This work was compiled and published

By Chef Edward Rhinehart CCP, FMP, CRFC

Aug.27,2006

This content falls under the copyright laws for his books and media forms.

Chef Ed Rhinehart

CEO Aused Foods LLC

Bray T Hart

2006

Eat fresh. Eat local. Eat in season.

Top 10 reasons to buy local:

Locally grown food tastes better. Food grown and sold locally is crisp, sweet, and loaded with flavor because it is picked less than 2 days before it reaches your hands. Produce flown or trucked in from California or Chile spends a week or longer in transition from field to plate, enough time for sugars to turn to starches, plant cells shrink, and produce to lose vitality.
Local produce is better for you. Studies show that fresh produce loses nutrients quickly once harvested. Food that is frozen or canned soon after harvest is more nutritious than "fresh" produce that spends a week on a truck or supermarket shelf. Locally grown food, purchased soon after harvest, retains its nutrients.
Local food preserves genetic diversity. Local farms tend to grow a large variety of plants, instead of only a limited number of varieties that can withstand the harvest and marketing process. This variety provides a harvest all season long, an array of brilliant colors and flavors, as well as preserves the genetic material from hundreds of years of human selection.
Local food is GMO-free. Since biotechnology companies currently only license to large factory-style farms, local farmers don't have access to genetically modified seed, and most of them wouldn't use it.
Local food supports local farm families. Direct markets, selling directly to consumers, cut out the middleman allowing local farmers to receive the full retail price for their food. With commodity prices at historic lows and farmers getting less than 10 cents of the retail food dollar, supporting local farms mean that farm families can afford to stay on the farm, doing the work they love.
Local food builds community. When you buy direct from the farmer, you are re-establishing a time-honored connection between the eater and the grower. Knowing the farmers gives you insight into the seasons, the weather, and the miracle of raising food. Relationships built on understanding and trust can thrive.
Local food preserves open space. As the value of direct-marketed fruits and vegetables increases, selling farmland for development becomes less likely. Lush fields of crops, meadows of wildflowers, and wild open landscapes will survive only as long as farms are financially viable. When you buy locally grown food, you are doing something proactive about preserving the agricultural landscape.
Local food keeps your taxes in check. Farms contribute more in taxes than they require in services, as opposed to suburban development. On average, for every $1 in revenue raised by residential development, governments must spend $1.17 on services, requiring higher taxes of all taxpayers. For each dollar of revenue raised by farm, forest, or open space, governments spend 34 cents on services.
Local food supports a clean environment and benefits wildlife. A well-managed family farm is a place where the resources of fertile soil and clean water are valued and diversity is welcomed. The habitat of a farm, with fields, meadows, woods, ponds and buildings, is the perfect environment for many species of wildlife, including bluebirds, killdeer, herons, bats, and rabbits.
Local food is about the future. By supporting local farmers today, you are helping to ensure that future generations will have access to nourishing, flavorful, abundant, farm fresh food.

Adapted from "10 Reasons to Buy Local Food" 2001 Growing for Market

Farmers' market

Farmers' markets are markets, usually held out-of-doors, in public spaces, where farmers can sell their produce to the public.

Products at farmers' markets are renowned for being locally-grown and very fresh. Propenents of farmers' markets reason that since locally-grown produce does not travel as far to get to your table, the difference in mileage saves fossil fuels, allows farmers to pick produce at the peak of flavor, and preserves the nutritional content of fresh produce.

Farmers' markets often feature produce that is grown naturally or organically, meats that are raised humanely on pasture, handmade farmstead cheeses, eggs and poultry from free-range fowl, as well as heirloom produce and heritage breeds of meat and fowl.

Farmers' markets advocates believe the markets help farmers stay in business as well as preserve natural resources. Wholesale prices farmers get for their produce are very low, often near the cost of production. Farmers who sell direct to the public without going through a middle man get a better price for their produce. It can be shown that the preservation of farmland is important for the health of the environment and water supply. Sustainably-managed farms conserve soil and clean water in our communities, and provide a habitat for wildlife. ^]

Farmers' markets are a traditional way of selling agricultural and home manufactured products. A weekly market day is a part of normal life in villages and town squares throughout the world. A good way for a traveler to sample local foods and learn about local culture is to attend market day, especially when it coincides with a festival, such as the Fiesta de San Antonio in many towns in Latin America. In France and other European countries, there exist street markets, as well as covered marketplaces, where farmers and purveyors sell to the public.

In the U.S. and Canada, farmers' markets have taken off in popularity due in part to the increased interest in healthier foods and lifestyles and an increased understanding of the importance of maintaining small, sustainable farms on the fringe of urban environments.

New markets appear regularly, and existing markets --some well over a century old-- are seeing renewed growth. Product quality varies by stall, so it's always worth looking around and chatting with the individual vendors.

Some markets are carefully managed, with strict rules for pricing, quality and vendor selection. Others are much more relaxed in their vendor criteria. While the usual emphasis is on locally-grown/produced food and crafts, some farmers markets allow co-ops and purveyors, or allow farmers to purchase some products to resell.

Some farmers' markets have wholesale operations, sometimes limited to specific days or hours. One such wholesale farmers' market is the South Carolina State Farmers' Market, which is a major supplier of watermelons, cantaloupes, and peaches for produce buyers in the northeastern US. Farmers' markets also may supply buyers from produce stands, restaurants, and garden stores with fresh fruits and vegetables, plants, seedlings and nursery stock, honey, and other agricultural products. Although this is on the decline, in part due to the growth of chain stores that desire national distribution networks and cheap wholesales prices --prices driven down by the low cost of imported produce.

Farmer

Farmer spreading grasshopper bait in his alfalfa field.

A farmer is a person who is engaged in agrarian business by using land. This is a lifeway that was the dominant occupation of the majority of human beings well into the 20th century. The term farmer usually applies to a person who grows field crops, or has orchards, vineyards or market gardens with a view to selling to others as food. They may, however, provide raw materials for industrial purposes, such as cereals for alcoholic beverages, fruit for juices, hides for leather, and wool or flax for yarns and cloth-making. Farmers may also be involved in rearing cattle for meat or milk. Often, a narrow range of crops or produce is sold for money with which the farmer buys everything else in a market.

