe,
with about 3% of agricultural land allocated to
organic production. The global market for organic
foods was about $26 billion in 2001. About 80% of
this was in Europe and North America with Japan a
distant third.
In many ways the organic marketplace is still
rapidly evolving. National governments vary
widely in the support they give organic agriculture;
certifcation systems, standards, and certifers vary
widely; organic price premiums fuctuate by crop,
time of year, locality and even type of retail outlet.
Although organic farming developed in a highly
competitive marketplace of many small producers
and many small buyers, consolidation is already
taking place. In California now 27 growers represent
over 50% of organic sales in the state.
Consolidation is even more advanced on the
processing and distributing side of the business.
In 10 years Hain, founded in 1993, grew into the
largest processor of organic foods in the world with
sales of $400 million a year. Earths Best has a
71% market share of organic baby food brands. In
Canada, Stake Technologies produces organic corn
and soy, supplies soymilk concentrate to the US,
and supplies food for poultry producers throughout
North America. It then processes, packages, and
sells poultry as the only major supplier of organic
chicken in Canada. United Natural Foods and Tree
of Life are the only two national distributors of
organic foods in the US, and handle about 80% of
the market. The big winners in the current organic
market are frozen foods, ready meals, baby food,
baked goods and cereals, and dairy products. These
are growing at 36% or more annually, compared to
about 8.4% for produce.
Once we are familiar with the broad outline of the
organic market, this report takes a look at some
of the challenges facing organic agriculture. Not
surprisingly, the authors suggest there will be
attempts to weaken standards as large processors
look for cheaper supply and realize they have the
market and political clout to get their way. They
also show their concern for the way the USDA
has undercut independent certifers (the MICI case
merits half a page). And they are clearly worried
about the growing threat of genetically modifed
crops contaminating organic ones.
The reports conclusions and recommendations -- to
develop international standards beyond the ability
of large companies and governments to change;
to protect a price premium to farmers and fair
treatment of farm workers; to expand support for
farmers willing to transition into organic; to educate
consumers about the importance of a strong local
farm economy; to awaken environmentalists to the
benefts of organic methods; and to link the organic
label with other production process identifers
such as fair trade, renewable energy use, and local
sourcing to expand the green marketplace beyond
any attempt to undermine it via green-washing
are all laudable and on target. How these can be
achieved is the challenge it leaves to us.
Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic
Farming in California
by Julie Guthman
2004, University of California Press
Berkeley, California
250 pages, paperback
$21.95
review by Jack Kittredge
The paradox of organic farming in California,
according to Guthman, is that despite its
beginnings in movements for food purity and
environmentalism, it ultimately has come to
replicate what it set out to oppose industrial
agriculture. How this came to be is the topic of this
careful study of California agriculture.
She traces the roots of organic farming in the
Golden State back to the early 1970s with its
counter-cultural movements and back-to-the-
landers. Although initially fueled by these hippies
and ideologues looking for a cleaner way of life,
during the ten years between 1987 and 1997 (when
Guthman began her study) organic acreage in
California grew more than tenfold. This was the
period of demand-driven growth when conventional
farmers, with no commitment to organic methods,
converted because of attractive organic market
conditions high prices and contracts offered by
processors.
Thus, while the states median organic farm size as
late as 1997 was 5 acres grossing $8,000, in fact the
sector was by then a mirror image of U.S. farming
generally -- highly concentrated with over half of
organic production coming from 2% of the farms.
One major force driving such concentration is
the soaring price of California farmland. It is so
expensive that owning families can make a living
just by renting it out. Since the 1980s virtually
all prime vegetable land has been available only
on that basis. The limited supply of land has kept
competition ferce, and the fact that irrigation
assessments and taxes are based on the highest
Maki ng a connecti on between trees & peopl e
Design/Build David Johnson (802) 644-8187 Cambridge, VT.
Our .4i : t. r.r:1. to. o:o.t i.r.i
.( 4t:.nt .4r. r.m.t:n +.iin.
tor.uo .r4i o.4ito
G. Robert Evans, DMD
Iean Nordin-Evans, DDS
Mi kur luzu
497 Muir Stroot
Crotor, MA 01470
918-449-9919
Groton Dental wellness Sa
o.4ito-(..u.1 1.nt:tr
www.grotondentalwellness.com
A general dental ractice offering:
- loistic/Lioogicu dortistry
- sulo norcury liirg ronovu
- digitu x-ruys
- root curu irlornutior
- dortu nutoriu LioconputiLiity tostirg
- lA\ tostirg
- dotox progrun
NatFarmer_xad.pdf I0/?8/0S I?.4.9 PM
Book Reviews
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 47
agricultural use has discouraged practices like
fallowing it for a year or rotating it into lower value
but soil-preserving crops.
This high cost of land has bedeviled efforts to
improve soil or rely on natural cycles for pest
control. Instead, the fastest solution is always
chosen (usually expensive inputs) so the land can
be quickly returned to production. During the years
before the adoption of the national 3 years out
of synthetics rule, organic growers would rotate
their land through a year or two of conventional
management to deal with fertility and pest problems
before returning it to organic production.
Guthmans study is part history, part anecdote,
part economic analysis and part sociology. Those
interested in the growth and evolution of organic
farming in its most favored location would do
well to read it. They will come away with a deeper
understanding of this movement which became an
industry, and the somewhat paradoxical twists and
turns it took along the way.
Edible Forest Gardens
Volume One: Ecological Vision & Theory for
Temperate Climate Permaculture
by Dave Jacke with Eric Toensmeier
2005, Chelsea Green Publishing
P.O.Box 428, white River Junction, VT 05001 (800)
639-4099
365 pages, hardback
$75.00
review by Jack Kittredge
David Jacke and Eric Toensmeier have been
regulars at NOFA conferences, sharing their
permaculture vision for many years. Now, at last,
their long awaited magnum opus is out! This is
volume one of a two volume work. Expect a review
of the second volume next issue.
A mixed forest is the natural ecological state for
most of the eastern United States. Although there is
still a good deal of controversy about the number of
Native Americans living here before Columbus, it is
well accepted that they used slash and burn methods
to clear forest patches for corn, beans and squash,
and to increase the production of nuts, berries,
herbs and fodder for wildlife. Constant rotation of
