Is this the end of organic coffee?

[nosmokes]

Goddess forbid a little common sense or humanity enter into the confines of the USDA and the NOS board, or the realization that organic growers aren't going to all be little mini factories like the industrial farms they know and love and schill for. and don't fuck w/ my coffee dammit. now it's even more personal...;)
--###--

original-salon

Is this the end of organic coffee?

Thanks to a recent hush-hush USDA ruling, your clean-conscience, fair-trade, organic latte may soon be a thing of the past.

By Samuel Fromartz

April 3, 2007 | Enjoy your organic coffee now, while it's hot -- because it may not be around for long.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture quietly released a ruling that alarmed organic certifiers and groups who work with third-world farmers. The decision tightens organic certification requirements to such a degree that it could sharply curtail the ability of small grower co-ops to produce organic coffee -- not to mention organic bananas, cocoa, sugar and even spices. Kimberly Easson, director of strategic relationships for TransFair USA, the fair trade certification group, puts it bluntly: "This ruling could wipe out the organic coffee market in the U.S."

TransFair USA is not the only organization sounding the alarm. In the past week, I spoke with nonprofits, businesses and organic certifiers, all of whom are concerned that the USDA ruling will catastrophically raise costs for small-scale producers of organic goods and likely push them back into conventional commodity markets.

The USDA's controversial ruling hinges on methods of organic certification -- a process in which inspectors visit farms and walk through fields, review growing methods, and see what measures the farmer is taking to avoid pests and weeds. If the methods comply with regulations, the inspector then makes a recommendation to a certification agency; and if the farm is approved, it is certified for one year and granted permission to carry the organic label on its products. The USDA National Organic Program has overseen this process since 2002, when a patchwork of state organic standards were codified under a national regime.

Until now, however, there has been a special provision for "grower groups" that made certification practical for farmer cooperatives in the Third World, whose memberships can reach into the thousands. Because of the immense logistical demands of inspecting every farm in a large co-op, a compromise was reached: An organic inspector would randomly visit only a portion of the group's farms each year, usually 20 percent. The grower groups would then self-police the remainder through a manager who made sure they followed the rules. The following year, an inspector would return and visit another 20 percent of the farms. After five years, all farms would be inspected.

But in the ruling made public this month, the National Organic Program overturned that system, saying every farm in a grower group must now be visited and inspected annually -- as has been the practice in the United States -- rather than only a percentage.
~snip~

.
.
.
complete article here

[Xithras]

1. I disagree with you, and agree with the USDA.

If you want to sell ANY sort of food as certified organic, you need to live up to the standards implied by that title. US farms get inspected yearly, and so should third world farms if they want to compete with us. Fair trade is about putting everyone on an equal footing, not about helping third world farmers bend the rules to make a buck. Your excerpt leaves out the REASON for the rule change...so called "organic" farmers were caught spraying pesticides on organic food that was supposed to be pesticide free. Some third world farmers were farming using modern industrial methods, and then passing their crops off as "organic" to make more money.

I encourage trade with third world countries as a way to help both them and us. I OPPOSE waiving environmental, certification, and safety requirements to help them do so. If you want to sell your goods in the United States, you should have to live up to the same production standards as our own farmers.

[nosmokes]

2. i agree w/ you for the most part, but

when you're dealing with coffee growers who are literally the poorest of the poor i do think there are certain concessions that need to be made. the co-op has a vested interest in policing itself. and i also believe that that cases need to looked at on a more individual level. even here in the states we have problems w/ USDA/FDA regs that are written to favor industrial ag and are a major onus to small family/organic peroducers. for example, here in the willamette valley there are many folks that are eager to produce more beef and lamb, but we don't have a slaughterhouse. to slaughter animals w/ a travelling butcher and still get a USDA rating you have to supply the USDA inspector his/her own officew/ 2 phone lines and some other equipment, a changing room w/ a day bed, a private toilet and a shower. that can cost thousands.

[GliderGuider]

3. level playing field

You said, "Fair trade is about putting everyone on an equal footing, not about helping third world farmers bend the rules to make a buck."

Oh, man, there are so many things about what you said and the way you said it that raise my hackles. I have to take a deep breath and try not to be snarky.

If you truly believe that Fair Trade is about putting everyone on an equal footing, then what's good for the goose MUST be good for the gander (to keep the agricultural metaphor). The US (and the EU for that matter) have to stop agricultural subsidies. When your products are dumped into foreign markets at prices far below the cost of production of even developing countries, you drive farmers off the land and into the slums; you are the cause of great misery.

Peasants the world over would LOVE to be able to "make a buck" once in a while. But you know what? They DON'T want to use Western agricultural practices to do it. They DO NOT want to become dependent on fossil fuels or be forced to buy seed every year.

Please go to the Via Campesina website to learn about the struggle for Food Sovereignty.

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.

It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers. Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal - fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just income to all peoples and the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food.

Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social classes and generations. (Excerpt of the Declaration of Nyeleni 2007, International Forum on Food Sovereignty in Selingue, Mali, February 2007)

[Xithras]

5. Barking up the wrong tree. I support ag subsidies.

Anti-subsidy people like to paint a false picture of a merry world which woud exist if ONLY we could get rid of subsidies and let all the third world's happy peasant farmers sell in the United States for a "just and equitable" price. They often fail to mention that the elimination of subsidies has been projected to raise prices on some foodstuffs by up to 300%, and on most foods by 10% to 30%.

That won't hurt me, because I make a comfortable living and can afford that kind of increase. This countries poor will be screaming bloody murder though, when you raise the cost of their food across the board and try to justify it with the lame excuse that it will "help third world farmers". Ag subsidies are primarily oriented towards lowering food cost for DOMESTIC consumption, and that is a GOOD thing. It's true that the subsidies can have a negative effect on foreign markets when subsidized production is exported, but that is better countered with arguments for export tarriffs than an argument to eliminate the subsidies entirely.

The elimination of subsidies, and the price stabilization that the current US subsidy schema provides for US farmers, would also cause many (if not most) of the remaining family farms to go out of business. Smaller US farmers simply cannot compete on price against foreign grown food and produce, grown in nations where labor and regulatory costs are so much lower. Only the largest farms would be able to compete, using the economy of scale to their advantage. Where I live, there are still a LOT of family farmers, and the combination of federal subsidies and restrictions on foreign food importation are the only things keeping them in business.

If the choice is between supporting the American family farmer, and the Mexican, African, or South American family farmer, there really is no choice. The impact of the destruction of the American ag sector would have devastating consequences on our economy both locally here in California, and nationally.

[GliderGuider]

8. in that case, you have a double standard

You insist on a level playing field in one breath and then say you'll only support policies that favour your own country in the next.
American agricultural policy is just as imperial and hurtful as your foreign policy. The only difference is that people die quietly in their beds and not in big, messy splatters on the street.

I'm afraid we have diametrically opposed world views and the conversation should end.

[Xithras]

9. As I said, I support export tariffs.

Do you support raising food prices?

I believe that a forward thinking agricultural policy should be able to to BOTH. It should be possible to subsidize US and EU farmers to reduce food costs in those regions, while preventing the predatory dumping of subsidized food which undermines foreign agricultural economies.

What I don't support is the concept that we need to raise American and EU food prices to encourage importation and improve the economies of third world countries. From both a human and an economic perspective, that sort of thing is really no different than job outsourcing, where you're closing down your domestic economy and putting your own people out of business simply because something can be done "cheaper" overseas. The elimination of subsidies would put many American and EU farmers completely out of business, since the higher cost of operations here requires higher prices.

There is NO perfect solution to this problem, but I do believe there is a middle ground that can help to mitigate or eliminate some of the negative impacts of subsidies without having to suffer through the domestic price increases which would accompany their elimination.

It is not socially just to make the poorest populations of the US and EU suffer even more, simply to help the poorest populations of the third world. A tariff based approach instead focuses the economic hit on those who can most afford it...the exporting corporations that are dumping American and EU produce on the world market...while keeping prices stable and protecting those who can least survive a dramatic increase in food prices. THAT is how economic justice is SUPPOSED to work. This isn't just about "America" and the "EU" shouldering a burden to help out in the third world, but about ensuring that the right people are being assigned that burden.

[TheWraith]

6. I tend to agree. Look at it the other way

If they were loosening restrictions on "organic" coffee and other products, what would people here be saying? That they're doing it to let whoever and whatever sell premium coffee without inspection.

[sandnsea]

7. It's like minimum wage

We have to implement the regulations that are applicable to the country. We can't just slap our codes on another country, they don't fit economically and the infrastructure isn't in place to implement any of it. It's a matter of making progress. This usda regulation is about pushing these small growers off their land. This is the life of one of these small co-op growers. You want to make it harder for them??

http://organicconsumers.org/starbucks/fairtrade2.htm

[Xithras]

10. No, but "certified organic" must have a consistent meaning.

You cannot have "certified organic" products coming from one country that are produced to one standard, while another country produces food with the same label but under an entirely different set of safety and production standards. According to the very article you link to, many farmers don't even bother with the organic certification because it's a hassle. It's a hassle for American farmers too. If you want to label your goods with the "certified organic" badge, you MUST live up to the requirements of the certification. There is nothing in this USDA ruling that prevents them from selling their crops here under the FairTrade or any other label, they just can't call it USDA Certified Organic if they don't actually live up to the standards of that certification.

I understand that it may be difficult for them to get that certification, but the events cited in the original article, and the even more recent deaths of many pets due to wheat being treated with harmful chemicals, shows the need for food quality inspections at every step of the process. This does create a higher barrier to entry for those in the third world, but it is necessary to preserve safety. Safety should never be compromised for money, no matter who the money is intended for.

[pigpickle]

4. Soon it will all be owned by Starbucks