A farmer engaged in raising horses or in large-scale cattle or sheep raising for meat is usually referred to as a rancher, grazier (Australia) or stockman. Special terms also apply to other people who husband domesticated animals, namely shepherd for sheep farmers and goatherd for goat farmers. The term dairy farmer is applied to those engaged milk production. A poultry farmer is one who concentrates on raising chickens, turkeys, domesticated ducks and geese, or is involved in egg production. A person who raises a variety of vegetables for market may be called a truck farmer or market gardener. Many North American farmers prefer to be referred to as growers due to negative stereotypes associated with the former term. On the other hand, "farmer" is seen as having greater prestige than the conventional English translation for the corresponding word in Chinese and some other languages: "peasant".

In the context of developing nations or other pre-industrial cultures, most farmers practice a meager subsistence agriculture - a simple organic farming system employing crop rotation or other techniques to maximize yield, using saved seed which is native to the ecoregion. In developed nations however a person using such techniques on small patches of land might be called a gardener and be considered a hobbyist - or may be driven into such primitive methods simply by poverty or, ironically, against the background of large-scale agribusiness, be an organic farmer growing for discerning consumers in the local food market.

In developed nations, a farmer (as a profession) is usually defined as someone with an ownership interest in crops or livestock, and who provides labor or management in their production. Those who provide only labor but not management, and do not have ownership, are most often called farmhands, or, if they supervise a leased strip of land growing only one crop, as sharecroppers or sharefarmers. In the context of agribusiness, a farmer can be almost anyone - and can legally qualify under agricultural policy for various subsidies, incentives and tax reliefs.

Because of this diversity of terms, and the availability of money for those who "qualify" as farmers, grower is a more neutral word for this lifeway.

The Dutch word for farmer is boer, from which the Boer people of South Africa took their name. In the Netherlands calling someone a "farmer" is considered a derogatory term.

Sustainable agriculture

Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities. These goals have been defined by a variety of disciplines and may be looked at from the vantage point of the farmer or the consumer.

Description

Sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of a farm to produce perpetually. Two key issues are 1) long-term effects of various practices on soil properties and processes essential for crop productivity, and 2) the long-term availability of inputs. Practices that can cause long-term damage to soil include excessive tillage (leading to erosion) and irrigation without adequate drainage (leading to accumulation of salt in the soil). Long-term experiments provide some of the best data on how various practices affect soil properties essential to sustainability.

While air and sunlight are generally available in most geographic locations, crops also depend on soil nutrients and the availability of water. When farmers grow and harvest crops, they remove some of these nutrients from the soil. Without replenishment, the land would suffer from nutrient depletion and be unusable for further farming. Sustainable agriculture depends on replenishing the soil while minimizing the use of non-renewable resources, such as natural gas (used in converting atmospheric nitrogen into synthetic fertilizer), or mineral ores (e.g., phosphate). Possible sources of nitrogen that would, in principle, be available indefinitely, include: 1) recycling crop waste and livestock or human manure, 2) growing legume crops and forages such as, peanuts, or alfalfa that form symbioses with nitrogen-fixing bacteria called rhizobia, 3) adapting the current industrial nitrogen fixation process to use hydrogen made by electrolysis (perhaps using electricity from solar cells or windmills) instead of natural gas, or 4) genetically engineering (non-legume) crops to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses or fix nitrogen without microbial symbionts. The last option was proposed in the 1970's, but would be well beyond the capability of current (2006) technology, even if various concerns about biotechnology were addressed. Sustainable options for replacing other nutrient inputs (phosphorus, potassium, etc.) are more limited.

In some areas, sufficient rainfall is available for crop growth, but many other areas require irrigation. For irrigation systems to be sustainable they must be managed properly (to avoid salt accumulation) and not use more water from their source than is naturally replenished, otherwise the water source becomes, in effect, a non-renewable resource. Improvements in water well drilling technology and the development of submersible pumps have made it possible for large crops to be regularly grown where reliance on rainfall alone previously made this level of success unpredictable. However, this progress has come at a price, in that in many areas where this has occurred, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, the water is being used at a greater rate than its rate of recharge.

Economics

Given the finite supply of natural resources, agriculture that is inefficient will eventually exhaust the available resources or the ability to afford and acquire them. It will also generate negative externality, such as pollution as well as financial and production costs. Agriculture that relies mainly on inputs that are extracted from the earth's crust or produced by society, contributes to the depletion and degradation of the environment. Despite this continuing practice, unsustainable agriculture continues because it is financially more cost-effective than sustainable agriculture in the short term.

In an economic context, the farm must generate revenue. The way that crops are sold must be accounted for in the sustainability equation. Fresh food sold from a farm stand requires little additional energy, aside from that necessary for cultivation, harvest, and transportation (including consumers). Food sold at a remote location, whether at a farmers' market or the supermarket, incurs a different set of energy cost for materials, labour, and transport.

To be sold at a remote location requires a complex economic system in which the farm producers form the first link in a chain of processors and handlers to the consumers. This practice allows greater revenue because of efficient transport of a large number of items, but because it produces externalities and relies on the use of non-renewable resources, shipping, processing, and handling, it is not considered sustainable. Moreover, such a system is considered vulnerable to fluctuations, such as strikes, oil prices, and global economic conditions including labour, interest rates, futures markets, and farm product prices.

In a social context, the actions required for greater sustainability profoundly affect business methods and lifestyle. Current large-scale agricultural practices do not meet the above sustainability criteria, but shifting toward practices that do meet them would require significant changes by corporations and individuals engaged in agribusiness.

From a system's view, the gain and loss factors for sustainability can be listed. The most important factors for an individual site are sun, air, soil and water as rainfall. These are naturally present in the system as part of the larger planetary processes and incur no costs. Of the four, soil quality and quantity are most amenable to human intervention through time and labour. (The economic input depends solely on the price of labour and cost of machinery used).