these patches kept the forest renewed and the soils
refreshed.
Between 1600 and 1800, however, 80% of the
forest east of the Appalachain Mountains was cut.
After that date the wave of deforestation followed
emigrants across the mountains into the Ohio and
Mississippi River valleys, and some areas in New
England began to experience a slow return to forest
succession.
Forest gardening has a number of strengths. Bare
soil is almost never exposed, so nutrients are
retained and built up in the forest foor. Perennials
have the opportunity to develop extensive root
systems to delve deep and wide for nutrients (a
short but fascinating section on mycorrhizas and
root grafting suggests these roots eventually form
a cooperative network over a wide area which
works almost as a single organism for their mutual
beneft.) Forests capture twice as much solar energy
for conversion into biomass as do agricultural felds.
They are far more resilient and biodiverse than
farms, which are more fragile and wasteful.
Despite the fact that farms require constant
management and intervention to supply needed
inputs, they do currently produce more food than
forests. Dave and Erics vision, however, is nothing
less than to use good design to make forest gardens
a viable food production option.
This book explores some of the design principles
which underlie productive forest gardens. Self-
maintenance (performing the essential functions of
moving sunlight, water, fertility, seeds where they
need to be) is one -- human intervention ideally is
limited to original design, plus pruning, harvesting,
and occasional propagation or planting. Functional
interconnectedness (minimizing competition and
maximizing cooperation by variety selection and
original placement) is another. Ecosystem health
(increased habitat for wildlife and plants, improved
water infltration, air purifcation and soil building,
and reduction of toxins) is a third.
The writers develop their theme with 3 fascinating
case studies of intentionally developed forest
gardens in North Carolina, Shropshire and Devon,
England. Although we are given too short a glimpse
of the charms of these sites, their inclusion shows
the reader their potential for diverse food production
as well as satisfying a human need to participate in
harmonious natural landscapes.
The meat of this volume lies in the four chapters
of Part Two. The frst discusses the fve elements
of forest architecture vegetation layers or
canopies, soil horizons or layers, vegetation
density, patterning or distribution of vegetation,
and diversity. Together they manifest the social
call us at...
1 800 307 8949
visit us online at...
www. Growing For Market . com
Cross-pollinate!
with a subscription to Growing for Market.
Youll get great ideas from all over the U.S. with a
subscription to Growing for Market, the monthly
newsletter for market farmers. Every article is
written by an experienced grower. Read about...
Suppliers
Marketing
Fruits
Vegetables
Herbs
Flowers
Production
Pricing
Tamworths
Now taking deposits for spring pigs.
Registered pigs $135 each. Feeders $125 each.
Sustainably raised on certifed organic feed and grass.
Email: Winnimussetfarm@aol.com Tel: 413-477-6294
from Agrarian Dreams
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 48
structure of the forest and its character. That social
structure, in turn, is composed of plants with niches,
relationships and strategies with regard to each
other, and inner connectedness via the food web.
These ideas are explored in depth in chapter four.
Chapter fve examines the underground economy
of forests and their nutrient fows, root systems,
and soil food webs. Chapter six looks at succession
patterns from four perspectives classical linear
succession and climax, progressive succession to a
shifting steady state, patch dynamics, and a unifed
theory.
Although the ideas introduced in these four chapters
are far too diverse for discussion here, rest assured
that if you love forests and wonder about what
makes them tick you will fnd hours of thoughtful
reading in each one. This is truly a seminal book
and it is hard to wait to read the second volume,
which deals with the hands-on issues of design and
practice. But more on that later!
Gaining Ground: Making a Successful Transition
to Organic Farming
by Canadian Organic Growers
2005, Canadian Organic Growers
323 Chapel St, Ottawa,
Ontario, CAN K1N 7Z2
311 pages, paperback
$45.00
review by Jack Kittredge
This little spiral bound book puts me in mind
of NOFAs frst book: The Real Dirt. Both
are compilations of the stories and advice of
experienced organic farmers. This one is at least half
quotes from over 75 Canadian farmers from Nova
Scotia to British Columbia.
The blurb on the back probably says it best: Learn
from our experience, not your mistakes! This book
is what organic farmers know now, but wished they
knew then. It contains the right balance of scientifc
research and practical farmer knowledge from
hands-on experience.
The contents are organized in a straight forward
manner with chapters on planning for the transition,
building soil fertility, developing a rotation, organic
weed management, organic management of pests
and diseases, dairy transition, certifcation and
record keeping, managing farm economics, and
marketing. Each chapter includes short editorial
sections on the topic, stitching together comments,
anecdotes and topical wisdom from a broad section
of farmers.
For example, on weeds Jim Robbins of
Saskatchewan says: I didnt like the aesthetics of
weeds in my felds. A beautiful clean feld of waist-
high wheat was what I liked. It was a big shift not
to think of weeds as Public Enemy Number 1. Or
Ontarios Gayl Creutzberg on parasites: Ideally,
sheep should not be rotationally grazed on the same
land more than once per yearI let the grass dry out
before moving them, as the parasite larvae move up
the stem when there is dew on the grass; as it dries
out, the larvae move closer to the ground, reducing
the chances of being consumed by the livestock
and decreasing potential parasite problems. On
marketing, British Columbias Sarah Jane Smith
advises: If you sell vegetables to a restaurant, try to
establish a relationship with the owner as well as the
chef chefs often move around.
Canadian farming conditions, from the Maritime
provinces to the huge expanses of cold and dry
plains, are quite diverse. Such different conditions
affecting everything from pests to soils, from
markets to weather, make it hard to dwell for long
on specifc crops, weeds, or diseases. Instead,
the reader is given good general advice with the
comments of farmers bringing in specifc examples.
It is a good system and has produced quite a
readable little handbook.
The chapters are user friendly, including fact
sheets and resource listings. At the end it is very
helpful to fnd appendices on recommended seed
varieties, internet marketing, helpful books and
websites, a glossary, and a listing of the many
farmers interviewed for the book, along with a short
description of their operations.
The Wisdom of Small Farms and Local Food:
Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic and Sustainable
Agriculture
by John E. Carroll
2005, University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
141 pages, paperback
review by Jack Kittredge
This is a book dedicated to the principles of the
conservationist Aldo Leopold (and the agrarian
Wendell Berry). Leopold is not as well known as
Berry in NOFA circles, largely because he died
before most of us were born. Born in Iowa, as a
young man Leopold schooled at Yale and then
joined the U. S. Forest Service in the southwest as a
wildlife biologist. He later taught at the University
of Wisconsin in the natural resources and agriculture
program.
Carroll believes that Leopolds most enduring
legacy is the land ethic he developed and wrote of
late in life. Those conversant with Wendell Berry
will fnd familiar ground here imposing a limit
to what we can do to nature not because it is right
but because we must. If we do not, nature will be
impoverished and so, ultimately, will we be as well.
Carroll sees sustainable agriculture, based as it is
fundamentally on the health of the ecosystem and
the humans connected to it, as heir to Leopolds
land ethic.
The bulk of this book involves a look at four
land grant universities Wisconsin, Iowa, Maine
and Vermont in order to assess how well their
sustainable agriculture programs are upholding
Leopolds ethic. The author traces the history
of the respective programs at these schools,
acknowledging the role of key individuals and
teachers in their success and in passing on the
vision.
A fnal chapter assesses the four land grant programs
and compares them to the core values of Leopolds
ethic. Carroll fnds that they do, indeed, uphold
those values and, while operating on a fraction of
the resources devoted to mainstream agriculture,
are serving a dynamic and exciting new kind of
agriculture small scale, local and passionate.
Inside Poop
By Scott W. Webb
Published: 12/29/05 By AuthorHouse
www.AuthorHouse.com (800) 839-8640
Paperback 193 pgs.
review by Lynn Klein
The disclaimer in the front of the book states: The
intent of this book is to stimulate thought and to
encourage optimism regarding the benefts of a
healthy lifestyle. (Emphasis is mine.) I think that
optimism is what is lacking today. Health news is
always so dire and contradictory; coffee is good,
coffee is bad. Chocolate is good, chocolate is bad,
ad nauseum. People get totally discouraged and
end up just eating what they like because they cant
sort through the information anymore. The message
Scott Webb shares is one of hope, despite the army
of toxins in our food, air and water.
Not a pretty subject for the squeamish, but there is
no doubt that it is an aspect of health care that the
regular medical profession ignores. I have heard the
phrase Death begins in the gut. before. I have
thought briefy about it, and then have gone on to
more pressing issues. I wasnt interested in having
a colonic! Yuck! However, after reading Inside
Poop the logic of this kind of therapy is made clear.
If the colon cant do its job of elimination, neither
can any other organ responsible for detoxifcation,
such as liver and kidneys. Start at the bottom and
get things cleared out if you want your health to
improve. (Pardon the pun.)
In nine easy-to-read chapters, Scott discusses inner
beauty, the normal state of most colons, the power
of positive thinking to help make change and social
commentary on world events and political powers.
There are many stories of clients he has helped with
internal cleansing. The intent of the book is carried
through and there is stimulation of thought on many
topics that, taken together, add up to the way to
better health.
Every organic food grower and consumer will fnd
confrmation of their choices, while those who
wonder if the costs balance the benefts will fnd
help in deciding. Webbs style is friendly, warm,
humorous, never overbearing or preachy. There
are many references and web sites included so
that the reader can delve deeper into the topics
discussed. He comes across as a caring friend. He
is making a difference in peoples lives. Isnt that
what we all really want to do? You can help. Read
this book, buy a few copies, and pass it around!
Youll be glad that you did.
The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging
Catastrophes of the Twenty First Century
by James Howard Kunstler
The Atlantic Monthly Press
307 Pages, $23.00
review by Richard Murphy
When George Carlin was young and undiscovered
and therefore somewhat humorous, he had a routine
in which he played a character called The Hippy
Dippy Weatherman. In the only sketch I remember
he is looking at the Hippy Dippy Weather Radar,
wherein he sees brutal thunderstorms that he
describes in chilling detail. After he illustrates
the horrors about to affect the viewing area, he off
handedly mentions that however our hippy dippy
weather radar also detects a line of Soviet Inter
Continental Ballistic Missiles headed this way
so I wouldnt sweat the thunderstorms. If James
Howard Kunstler is correct, the impact on our lives
from the normal crises of everyday life to Peak Oil
as he depicts it, will be similar to the comparison of
thunderstorms with nuclear missiles.
Just who is this fellow anyway and why is he
predicting disaster. I have been aware of JHK (as
he is oft referred to and as I shall in the interest of
brevity) for quite awhile now. His website, www.
kunstler.com, is interesting, especially the vignettes
of memoirs he has written. Every week he writes a
column on the converging catastrophes. Though
it is worth reading, I cannot provide its title in a
family newspaper such as TNF.
Back Issues!
Current issues ($3) :
67 Organic Fine Dining
66 Renewable Energy on Farm
65 Organic Cucurbits
64 Youth & Agriculture
Collectors Copies ($5) :
63 Organic Meat
62 The Organic Consumer
60 Access to Land
59 The NOP After 1 Year
58 Irrigation
57 On-Farm Dairying
56 Farm Equipment
55 Beginning Farmers
54 Organic Berries
53 On-Farm Research
51 Farming & Families
48 Home Gardening
47 Can Organic Feed the World?
46 Transition to Organic
45 Bees
43 Food Safety
A limited number of back issues of are available for sale.
The current issue and the last four issues cost $3.00 postpaid. Earlier issues
(collectors copies) cost $5.00 and are subject to availability.
Yes, I would like a back issue of . Please send me the
issue(s) circled to the left. I have included the total as a check made out to
The Natural Farmer. (Add $2 per issue if foreign address).
Name ____________________________________________
Address __________________________________________
Town______________________ State_____ Zip__________
Phone (_____)_________________ Total enclosed $_______
Send to: The Natural Farmer, 411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 49
So what is the big disaster he is talking about?
Though he writes of more than just the depletion of
oil, that is the big change that will drive the others.
The term that has become popular is peak oil.
What peak oil means is that sometime soon, if it
hasnt already happened, we shall have extracted
half of all the oil that was ever created. We are
at that point at the peak of production on a bell
curve. It does not take a genius to understand the
implication of these facts. In a world where the
majority of Americans want to live in the burbs
and commute far away and the Chinese worker
thinks of The Great Leap Forward no longer in