Natural growth and outputs are also subject to human intervention. What grows and how and where it is grown are a matter of choice. Two of the many possible practices of sustainable agriculture are crop rotation and soil amendment, both designed to ensure that crops being cultivated can obtain the necessary nutrients for healthy growth.

Methods

Monoculture, a method of growing only one crop at a time in a given field, is a very widespread practice, but there are questions about its sustainability, especially if the same crop is grown every year. Growing a mixture of crops (polyculture) sometimes reduces disease or pest problems (Nature 406:718, Environ. Entomol. 12:625) but polyculture has rarely, if ever, been compared to the more widespread practice of growing different crops in successive years crop rotation with the same overall crop diversity. For example, how does growing a corn-bean mixture every year compare with growing corn and bean in alternate years? Cropping systems that include a variety of crops (polyculture and/or rotation) may also use replenish nitrogen (if legumes are included) and may also use resources such as sunlight, water, or nutrients more efficiently (Field Crops Res. 34:239).

Pesticides, though sometimes useful in the short term, can harm the soil food web, a complex ecology of micro-organisms in soil that helps sustain the plant from the roots down. Experiments comparing plants grown in soil compared to plants grown through hydroponics have shown a thirty-three percent higher growth rate when there are beneficial soil microorganisms available.

Certain pesticides synthesized by chemical companies can impart a sometimes fatal toxicity to humans, livestock and insect pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, which may be necessary for plant success. Without insect pollinators, farm labor must be expended to manually pollinate each plant. Crops such as cacao beans and vanilla are examples of crops requiring highly labor-intensive practices in the absence of natural pollinators.

Throughout history, farmers seeking to grow crops usually confine themselves to growing only the fastest and most productive plants. Such practices can result in growing crops without the genetic diversity found in wildlife. Without such diversity in the genes, crops may become more susceptible to disease and crop failure. The Irish potato famine is a well-known example of the dangers of monocultural and mono-varietal crop cultivation.

Many scientists, farmers, and businesses have debated how to make agriculture farming sustainable. One of the many practices includes growing a diverse number of perennial crops in a single field, each of which would grow in separate season so as not to compete with each other for natural resources. This system would replicate the biodiversity already found in a natural environment, resulting in increased resistance to diseases and decreased effects of erosion and loss of nutrients in soil. Nitrogen fixation from legumes, for example, used in conjunction with plants that rely on nitrate from soil for growth, will allow the land to be reused annually. Legumes will grow for a season and replenish the soil with ammonium and nitrate, and the next season other plants can be seeded and grown in the field in preparation for harvest. This method is considered to require a minimal amount of outside resources.

In practice, there is no single approach to sustainable agriculture, as the precise goals and methods must be adapted to each individual case. There are some techniques of farming which are inherently in conflict with the concept of sustainability. For example, the slash-and-burn technique, sometimes used by shifting cultivators, endangers the nutrient content of tropical soils by resultant erosion as well as stripping the land of biomass.

Off-farm impacts

What if a farm is able to "produce perpetually", yet has negative effects on environmental quality elsewhere? Most people concerned with sustainability take a global view, so they try to avoid negative off-farm impacts. For example, over-application of synthetic fertilizer or animal manures can pollute nearby rivers and coastal waters. On the other hand, if crop yields are too low, because of soil exhaustion of nutrients or reduced ability to retain water, farmers would need to access new lands for agriculture, leading to the decimation of the rainforest, draining wetlands, etc.

Urban planning

There has been considerable debate about which form of human residential habitat may be a better social form for sustainable agriculture. Generally, it is thought that village communities can improve sustainability in that such communities tend to provide a cooperative environment that supports farming.

Many environmentalists pushing for increased population density to preserve agricultural land point out that urban sprawl is less sustainable and more damaging to the environment than living in the cities where cars are not needed because food and other necessities are within walking distance. However, others have theorized that sustainable ecocities, or ecovillages which combine habitation and farming with close proximity between producers and consumers, may provide greater sustainability.

The use of available city space (e.g., rooftop and community gardens) for cooperative food production is another way to achieve greater sustainability.

One of the latest ideas in achieving sustainable agricultural involves shifting the production of food plants from major factory farming operations to large, urban, technical facilities called vertical farms. The advantages of vertical farming include year-round production, isolation from pests and diseases, controllable resource recycling, and on-site production that eliminates the need for transportation costs. While a vertical farm has yet to become a reality, the idea is gaining momentum among those who believe that current sustainable farming methods will be insufficient to provide for a future global population of 8 to 11 billion humans.

Organic farming

Organic farming is a form of agriculture which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, plant growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. As far as possible organic farmers rely on crop rotation, crop residues, animal manures and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to supply plant nutrients, and to control weeds, insects and other pests.

According to the international organic farming organisation IFOAM : The role of organic agriculture, whether in farming, processing, distribution, or consumption, is to sustain and enhance the health of ecosystems and organisms from the smallest in the soil to human beings[1].

Organic farming is also associated with support for principles beyond cultural practices, such as fair trade and environmental stewardship, although this does not apply to all organic farms and farmers.

Overview

Organic farming excludes the use of synthetic inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However organic farming regulations, as defined by the U.S.D.A, do not prohibit GMOs ([2]. In many countries the use of veterinary drugs is excluded. In a number of countries, including the US, Bulgaria, Iceland, Norway, Romania, Switzerland, Turkey, Australia, India, Japan, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Argentina, Costa Rica, Tunisia, and in the EU, organic farming is also defined by law, so that the commercial use of the term organic to describe farming and food products is regulated by the government. Where laws exist, organic certification is available to farms for a fee, and it is usually illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products organic. Elsewhere, for example, in Canada, voluntary certification is available, while legislation may be pending.

Methods of organic farming vary. However, organic approaches share common goals and practices. In addition to the exclusion of synthetic agrichemicals, these include protection of the soil (from erosion, nutrient depletion, structural breakdown), promotion of biodiversity (e.g. growing a variety of crops rather than a single crop), and outdoor grazing for livestock and poultry. Within this framework, individual farmers develop their own organic production systems, determined by factors such as climate, market conditions, and local agricultural regulations.

It is important to make the distinction between organic farming and organic food. Farming is concerned with producing fresh products—vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, eggs—for immediate consumption, or for use as ingredients in processed food. The manufacture of most commercially processed food is well beyond the scope of farming.

It is also important to note that organic farming is a reaction against the large-scale, chemical-based farming practices that have become the norm in food production over the last 80 years. The differences between organic farming and modern conventional farming account for most of the controversy and claims surrounding organic agriculture and organic food.

The development of modern organic farming techniques is also a function of economics. Most of the agricultural research over the last century has concentrated on chemical-based methods— little funding and effort have been put into using current scientific tools to understand and advance organic agricultural approaches.

Principles of plant cultivation, in many situations identical to those of organic farming, are applied—usually, though not necessarily, at a smaller scale—in the practice of organic horticulture.

History

Main article: History of organic farming

The organic movement began as a reaction of insiders (agricultural scientists and farmers) against the industrialization of agriculture. Advances in biochemistry, (nitrogen fertilizer) and engineering (the internal combustion engine) in the early 20th century led to profound changes in farming. Research in plant breeding produced hybrid seeds. Fields grew in size and cropping became specialized to make efficient use of machinery and reap the benefits of the green revolution. Technological advances during World War II spurred on post-war innovation in all aspects of agriculture, resulting in such advances as large-scale irrigation, fertilization, and the use of pesticides. Ammonium nitrate, used in munitions, became an abundantly cheap source of nitrogen. DDT, originally developed by the military to control disease-carrying insects among troops, was applied to crops, launching the era of widespread pesticide use.

While some indigenous cultures had been farming organically for centuries, organic agriculture began to develop consciously in Central Europe and India in the early twentieth century as a reaction to industrialization. The British botanist, Sir Albert Howard often called “the father of modern organic agriculture” studied traditional farming practices in Bengal, India. He came to regard such practices as superior to modern agricultural science and recorded them in his 1940 book, An Agricultural Testament.

In Germany, Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture, published in 1924, led to the popularization of biodynamic agriculture.

The first use of the term organic farming is usually credited to Lord Northbourne, in his book, Look to the Land (1940), wherein he described a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming.

In the US, J.I. Rodale popularized organic gardening among consumers.

In 1972, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), was founded in Versailles, France. IFOAM was dedicated to the diffusion of information on the principles and practices of organic agriculture across national and linguistic boundaries.

In the 1980s, various farming and consumer groups worldwide began pressing for government regulation of organic production. This led to legislation and certification standards being enacted beginning in the 1990s.

Since the early 1990s, the retail market for organic farming in developed economies has grown about 20 per cent annually due to increasing consumer demand. While small independent producers and consumers initially drove the rise of organic farming, meanwhile as the volume and variety of "organic" products grows, production is increasingly large-scale.

Methods

Main article: Organic farming methods

Organic farming involves fostering natural processes, often over extended periods of time, and a holistic approach. Enhancing soil health is the cornerstone of organic farming. This is a biological process, driven by microorganisms, that allows the natural production of nutrients in the soil throughout the growing season, and has been referred to as feeding the soil to feed the plant. A variety of methods are employed, including crop rotation, green manure, cover cropping, application of compost, and mulching. Organic farmers also use processed natural fertilizers such as seed meal, and various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, a naturally occurring form of potash.

Differing approaches to pest control are equally notable. In conventional farming, a specific insecticide may be applied to kill off a particular insect pest. Chemical controls can dramatically reduce pest populations for the short term, yet by unavoidably killing (or starving) natural predator insects and animals, can cause an ultimate increase in the pest population. Repeated use of insecticides and herbicides and other pesticides also encourages natural selection of resistant insects, plants and other organisms.

Pest control targets animal pests (including insects), weeds and disease. Organic pest control involves the cumulative effect of many techniques, including, allowing for an acceptable level of pest damage, encouraging or even introducing beneficial organisms, careful crop selection and crop rotation, and mechanical controls such as row covers and traps. These techniques generally provide benefits in addition to pest control—soil protection and improvement, fertilization, pollination, water conservation, season extension, etc.—and these benefits are both complementary and cumulative in overall effect on farm health. Effective organic pest control requires a thorough understanding of pest life cycles and interactions.

Weeds are controlled mechanically, thermically and through the use of mulches.

Organic farms that raise livestock and poultry, for meat, dairy and eggs, provide animals with "natural" living conditions and feed. Ample, free-range outdoor access, for grazing and exercise, is a distinctive feature, and crowding is avoided. Feed is also organically grown, and the addition of drugs, including antibiotics, are prohibited by organic standards. Animal health and food quality are thus pursued in a holistic "fresh air, exercise, and good food" approach.

Organic farming systems

There are a number of formal organic farming systems that prescribe specific techniques. They tend to be more specific than, and fit within, general organic standards. Biodynamic farming is an approach, based on the esoteric teachings of Rudolf Steiner. The Japanese farmer and writer Masanobu Fukuoka invented a no-till system for small-scale grain production that he called Natural Farming. French intensive and biointensive methods are both small scale gardening techniques.

Standards

Main article: Organic certification

Increasingly, organic farming is defined by formal standards regulating production methods, and in some cases, final output. Two types of standard exist, voluntary and legislated. As early as the 1970s, private associations created standards, against which organic producers could voluntarily have themselves certified. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. Beginning in the 1990s, a trend toward legislation of standards began, most notably the EU-Eco-regulation developed in the European Union.

In 1991, the European Commission formulated the first government system to regulate organic labelling. In one go, the European Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 set the rules in 12 countries, creating a huge market. Organic certification, which till then was a voluntary quality control system, became mandatory to all operations and was also to be applied for imports. In the meantime, Europe had become the most prominent market place for organic products and an increasing number of suppliers all over the world accepted this niche as a new challenge and a rewarding option to export high quality and high priced speciality products. All these supplies, of course, had to comply with the requirements of the European market and thus the Regulation (EEC) N 2092/91 became a universal standard for organic production systems

An international framework for organic farming is provided by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the international democratic umbrella organization established in 1972. For IFOAM members, organic agriculture is based upon the Principles of Organic Agriculture and the IFOAM Norms.[3] The IFOAM Norms consist of the IFOAM Basic Standards and IFOAM Accreditation Criteria.