Maoist terms, but rather as four cylinders of bliss,
something has got to give.
But that is not all, as the sub title of converging
catastrophes evidences. JHK treats a lot: the
economy, disease, the environment as well as
peak oil. As to the general theory of peak oil, it
is, in and of itself, not controversial. Only a few,
marginalized folks believe there is an unlimited
amount of Texas Tea. Even the people who disagree
with peak happening now, dont argue that it is
more than a few decades away. So where is the
controversy?
The nature of the controversy is what will life be
like when we wake up to the fact that peak oil has
arrived. Will it be 1973 all over again with long
lines at gas stations? Will suburban McMansions
go for a fraction of original cost as people try
desperately to get closer to a more survivable
venue? JHK does not shy away from the questions
and he is unequivocal that it will not be easy.
The range of possibilities goes from a dieoff of a
majority of our species to a very local, agriculturally
based existence. His focus on the return to a more
local mode of existence leads him to compliment
NOFA for, among other things, preserving
traditional knowledge.
Though JHK is known for his criticism of Suburbia,
his stark representation of an urban aspect of the
coming crisis says it all:
What will happen to the water pipes in a sixty
story residential building in Chicago if the regional
natural gas pipeline goes down in February for six
hours? What will happen is that the pipes will burst
and every apartment will become uninhabitable.
What will happen when the gas pipelines are
repressurized and pilot lights dont automatically
restart in some buildings? It is a recipe for gas
explosions.
Keep in mind, this is a man who does not think the
burbs have a future. The future he posits will not be
a one time event while we just do the workarounds.
Energy shortages will be the norm because we are
short of energy.
So, will it really work out that way? Y2K got our
paranoia juices fowing and then fzzled. Is this just
another scare. Maybe, maybe not.
There really was a y2k emergency. Fortunately,
the wakeup call came soon enough and there were
suffcient resources to make the New Years Eve
transition uneventful. Have we received the wakeup
call in time and are the resources there to avoid the
long emergency? To paraphrase a saying au courant
during the Viet Nam war, What if they gave a Long
Emergency and nobody noticed. By that I mean,
yes, constant price increases in fuel and related
commodities, but not so steep that they destroy the
economy. Tight fuel supplies, but no gas lines a la
1973.
On the face of it, it does not look good for the
scenario just mentioned above. JHK in his analyses
of the alternative fuels is not optimistic. It is true
that none of the alternatives are ready to step in
today to take over from petroleum. However, the
Long Emergency does not argue the end of oil, but
the decline, albeit a pretty stiff decline. Is there a
fuel or technology out there that can alleviate the
inevitable?
There is a method of converting coal to oil that
JHK mentions and more or less dismisses, unless
we become desperate enough and are forced to
turn to it. That method is the Fischer-Tropf used
by Germany in World War II to keep its air and
mechanized forces moving even when they had
no access to petroleum. It was also used by South
Africa during the old regime. We should note that
the apartheid regime did not end because cars could
not get fuel.
Why should one think such an old technique could
be an answer now. Well for one thing, the Sasol
plant in South Africa never stopped running even
though the pariah regime is gone and SA can get
what ever it needs on the open market. Second, the
price is right, the only question investors ask is, will
it stay right? Third, it is already happening.
China is deciding between Royal Dutch/Shell Group
and the above mentioned Sasol who is to build them
two plants. Planning for nine plants worldwide
has been underway since 2004 and three coal
gasifcation plants are proposed in Illinois.
So is this feasible. The biggest thing preventing this
has always been that crude was always cheaper to
get and easier to crack. If that is changing forever
(and is that not the point) then it is certainly is
possible. My guess is you could put one of these
things up as quickly as you could a Walmart. It was
not so long ago that Id never seen a Walmart, now
you cant avoid them.
There are environmental problems with synfuels.
Fischer-Tropsch fuels burn cleanly, but there is a lot
of CO2 generated in the cracking process. Can that
The
NorthEast Herbal Association NorthEast Herbal Association NorthEast Herbal Association NorthEast Herbal Association NorthEast Herbal Association
is dedicated to merging the ancient
traditions of Herbalism with the
needs and developments of the
modern day herbalist. through
Networking, Education, and
Resources for the
Herbal Community
Membership in NEHA is open to all
who consider themselves to be herbalists
no matter how they work with our Green
Friends, the plants. If you work with the plant
world, and its magic and wisdom runs green in
your blood, you are invitedto join us in this
exciting circle.
a Membership Benefits Include A
Tri-Annual Journal Tri-Annual Journal Tri-Annual Journal Tri-Annual Journal Tri-Annual Journal
Membership Directory Membership Directory Membership Directory Membership Directory Membership Directory
Annual Retreat Annual Retreat Annual Retreat Annual Retreat Annual Retreat
On the web at
www.northeastherbal.org www.northeastherbal.org www.northeastherbal.org www.northeastherbal.org www.northeastherbal.org
e-mail neha@northeastherbal.org
NEHA, P O Box 103
Manchaug, MA 01526
be sequestered? Because it can be mixed with some
types of crude oil, making it more fuid, CO2 from
a synfuels plant in North Dakota is being piped to
a past peak oil feld in Saskatchewan and injected
into the wells. The injection has already raised
production to more than 2/3 of the former peak.
This is not in anyway evidence we have the problem
licked. It wont be one thing anyway and there
is probably no solution to the forever riddle of
how our species deals with its environment and the
materials of that realm. Still, we may just tweak
it here and there such that people perceive they
have to be a bit more sparing of the resources,
but adjust well enough that it soon does not seem
an emergency. You have probably heard of the
question, Did the people living in the dark ages
know they were living in the dark ages?
Of course, many things could go wrong such that
JHK is forever viewed as a prophet. An Iranian
adventure just might work that magic.
This is a readable book. His organization of the
chapters is well done. It does suffer from the lack
of an index and bibliography. I do have some
problems. In the chapter Running on Fumes,
he makes a point of mentioning the effect of the
Fordney -McCumber Tariff of 1992 yet completely
ignores Smoot-Hawley, the most devastating tariff
ever passed and arguably a direct cause of the
depression. Missing the latter and not the former
is, to say the least, interesting. Still, the book is
worth it, if only for the section on LTCM (Long
Term Capital Management), a group of certifed
geniuses who nearly cratered the world economy.