The IFOAM Basic Standards are a set of "standards for standards." They are established through a democratic and international process and reflect the current state of the art for organic production and processing. They are best seen as a work in progress to lead the continued development of organic practices worldwide. They provide a framework for national and regional standard-setting and certification bodies to develop detailed certification standards that are responsive to local conditions.

Legislated standards are established at the national level, and vary from country to country. In recent years, many countries have legislated organic production, including the EU nations (1990s), Japan (2001), and the US (2002). Non-governmental national and international associations also have their own production standards. In countries where production is regulated, these agencies must be accredited by the government.

Since 1993 when EU Council Regulation 2092/91 became effective, organic food production has been strictly regulated in the UK. (pdf).

In India, standards for organic agriculture were announced in May 2001, and the National Programme on Organic Production (NPOP) is administered under the Ministry of Commerce. (ttp://: www.apeda.com/organic/quality.html)

In 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established production standards, under the National Organic Program (NOP), which regulate the commercial use of the term organic.[4] Farmers and food processors must comply with the NOP in order to use the word.

Productivity

A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods, but consumes less energy and contains no pesticide residues. However, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides^[1]. A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields^[2]. Comparative yield studies are still scarce, and overall results remain "inconclusive".

The issue of productivity is more complex than a summary of yield (production per land area), which was the measure used in these studies. Instead, productivity could be calculated in labour time rather than by land area. Organic methods often require more labor, providing rural jobs but increasing costs to urban consumers. Also, grain forms the majority of world agricultural production, and most of that is fed to animals, not humans—broad calculations of how much agriculture is feeding people is therefore complicated when feeding animals to feed people is factored in.

All aspects of organic farming and organic food are under debate. Environmentalists, food safety advocates, various consumer protection, social justice and labor groups, small independent farmers, and a growing number of food consumers are ranged against agribusiness and current government agricultural policies.

The controversy centers on the overall value and safety of chemical agriculture, with organic farming popularly regarded as the "opposite" of modern, large-scale, chemical-based, vertically integrated, corporate food production. As public awareness increases, there are a number of obstacles to an easy grasp of the overall situation.

In recent decades, food production has moved out of the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many are unaware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues.

It is useful to make a distinction between organic farming and organic food. Whether organic food is tastier, safer or more nutritious has little to do with the effects of chemical agriculture on the environment. In any case, most food dollars are spent on processed food products, the manufacture of which is beyond the scope of farming. There are separate food and farming issues and lumping the two together only confuses the discussion.

The distinction between organic farming and organic certification is also important. Defining organic farming with checklists of acceptable and prohibited inputs and practices elicits similar criticisms as those leveled at chemical farming. With rules come exceptions, whether well-intentioned or purely profit-oriented, and critics hold that this can only undermine organic principles. What is "more-or-less organic"? Certification also allows agribusiness to lobby for favorable definitions—anything that can be approved becomes "organic".

Of course, the issues, particularly the social ones, will shift if agribusiness fully adapts to and dominates organic farming, and (in early 2005) this is the current trend. Then, large-scale, certified organic farms would probably operate much more like conventional farms do today. Environmental benefits may accrue from a change in types of pesticides and fertilizer used, more crop diversity, and the like, but if the overall agribusiness philosophy remains essentially unchanged, "organic farming" could become the norm, without any great environmental or social improvements.

The following topics may be argued from both sides.

Pesticides

Organic farming does not result in the release of synthetic pesticides into the food supply or the environment, but it does allow certain so-called natural pesticides, such as those derived from plants. Critics claim that many synthetic pesticides are improvements on natural pesticides, that they are less dangerous to humans and more environmentally friendly, and that the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" pesticides is arbitrary and has no bearing on their safety to humans and the environment. Organic advocates respond that they use natural pesticides as a last resort, growing healthier, disease-resistant plants, using cover crops and crop rotation, and encouraging beneficial insects and birds as the primary methods of pest control. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum, and rotenone.

Another argument against organic farming is that, while it works acceptably at present because pests are kept under control in surrounding conventional farms and thus do not spread into organic farms, if it became universal, the "islands" they operate on would disappear and pests would become a severe issue. This argument also works in reverse, as organic farms can be islands of safety for predator insects and pollinators, without which, more pollination services would be required, and ever-increasing quantities of pesticides would be needed as pest populations acquired resistance to pesticides (to a degree, in both instances this is already the case).

Workplace safety is a separate, related issue. Toxic agrichemicals create a hazardous work environment. Chemical accidents and the effects of long-term exposure are both well-known risks faced by many farm workers. Also, the effect of chemicals, airborne after spraying, and in the groundwater, on neighboring communities is a concern.

Genetically modified organisms

A key characteristic of organic farming is its rejection of genetically engineered products, including plants and animals. On October 19, 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference of IFOAM) issued the Mar del Plata Declaration, where more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously to exclude the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture. From this point, it became widely recognized that GMOs are categorically excluded from organic farming.

"GMO-free" is also a popular marketing point for organic food. The general argument against is that no one has a clue as to the full impact of genetic engineering on food quality, plant or animal health: GE is preparing our food supply for collapse. On the other side, the argument is that with a rapidly expanding global population, genetic engineering to create higher volumes of produce could be the key to ending world hunger. It also could be the key to creating healthier food, and ensuring proper nourishment, and has the potential to make farming more profitable, allowing agricultural industries to survive in increasingly service oriented economies. Often overlooked in this debate is the fact that genetic engineering is a technique, not an essential characteristic of the organisms it produces, and that humans have used selective breeding to modify crops and livestock for tens of thousands of years.

A recent advancement in GE involving the insertion of a gene from an animal into the cell or seed of a plant (e.g., a sheep gene placed into a bell pepper seed) is proving to be highly controversial. The science is still in the early stages of development and its future implications on sustainable agriculture and organic farming may add considerable support to the argument against genetic engineering.

The contamination of organic farms with GM product, usually through pollination, is an important issue. Contamination may lead to products being incorrectly labelled as organic or GMO-free, or may reduce the value of crop as it cannot be sold as organic, leading to losses for the farmer.

The mechanism of cross-contamination is not understood, and only beginning to be studied. Meanwhile, cases of cross-contamination have been documented, while the extent is still unclear. A first-time study of genetic cross-contamination, published in Feb. 2004, found that at least two-thirds of conventional corn, soybeans and canola in the US contain traces of genetic material from GM varieties.^[3] Along with commercial GM crops, trials for new GM plants producing food, pharmaceuticals (pharmacrops) and industrial materials (eg: plastics), are being conducted in the US, Canada, and elsewhere. With the genetic engineering of alfalfa (not yet widely grown), a primary green manure fertilizer crop, not only primary crops, but the underpinnings of organic agriculture are threatened. It is conceivable that genetic contamination could make GMO-free farming next to impossible.

The environment

The environmental argument, from the pro-organic view, holds that conventional agriculture is rapidly depleting natural resources, particularly fossil fuels and fresh water, and seriously polluting soil, water and air. Cited are the large quantities of agricultural chemicals in use (synthetic pesticides and fertilizers), water wastage through high-volume irrigation, heavy use of petrochemicals for farm machinery and long-distance transport, high densities of various waste products from concentrated operations, and the list goes on. While there is no argument that conventional agriculture relies on an abundance of these resources and creates a high volume of waste, agribusiness supporters (which naturally includes the majority of conventional farmers) argue that the negative claims are exaggerated or inaccurate. The fact that the current food industry exists and has fed the much of the world for several decades is the biggest pro-argument to date.

On the flip side, large-scale organic operations that don't follow sustainable practices would require many of the same resources as conventional operations. For example, an organic farm that made heavy use of farm machinery and indoor production facilities (requiring artificial heat and light), and shipped to far-off markets, would still be a major consumer of energy resources. Also, it is debated whether an organic farm using natural compost and manure on a large scale would cause any less damage to ground water and soil than manufactured fertilizers.

Interestingly, many organic farms rely on manure that is not organic(meaning it comes from animals not fed and raised organically) to continue fertilization. This technically does not violate the traditional definitions of organic produce because there are no inorganic components added to the manure, although they may be present in its composition. Studies of the effects of chemicals within manure on organic produce is limited, although studies have shown that many carcinogens are present in variable amounts in even organic foodstuffs.

Some critics, most notably Norman Borlaug, contend that adopting organic farming methods on a global scale would be more detrimental to the environment than conventional farming. Borlaug asserts that if organic farming is to feed the globe, it will require a dramatic increase in cropland area, and that achieving this goal will ultimately lead to wide-scale deforestation.[5]

Food contamination

Critics point out organic food could be less safe than non-organic food, by increasing the risk of exposure to biological contaminants and food-borne diseases. In particular concerns are related to the use of manure, well known for carrying human pathogens and presence of mycotoxins from molds. One large, influential French study, evaluating organic and conventional food during 1999-2000, warned that biological toxins in certain organic products (apples, wheat) should be closely monitored^[4]. Food contamination is usually caused by unhygienic handling and storage, including use of contaminated water, which can occur on-farm, in transit, and at the point of preparation. On the other hand, there has been no concrete evidence as of yet showing a direct link between organic farming practices and food contamination.

Food quality

Although organic food is a topic in its own right, there are concerns related specifically to the quality of raw, fresh food. Without conclusive science either way, some organic supporters believe that the overall nutritional and health-promoting value of food is compromised by chemical-farming methods. This involves areas like micronutrients and trace elements, plant physiology, the way plants grow and the process of human nutrition. The common sense appeal is that food grown in unnatural, sheltered, chemically assisted ways isn't as "good" for people as "naturally grown" food, as some things are different or missing. The counter-argument is that, by currently accepted standards of food science, there has been no demonstration of a functional difference between organically and conventionally produced food, and that assisted food is actually healthier and thus, more nutritious. Further, there is some concern that due to the limited methods available to organic farmers for combating quality problems while adhering to organic standards, some organic food (notably dairy) does not generally achieve comparable safety and quality standards as "conventionally" grown products.

Children's Health

A 2001 study demonstrated that children fed organic diets experienced significantly lower organophosphorus pesticide exposure than children fed conventional diets. Additionally, in 2005 the EPA's "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment" showed that children receive 50% of their lifetime risks of cancer during their first two years of life ([6]). These studies and others like it have helped spur a growing organic baby food trend in the United States. Mothers are more and more hesitant to feed their children potentially dangerous food, given that their small bodies are especially vulnerable to toxins.

Soil conservation

Main article: Soil conservation

The practice of ploughing (see tillage) to prepare soil for planting is claimed to increase soil damage compared to using herbicides, like glyphosates. In fact, this argument applies primarily to large-scale, chemical-based agriculture, where huge areas are repeatedly tilled and planted with the same crops. By using artificial fertilizer rather than replacing organic material, the soil structure is progressively destroyed, and becomes increasingly susceptible to wind and water erosion. Use of herbicides to kill weeds, instead of plowing them under, may present a short-term solution to this problem. However, repeated use of herbicides also kills microorganisms that contribute to the decomposition of plant residues that help rebuild the organic matter that holds the soil together. It also encourages the selection of the most herbicide-resistant weeds, which necessitates increased herbicide use.

Motivations for organic agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Please wikify (format) this article or section as suggested in the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style.
Remove this template after wikifying. This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Within the food industry, defining the benefits of organic food is largely left to word of mouth, media coverage, and the promotional efforts of organic advocates. Major food and beverage corporations^[1] have rapidly moved to acquire significant stake in both fresh and processed organic products.^[2] Still, the specific sales points of "organics" go largely unmentioned on product packaging and in mainstream media advertising.