Mommas dont let yer boys grow up to be hedge
fund managers, letm be organic farmers instead.
If you have not been reading about peak oil and
dont want to get into a lot of geology and want a
more global view of all the problems that are, as
JHK would put it, converging, you could do a lot
worse than this book. JHK will be the featured
speaker at Connecticuts End of Winter Conference.
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 50
Purple Conefower Herbals
Apryl Martin
Herbalist & Owner
71 Mercia Rd. Wolcott, VT 05680
Phone & Fax: (802) 888-6167
Toll Free: 1-866-211-5511
Email: apryl@purpleconefowerherbals.com
Web: www.purpleconefowerherbals.com
Herbal Extracts Hand-Crafted Using Sacred Tradition in Vermont Since 1989
Connecticut
CT NOFA Offce: P O Box 164, Stevenson, CT
06491, phone (203) 888-5146, FAX (203) 888-
9280, Email: ctnofa@ctnofa.org, website: www.
ctnofa.org
President: James Roby , P.O Box 191, 1667
Orchard Road, Berlin, CT 06037, 860-828-
5548, 860-881-8031 (C), jroby7088@sbcglobal.
net
Vice President: Dr, Kimberly A. Stoner, 498
Oak Ave. #27, Cheshire, CT 06410-3021, (203)
271-1732 (home), 203-974-8480 (w), Email:
kastoner@juno.com (h), kimberly.stoner@
po.state.ct.us (w)
Treasurer: Ron Capozzi, 69R Meetinghouse
Hill Rd., Durham, CT 06422-2808, (860) 349-
1417, ronsraspberries@hotmail.com
Secretary: Chris Killheffer, 97 Linden Street,
New Haven, CT 06511-2424, 203-787-0072,
Christopher.killheffer@yale.edu
Farmers Pledge and Guide Coordinator: Lynn
Caley, 593 Old Post Rd, Tolland, CT 06084,
860-872-1755, momocaley@yahoo.com
Newsletter editor: Jennifer Brown , 267A
Spruce Dr., Great Barrington, MA 01230, 203-
725-7502, jennifer@ctnofa.org
Executive Coordinator: Bill Duesing, Box 164,
Stevenson, CT 06491, 203-888-5146, 203 888-
9280 (fax), bduesing@cs.com
Offce Manager: Janet Cunningham, 53 Pines
Bridge Road, Oxford, CT 06478-1414, 203-
605-1750 (c), janet@ctnofa.org
Massachusetts
President: Frank Albani Jr., 17 Vinal Avenue,
Plymouth, MA 02360, (508) 224-3088, email:
plymouthrockmusic@msn.com
Vice President: Sharon Gensler, 87b Bullard
Pasture Rd. Wendell, MA 01379, (978) 544-
6347, email: wildbrowse@yahoo.com
Secretary: Leslie Chaison, 84 Lockes Village
Rd. Wendell, MA 01379, (978) 544-2590,
email: lesliechaison@hotmail.com
Treasurer and Executive Director: Julie
Rawson, 411 Sheldon Rd., Barre, MA 01005
(978) 355-2853, Fax: (978) 355-4046, Email:
Julie@nofamass.org
Administrative Coordinator: Kathleen Geary,
411 Sheldon Rd, Barre, MA 01005 (Tuesdays
& Fridays, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm), email: info@
nofamass.org
Webmaster: Brian Schroeher, 21 Tamarack
Court, Newtown, PA 18940, (215) 825-2140,
cell (908) 268-7059, Email: webmaster@nofa.
org
Baystate Organic Certifers Administrator:
Don Franczyk, 683 River St., Winchendon,
MA 01475, (978) 297- 4171, Email:
baystateorganic@earthlink.net
Extension Educator: Ed Stockman, 131 Summit
St. Plainfeld, MA 01070, (413) 634- 5024,
stockman@bcn.net
Newsletter Editor: Jonathan von Ranson, 6
Lockes Village Rd., Wendell, MA 01379, (978)
544-3758, Email: Commonfarm@crocker.com
Website: www.nofamass.org Email: nofa@
nofamass.org
New Hampshire
Vice President: Ed Bowser, 129 Kearsarge
Mtn. Rd., Warner, NH 03278 (603) 456-3404,
edbowser@tds.net
Vice President: Dennis Eaton, PhD, Acworth
Village Gardens, 22 Charlestown Road,
Acworth, NH 03601, (603) 835-7986, dwe7@
sover.net
Vice President: Joan OConnor, PO Box
387, Henniker, NH 03242, (603) 428-3530,
joconnornh@yahoo.com
Treasurer: Paul Mercier, Jr., 39 Cambridge
Drive, Canterbury, NH 03224, (603) 783-0036,
pjm@mercier-group.com
Secretary, Barbara Sullivan, 72 Gilford
Ave., Laconia, NH 03246, (603) 524-1285,
borksullivan@earthlink.net
Program & Membership Coordinator: Elizabeth
Obelenus, NOFA/NH Offce, 4 Park St., Suite
208, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 224-5022,
nofanh@innevi.com
Newsletter: Maria Erb, 91 Old Wilton Rd.,
Mont Vernon, NH 03057, (603) 672-2936,
maria@erbfarm.com
Organic Certifcation: Vickie Smith, NHDA
Bureau of Markets, Caller Box 2042, Concord,
NH 03301 (603) 271-3685, vsmith@agr.state.
nh.us
Website: www.nofanh.org,
New Jersey
President: Donna Drewes, 26 Samuel Dr.,
Flemington, NJ 08822, 908-782-2443, drewes@
tcnj.edu
Vice President: Stephanie Harris, 163 Hopewell-
Wertsville Rd., Hopewell, NJ 08525, (609) 466-
0194, r.harris58@verizon.net
Treasurer: William D. Bridgers, c/o Zon
Partners, 5 Vaughn Dr., Suite 104, Princeton, NJ
08540, (609) 452-1653, billbridgers@zoncapital.
com
Secretary: Emily Brown Rosen, 25
Independence Way, Titusville, NJ 08560, 609-
737-8630
Newsletter Editor: Mikey Azzara, PO Box 886,
Pennington, NJ 08534-0886, (609) 737-6848,
fax: (609) 737-2366, Email: mazzara@nofanj.
org
Executive Director: Karen Anderson, 60 S. Main
St., PO Box 886, Pennington, NJ 08534-0886,
(609) 737-6848, fax: (609) 737-2366, Email:
nofainfo@nofanj.org
Certifcation Administrator: Erich V. Bremer, c/
o NJ Dept. of Agriculture, PO Box 330, Trenton,
NJ 08625, (609) 984-2225 erich.bremer@
ag.state.nj.us
website: www.nofanj.org
New York
President: Scott Chaskey, Quail Hill Farm, PO
Box 1268, Amagansett, NY 11930-1268, H
(631) 725-9228 W (631) 267-8942, schaskey@
peconiclandtrust.org
Vice President: Richard deGraff, Grindstone
Farm, 780 County Rte 28, Pulaski, NY 13142,
(315) 298-4139, gsforganic@aol.com
Secretary: Annette Hogan, 526 State Rte 91,
Tully, NY 13159-3288, 315-696-0231, annette.
hogan@worldnet.att.net
Treasurer: Alton Earnhart, 1408 Clove Valley
Rd., Hopewell Junction, NY12533, (845) 724-
4592, altone@attglobal.net
Executive Director: Sarah Johnston, 591 Lansing
Rd. #A, Fultonville, NY 12072-2628, (518)
922-7937, fax: (518) 922-7646, sarahjohnston@
nofany.org
Offce Manager: Mayra Richter, PO Box 880,
Cobleskill, NY 12043-0880, (607) 652-NOFA,
fax: (607) 652-2290, offce@nofany.org
NOFA-NY Certifed Organic, LLC, 840 Front
Street, Binghamton, NY 13905, (607) 724-9851,
fax: (607) 724-9853, certifedorganic@nofany.
org
Organic Seed Partnership (OSP) Project
Coordinator: Elizabeth Dyck, Crimson Farm,
1124 County Rd 38, Bainbridge, NY 13733-
3360, (607) 895-6913, organicseed@nofany.org
Newsletter Editor: Aissa ONeil, Betty Acres
Organic Farm, 21529 State Highway 28, Delhi,
NY 13753, (607) 746-9581, newsletter@nofany.
org
website: www.nofany.org
Rhode Island
President: Fritz Vohr, In the Woods Farm, 51
Edwards Lane, Charlestown, RI 02813 (401)
364-0050, fritzvohr1@verizon.net
Secretary: Jeanne Chapman, 25 Yates Ave.,
Coventry, RI 02816 (401) 828-3229, alfalfac@
mindspring.com
Bookkeeper/Membership Coordinator:
Peggy Conti, Brookside Apartments, Apt.
#8, Charlestown, RI 02813, (401) 364-3426,
PeggyConti@aol.com
NOFA/RI : 51 Edwards Lane, Charlestown, RI
02813, Fax (401) 364-7557, nofari@ids.net,
www.nofari.org
NOFA
Contact
People
Th e Nat ur al Far me r S p r i n g , 2 0 0 6 51
Saturday, March 4: Workshop on traditional
pickle making (lacto-fermentation) with Seth
Travins of the SauerKraut Cellar in Great
Barrington, MA for more info: seedpotato@yahoo.
com or 781-894-4358
Thursday, March 23: Community Tree
Conference, U/Mass Amherst, for more info:
(413) 545-0895 or www.UMassGreenInfo.org
Monday, April 3: Workshop on Growing Organic
Apples with John Bemis of Hutchins Farm,
Concord, MA. WORKSHOP IS FULL

Tuesday, April 4: Workshop on Climate Change
and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and
Proftable Responses, Windsor, CT for more info :
Vern Grubinger (vernon.grubinger@uvm.edu) or
to register: www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture/
climatechange.html
Saturday, April 15: Workshop on Waste Veggie
Oil Car Conversion by the Green Grease Monkeys
in Jamaica Plain, MA for more info: seedpotato@
yahoo.com or 781-894-4358
Saturday, April 15: Get Your Growing Season
Off to a Good Start workshop at Many Hands
Organic Farm, Barre, MA, for more info: www.
mhof.net, farm@mhof.net or 978-355-2853
Saturday, April 22: Workshop on Making
Biodiesel with the Green Grease Monkeys in
Hudson, MA for more info: seedpotato@yahoo.
com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, April 29: Workshop on Basic
Carpentry at The Heartwood Institute,
Washington, MA for more info: seedpotato@
yahoo.com or 781-894-4358
Saturday, May 6: Workshop on the Basics of
Organic Gardening with Frank Albani, Jr. at the
Soule Homestead, Middleboro, MA for more info:
seedpotato@yahoo.com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, May 13: Workshop on Small
Scale Organic Dairying with Mark Fellows at
Chase Hill Farm, Warwick, MA for more info:
seedpotato@yahoo.com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, May 20: Workshop titled: The
Game of Logging for Landowners at NESFI,
Belchertown, MA for more info: seedpotato@
yahoo.com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, June 3: Workshop on Cheddar Cheese
Making at Upinngil Farm, Gill, MA for more info:
seedpotato@yahoo.com or 781-894-4358
Calendar
NOFA
Membership
You may join NOFA by joining one of the seven state
chapters. Contact the person listed below for your state.
Dues, which help pay for the important work of the
organization, vary from chapter to chapter. Unless noted,
membership includes a subscription to The Natural
Farmer.
Give a NOFA Membership! Send dues for a friend or
relative to his or her state chapter and give a membership
in one of the most active grassroots organizations in the
state.
Connecticut: Individual/Family: $35 to $50, Business/
Institution: $100, Supporting $150, Student (full-time,
please supply institution name) $25
Contact: CT NOFA, Bill Duesing, Box 164, Stevenson,
CT 06491, (203)- 888-5146, or email: ctnofa@ctnofa.org
or join on the web at www.ctnofa.org
Massachusetts: Individual $30, Family $40.
Supporting $100, Low-Income $20
Contact: Membership, 411 Sheldon Road, Barre, MA
01005, (978) 355-2853, or email: info@nofamass.org
New Hampshire: Individual: $30, Student: $23,
Family: $40, Sponsor: $100, Basic $20*
Contact: Elizabeth Obelenus, 4 Park St., Suite 208,
Concord, NH 03301, (603) 224-5022, nofanh@innevi.
com
New Jersey: Individual $35, Family/Organizational
$50, Business/Organization $100, Low Income: $15*
Contact: P O Box 886, Pennington, NJ 08534-0886,
(609) 737-6848 or join at www.nofanj.org
New York*: Student/Senior/Limited Income $15,
Individual $30, Family/Farm/Nonproft Organization $40,
Business/Patron $100. Add $10 to include subscription to
The Natural Farmer.
Contact: Mayra Richter, NOFA-NY, P O Box 880,
Cobleskill, NY 12043, Voice (607) 652-6632, Fax: (607)
652-2290, email: offce@nofany.org www.nofany.org
Rhode Island: Student/Senior: $20, Individual: $25,
Family $35, Business $50
Contact: Membership, NOFA RI, 51 Edwards Lane,
Charlestown, RI 02813 (401) 7557, fritzvohr1@verizon.
net
Vermont: Individual $30, Farm/Family $40, Business
$50, Sponsor $100, Sustainer $250, Basic $15-25*
Contact: NOFA-VT, PO Box 697, Richmond, VT 05477,
(802) 434-4122, info@nofavt.org
*does not include a subscription to The Natural Farmer
Vermont
NOFA-VT Offce, P. O. Box 697, Bridge St.,
Richmond, VT 05477 (802) 434-4122, Fax:
(802) 434-4154, website: www.nofavt.org,
info@nofavt.org
Executive Director: Enid Wonnacott, elila@
sover.net
NOFA Financial Manager: Kirsten Novak
Bower, kbower@gmavt.net
Winter Conference & Summer Workshops
Coordinator: Olga Boshart, olga@madriver.com
VOF Administrator & Apprentice Program
Coordinator: Nicole Dehne, nicdehne@hotmail.
com
Bulk Order Coordinator & VOF Certifcation
Assistant: Cheryl Bruce, Cheryl2643@aol.com
Dairy and Livestock Advisor: Willie Gibson,
wgibson@thelifeline.net
Offce Manager: Kim Cleary, info@nofavt.org
Ag Education & VT FEED Coordinator: Abbie
Nelson, abbienelson@aol.com
NOFA Interstate Council
* indicates voting representative
* Bill Duesing, Staff, Box 135, Stevenson, CT,
06491, (203) 888-5146, fax, (203) 888- 9280,
bduesing@cs.com
Kimberly A. Stoner, 498 Oak Ave. #27, Cheshire,
CT 06410-3021, (203) 271-1732 (home), Email:
kastoner@juno.com
* Mary Blake, Secretary, P O Box 52 Charlton
Depot, MA 01509 (508)-248-5496 email: blakem_
2001@msn.com
* Barbara Sullivan, 72 Gilford Ave., Laconia, NH
03246, (603) 524-1285, borksullivan@earthlink.net
Elizabeth Obelenus, 22 Keyser Road, Meredith. NH
03253, (603) 279-6146, nofanh@innevi.com
* Karen Anderson, PO Box 886, Pennington, NJ
08534, (609) 737-6848, kanderson@nofanj.org
* Steve Gilman, Ruckytucks Farm, 130 Ruckytucks
Road, Stillwater, NY 12170 (518) 583-4613,
sgilman@netheaven.com
* Vince Cirasole, Sunshine Farm, 745 Great Neck
Rd, Copiague, NY 11726, (631) 789-8231, vince@
sunshinefarm.biz
Sarah Johnston, 591 Lansing Rd. #A, Fultonville,
NY 12072-2630, (518) 922-7937, fax: (518) 922-
7646, sarahjohnston@nofany.org
Elizabeth Henderson, 2218 Welcher Rd.,
Newark, NY 14513 (315) 331-9029 ehendrsn@
redsuspenders.com
* Fritz Vohr, In the Woods Farm, 51 Edwards Lane,
Charlestown,RI 02813 (401) 364-0050, fritzvohr1@
verizon.net
* Abbie Barber, 1411 Shannock Rd., Charlestown,
RI 02813-3726 (401) 364-7140 abbie_s_normal@
hotmail.com
* Enid Wonnacott, 478 Salvas Rd., Huntington, VT
05462 (802) 434-4435 elila@sover.net
Kirsten Novak Bower, 65 Wortheim Ln., Richmond,
VT 05477 (802) 434-5420, kbower@juno.com
Kay Magilavy, Virtual Rep, 212 18th St., Union
City, NJ 07087, (201) 863-1741
Jonathan von Ranson, Manuals Project, 6 Locks
Village Rd., Wendell, MA 01379, (978) 544-3758,
Email: Commonfarm@crocker.com
Brian Schroeher, Webmaster, 21 Tamarack Court,
Newtown, PA 18940, (215) 825-2140, cell (908)
268-7059, Email: webmaster@nofa.org
Jack Kittredge and Julie Rawson, The Natural
Farmer, NOFA Summer Conference, 411 Sheldon
Rd., Barre, MA 01005 (978) 355-2853, Jack@mhof.
net, Julie@nofamass.org
Torrey Reade, Treasurer, Credit Card Support, 723
Hammersville-Canton Rd., Salem, NJ 08079, 856-
935-3612, neptune@waterw.com
Interstate
Certifcation Contacts
Nicole Dehne, nicdehne@hotmail.com
Carol King & Lisa Engelbert, 840 Front Street,
Binghamton, NY 13905, (607) 724-9851, fax:
(607)724-9853, certifedorganic@nofany.org
Erich V. Bremer, c/o NJ Dept. of Agriculture, PO
Box 330, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 984-2225 erich.
bremer@ag.state.nj.us
Saturday, June 3: HerbFest 2006, Coventry
CT, for more info: 860-742-8239 or www.
topmostherbfarm.com
Saturday, June 10: Bread baking workshop with
Paul Bantle, The Pfeiffer Center, Chestnut Ridge,
NY for more info: www.pfeiffercenter.org or 845-
352-5020
Saturday, June 10: A Sustainability Living Tour
at two sustainable homesteads/farms in Ashfeld,
MA for more info: seedpotato@yahoo.com or
781-894-4358