Claims of improved food quality are regularly used in conventional food marketing, with "low fat", "low sodium", "whole grain", "high fiber", "vitamin enriched", "no trans-fat" and other commonly advertised benefits. By contrast, "certified organic" is generally left to stand on its own as self-explanatory, assisted only by general terms like "natural".

Meanwhile, consumer surveys have consistently identified food quality as the main reason for purchasing organic food. Higher nutritional value, no toxic residues from pesticides, and better taste are often cited, as is the positive impact of organic production on the environment.^[3] Whether organic food actually delivers on these desires and beliefs is controversial and the subject of scientifically inconclusive debate. The debate centers on a variety of specific and supposedly demonstrable characteristics which proponents claim make organic food superior to the product of conventional farming and processing.

Food safety

Organic food proponents express concern over the potential negative effects of various chemical cultivation methods and genetic modification techniques used in modern conventional agriculture. The effect of pesticide residues from crop spraying, the presence of veterinary drugs in meat products, and the entirely unknown impact of genetically modified varieties and breeds are all encompassed. Organic food is seen as avoiding relieving these concerns by prohibiting such practices. At present, there are no definitive scientific conclusions on any of these matters; individual studies are cited on both sides of the debate.

Chemical contamination

Organic food proponents cite the existence of reduced levels of pesticides and herbicides as a way to reduce the long term risk of chemical consumption. A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.^[4] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.^[5]

The degree of risk posed by pesticide residues remains uncertain. Pesticide use in conventional food products is heavily regulated, with established, research-based maximum residue levels (MRLs) below which residues are considered safe for human consumption. Also, many pesticides are not cumulative in the body, and are regularly eliminated. Notable exceptions include heavy metals such as lead or mercury which are sometimes found in foodstuffs in countries which have lax food production standards. The U.S. and most of Europe prohibit the use of inorganic compounds containing heavy metals in any type of agriculture including conventional.^[6]

One of the major differences in the production of organically produced food from traditional techiniques is its reliance on natural methods of providing soil nutrients. While both methods rely on nitrates to provide nitrogen to the soil, organic agriculture gets the majority of its nitrates from manure and compost sources. These sources of nitrogen have a slower transfer of nitrogen to the soil spreading out the release of nitrogen over the growing season and helping to reduce the leeching of nitrates into water sources where they can cause health problems. Manure and compost also contain the other macronutrients, phosphate and potassium. While neither chemical or organic applications of nutrients to the soil provide the ideal situation, on small to medium scale operations, manure provides the benefit of reduced soil erosion and less leeching of nitrates into the soil. Regardless of the benefits, the application of man-made nutrients will always be required to sustain a global agriculture system that feeds the entire world.[1]

Organic methods of fertilization are not necessarily free from risk. Critics claim that using manure to fertilize organic crops might increase the risk of contamination by dangerous microbes like E. coli.^{[citation needed]} However, organic animal manure, typically that of cattle, is manure from animals that eat mainly hay and other organic, primarily non-grain materials. This is seen as a way to reduce the amount of E. Coli bacteria present, and the feces of organically-raised cattle have only 1% of the E. Coli present in non-organic manure. Still, when using primarily manure to grow organic crops, the risk for mycotoxin contamination is significantly increased. Mycotoxins are the result of molds found in some varieties of cow feed, and even in very small amounts they can induce liver cancer if consumed over a long period of time. It is important to note that conventional farms also use manure as fertilizer but in much smaller quantities.^[6] It should also be noted that many organic farmers consider using manure directly as fertilizer to be an unsound practice, and instead the manure should be composted first.^[7] ^[8]

Hormonal contamination

Organic proponents cite evidence that some chemicals used in conventional farming, including pesticides and herbicides, mimic hormones - usually estrogen - when inside a person. They claim that this is significant even at the minute levels that the average person is exposed to. The US government states that these chemicals are safe when used correctly, but proponents claim such tests are only done on healthy adults - and that children and fetuses might be at risk to even small amounts of these chemicals.

In Australia, the Government sponsored Australian Total Diet Survey measures pesticide residues found in typical Australian diets. The 2004 survey found all estimated dietary exposures to pesticide residues were below 16% of the respective Acceptable daily intakes and therefore all exposures are well within the applicable health standards.

Transgenic contamination

Certified organic foods are not substantially genetically modified. The health risks surrounding genetically modified foods remain highly contentious. In the USA, a small admixture of a GM variety is compatible with organic certification, as long as it is unintentional. The USDA regulates the organic production process, and does not verify the actual composition of the final product. So as long as the farmer complies with the rules of organic farming, he cannot lose his organic certificate solely because of random presence of transgenic variety. In most European countries, certification rules are much stricter. Basically, any confirmed detection of transgenic plant, seed or feed can result in a loss of organic status and cosenquent substantial economic losses for the farmer.

Other issues surrounding GMOs may also concern consumers, such as the ownership of biological intellectual property by corporations, and reduction in crop varieties.

With estimates that pollen of some crops (eg. canola) can travel more than 5 kilometers per year, we can be certain that the technology and marketing of organic foods will clash with the technology and marketing of GMO foods, in countries where the growing of GMO is permitted. In many countries, however, public awareness is limited and the battles seem to take place with a small elite in the GMO industry and the NGOs that oppose them.

Nutritional value

Some organic advocates claim that organic food is more nutritious. Increased soil quality, greater attention to quality, and selection of crop varieties for nutrition and taste instead of size, appearance, and shipping characteristics are claimed to be reasons for higher nutrient density of organic foods.

Organically grown potatoes, oranges, and leafy vegetables have more vitamin C than conventionally grown products. Phenolic compounds are also found in significantly higher concentrations in organic foods, and these may provide antioxidant protection against heart disease and cancer.^[9]

Still isolated bits of research suggest that conventional agricultural practices are degrading food quality. A study in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in 2004, entitled Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999, compared vegetables analysed in 1950 and in 1999, and found noticeable decreases in six of 13 nutrients examined (the six were: protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid)^[10]. Percentage reductions ranged from 6% for protein to 38% of riboflavin, although when evaluated on a per-food or per-nutrient level, usually no distinguishable changes were found. Reductions in calcium, phosphorus, iron and ascorbic acid were also found. The authors suggested that the differences probably reflect changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may have been trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.