Saturday, June 24: Workshop on Growing
Organic Strawberries with Mike Raymond
at Lands Sake, Weston, MA. for more info:
seedpotato@yahoo.com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, July 8: Foraging for Wild Edibles with
Russ Cohen at Hampshire College, Amherst,MA.
for more info: seedpotato@yahoo.com or 781-
894-4358

Saturday, July 15: Workshop on Using Draft
Horses with Dale Perkins at Overlook Farm,
Rutland, MA. for more info: seedpotato@yahoo.
com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, July 22: Workshop on Free Range
Chickens for Eggs and Meat with Jack and
Dan Kittredge and Julie Rawson at Many
Hands Organic Farm, Barre, MA. for more info:
seedpotato@yahoo.com or 781-894-4358

Saturday, July 29 & Sunday, July 30: Workshop
on Strawbale Construction with Deva Racusen
in Greenfeld, MA. for more info: seedpotato@
yahoo.com or 781-894-4358
Thursday, August 10 Friday, August 11:
NOFA Summer Pre-Conference on Organic Food
and Farming Education, Amherst, MA. For more
info: 978-355-2853 or www.nofamass.org
Friday, August 11 - Sunday, August 13: NOFA
Summer Conference, Amherst, MA. For more
info: 978-355-2853 or www.nofamass.org
Saturday, September 30: Preserving the Harvest
workshop at Many Hands Organic Farm, Barre,
MA, for more info: www.mhof.net, farm@mhof.
net or 978-355-2853
Saturday, October 28: Workshop on Teaching for
Change, Farming for Proft with Deb Habib and
Ricky Baruc at Seeds of Solidarity Farm, Orange,
MA. for more info: seedpotato@yahoo.com or
781-894-4358
Sunday, October 29: Garlic workshop at Many
Hands Organic Farm, Barre, MA, for more info:
www.mhof.net, farm@mhof.net or 978-355-2853
$
3
.
0
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
,

2
0
0
6
N
O
F
A

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
u
n
d
4
1
1

S
h
e
l
d
o
n

R
d
.
B
a
r
r
e
,

M
A

0
1
0
0
5
N
o
n
-
P
r
o
f
t

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
U
.

S
.

P
o
s
t
a
g
e

P
a
i
d
B
a
r
r
e
,

M
A

0
1
0
0
5
P
e
r
m
i
t

N
o
.

2
8
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
,
f
o
r
a
l
l
t
h
a
t
y
o
u
d
o
.
F
r
o
m
a
l
l
t
h
e
f
o
l
k
s
a
t
S
t
o
n
y
f
i
e
l
d
F
a
r
m
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
f
a
r
m
e
r
s
,
H
e
i
n
z
#
2
5
H
a
i
n
C
e
l
e
s
t
i
a
l
S
h
a
r
i
A
n
n
'
s
D
o
l
e
#
4
7
M
&
M
M
a
r
s
#
9
K
r
a
f
t
#
3
T
y
s
o
n
#
7
C
o
c
a
-
C
o
l
a
#
8
U
n
i
l
e
v
e
r
#
4
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
i
l
l
s
#
1
6
C
a
r
g
i
l
l
#
5
D
a
n
o
n
e
#
1
0
P
e
p
s
i
#
6
D
e
a
n
#
2
3
C
o
n
A
g
r
a
#
1
2
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
S
o
u
p
#
3
4
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
#
2
4
W
a
l
n
u
t
A
c
r
e
s
M
i
l
i
n
a
'
s
F
i
n
e
s
t
F
r
u
i
t
t
i

d
i
B
o
s
c
a
M
u
i
r

G
l
e
n
C
e
l
e
s
t
i
a
l
S
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
s
I
m
a
g
i
n
e
/
R
i
c
e
D
r
e
a
m
/
S
o
y
D
r
e
a
m
L
i
t
t
l
e

B
e
a
r
A
r
r
o
w
h
e
a
d
M
i
l
l
s
B
e
a
r
i
t
o
s
F
a
r
m

F
o
o
d
s
L
i
g
h
t
l
i
f
e
T
h
e

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
C
o
w

o
f
V
e
r
m
o
n
t
B
r
e
a
d
s
h
o
p
A
l
t
a

D
e
n
a
W
e
s
t
b
r
a
e
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
S
u
n
D
e
B
o
l
e
'
s
E
a
r
t
h
'
s

B
e
s
t
N
i
l
e

S
p
i
c
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
W
e
s
t
s
o
y
C
a
s
c
a
d
i
a
n
F
a
r
m
K
a
s
h
i
G
a
r
d
e
n
o
f

E
a
t
i
n
'
C
a
s
b
a
h
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
O
d
w
a
l
l
a
T
o
s
t
i
t
o
'
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
W
h
i
t
e

W
a
v
e
/
S
i
l
k
O
r
g
a
n
i
c

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
5
P
h
i
l

H
o
w
a
r
d
,

P
h
D
C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

A
g
r
o
e
c
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

F
o
o
d

S
y
s
t
e
m
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
,

S
a
n
t
a

C
r
u
z
O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
1
$
1
8
1

M
J
u
ly

1
9
9
8
1
3
%

E
q
u
it
y
J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
4
1
0
0
%

E
q
u
it
y
$
2
1
6

M
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
a
r
F
a
r
m
s
/
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
T
o
u
c
h
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
$
3
0
7

M
R
a
g
u
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
B
e
n

&
J
e
r
r
y
'
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
5
F
o
o
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
s
*
O
r
g
a
n
ic
B
r
a
n
d
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
io
n
s
O
r
g
a
n
ic
B
r
a
n
d
s
P
a
r
t
ia
l
E
q
u
it
y
O
r
g
a
n
ic
B
r
a
n
d
s
F
u
lly
O
w
n
e
d
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
ic
A
llia
n
c
e
s
*
R
a
n
k

in

g
lo
b
a
l
f
o
o
d
s
a
le
s

a
c
c
o
r
d
in
g

t
o
F
o
o
d

E
n
g
in
e
e
r
in
g
,
1
0
/
0
1
/
2
0
0
4
C
a
d
b
u
r
y
S
c
h
w
e
p
p
e
s
#
1
8
D
o
l
e
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
N
a
t
u
r
e
'
s
F
a
r
m
H
e
i
n
z
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
G
o
l
d

M
e
d
a
l
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
S
t
o
n
y
f
i
e
l
d
F
a
r
m
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
$
1
0
0

M
1
6
.
7
%

E
q
u
it
y
O
c
t
o
b
e
r

1
9
9
7
$
2
3
.
5

M
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
3
O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
1
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
1
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
F
r
o
m

H
e
in
z
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
0
$
3
9
0

M
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
2
A
p
r
il
1
9
9
9
$
8
0

M
A
p
r
il
1
9
9
8
$
8
0

M
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
8
B
a
c
k

t
o
N
a
t
u
r
e
B
o
c
a
F
o
o
d
s
F
r
e
n
c
h
M
e
a
d
o
w
G
r
e
e
n

&
B
l
a
c
k
'
s
N
a
n
t
u
c
k
e
t
N
e
c
t
a
r
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
'
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
S
e
e
d
s

o
f
C
h
a
n
g
e
A
p
r
il
2
0
0
3
1
9
9
7
2
0
0
1
J
u
ly
2
0
0
0
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
1
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
2
A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
0
3
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

1
9
9
9
M
a
r
c
h

1
9
9
8
2
0
0
2
,

5
%

E
q
u
it
y
M
a
y

2
0
0
5
1
0
0
%

E
q
u
it
y
M
a
y
2
0
0
4
M
a
r
c
h

1
9
9
9
1
9
9
5
O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
1
4
0
%

E
q
u
it
y
J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
4
8
0
%

E
q
u
it
y

(
a
ll
n
o
n
-
e
m
p
lo
y
e
e

s
t
o
c
k
)
M
a
y

2
0
0
2
$
1
8
9

M
M
a
y

1
9
9
9
A
p
r
il
1
9
9
9
J
u
n
e

2
0
0
0
J
u
ly

2
0
0
3
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
0
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
3
H
u
n
t
'
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
O
r
v
i
l
l
e
R
e
d
e
n
b
a
c
h
e
r
'
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
5
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
0
5
M
a
y
2
0
0
2

g
r
a
p
h
i
c

b
y

P
h
i
l

H
o
w
a
r
d

(
s
e
e

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g

o
n

p
a
g
e

1
7
)
T
h
e

e
x
t
e
n
t

o
f

t
a
k
e
o
v
e
r

b
y

l
a
r
g
e

f
o
o
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
.
T
h
i
s

i
s
s
u
e

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s

n
e
w
s
,

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

a
b
o
u
t

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

g
r
o
w
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

p
l
u
s

a

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

o
n
W
h
o

O
w
n
s

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
?