However, whether organic foodstuffs have a higher nutrient content is still debatable. Studies have shown no clear, consistent results, and those that have suffer from significant experimental design flaws, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Further, the FAO found that in some crops, such as wheat, there appears to be a trade-off: in conventionally farmed wheat the levels of protein are higher, but the lower levels in organic materials are offset by gains in alpha-amylase and sugar contents.^[6]

Taste

Many claim that organic food tastes better. This is primarily referred to regarding fresh food.

It is possible that organic food tastes better simply because it is fresher. Because organic farms tend to be smaller, they often sell their products closer to the point of harvest.^[11] Thus, organic fruits and vegetables taste more "farm fresh" than comparable conventional produce.

However, organic foods might also have more flavor because organic farmers often breed with taste instead of marketability as the primary factor. Conventional tomatoes, for example, are often bred to be perfectly red and round, to match the ideal appearance of a tomato. They are also bred to resist damage in transport and storage, for a longer shelf-life. This means that taste is an attribute that has a lower priority. In addition to crop diversity and selection practices, organic farming emphasizes soil nutrition, which can positively influence the taste of the food. Tests by the United Nations FAO demonstrated that some apples, specifically the "Golden Delicious" variety, have higher flavonoid counts when grown organically. This suggests that they do have more flavour.^[6]

Some foods, such as bananas, are picked when unripe, then artificially induced to ripen using a chemical (such as propylene or ethylene) while in transit, possibly producing a different taste.^[12] The issue of ethylene use in organic food production is contentious; opponents claiming that its use only benefits large companies, and opens the door to weaker organic standards.^[13]

Environmental impact

Every food purchase supports the system that delivers it, and if large-scale chemical production methods are damaging to the environment, then purchasing these foods supports this damage. A main goal of organic farming is minimizing impact to the environment.

Sustainability

Proponents of organic farming say that "conventional" farming is unsustainable, because it relies on artificial inputs(synthetic fertilizers and other chemicals, machinery, etc.) that ultimately requires energy in the form of fossil fuels, and because the land is degraded through soil erosion, salinization, and other processes that eventually render the soil infertile. Many claim that without cheap fossil fuels and government subsidies, conventional agriculture would not be possible, and that despite technological advancements, there will eventually be an agricultural crisis as a result of depleted soil^{[citation needed]}. The cultivation of monocultures, many acres planted with the same crop year after year, increases susceptibility to pests and diseases and depletes the soil, while eliminating most native flora and fauna.

In contrast, organic farming often utilizes intercropping, crop rotation, fallow periods, and integrated pest management to promote biodiversity and preserve the health of the soil while minimizing the risk of diseases. The main goal of organic farming is sustainability, so organic farms seek to minimize dependence on outside resources and be self-sufficient.

Pollution

Modern agricultural practices often result in large amounts of nitrogen runoff from the heavy use of fertilizer, which pollutes watersheds. In addition to posing a threat to human health and disrupting aquatic ecosystems, this sometimes results in algal blooms which deplete the water of oxygen resulting in fishkills. Pesticide runoff also causes many problems.

Transportation

Claims that eating organic food is better for the environment are, however, frustrated by the fact that most of the organic food sold today travels the same great distances as conventional food. A UK study published in 2005 in the Journal of Food Policy found that maximum environmental benefit would result from purchasing food produced within a 12-mile radius.^[14] Therefore, buying local food that is not organic could be environmentally "better" than buying organic food that has travelled hundreds or thousands of miles. Many small organic farms, however, sell much or all of their produce locally.

Efficiency

Studies have shown organic farms to be more energy efficient than their conventional counterparts. One of these studies was done with apple farms in the state of Washington. In that study, the organic farms were found to be at least 7% more energy efficient.^[15] And although some critics of organic farms cite evidence that organic farms produce less yield than conventional farms, they also found a much more substantial decrease in resources used. Critics of organic farms cite evidence that organic farms produce less yield than conventional farms; one prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average 20% lower organic yields over conventional methods. However, that came with consumption of 50% less fertilizer, and 97% less pesticide.^[16]

In comparing yields, a US survey published in 2001 analyzed 150 growing seasons of data on various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.^[17] Because organic farms don't use toxic pesticides and herbicides, there is more biodiversity in the soil. Besides higher soil quality^[18] - more life in the soil allows for higher water retention. This helps increase yields for organic farms in drought years where there is less rain. During drought years, organic farms have been found to have yields 20-40% higher than conventional farms.^[19]

Large scale organic farms

Many advocates of organic farming view large scale, corporate owned "organic farms" as being against the spirit of organic farming, since they tend to use unsustainable practices similar to conventional farms.

Summary

Without exception, the fundamental claims of benefit are contentious and well-contended by various supporters of conventional agriculture, regardless of the fact that the food industry establishment also has a significant stake in organic food. The hot button issue seems to be the effect of pesticides on people, animals, and the environment. This is still being debated by experts in toxicology. There are research reports, expert opinions, and anecdotal evidence both supporting and rebutting them. The same holds true for the other claimed advantages.

References and notes

^ Corporations such as Kraft Foods, Heinz, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Cargill, Unilever, General Mills, and Campbell Soup
^ "Corporate Industry Structure: 2005", by Phil Howard, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz.
^ "Millions turn to organic food" (BBC News, 8-Feb-2000), "2003 BC Organic Food Survey: Key Findings" (Synovate Research, 2003), "One Year after USDA Organic Standards are Enacted More Americans are Consuming Organic Food" (Whole Foods Market, 14-Oct-2003), "Consumer Knowledge and Perceptions About Organic Food" (Journal of Extension, Aug-2005)
^ National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academies Press; 1993. ISBN 0309048753. Retrieved 10-Apr-2006.
^ Lu, Chensheng, et. al. (2006). "Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides". Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 260-263.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Food Safety and Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Twenty Second FAO Regional Conference for Europe, 24-28 Jul-2000.
^ manure facts from the Organic Trade Association
^ 'Holistic management at the Northland Sheep Dairy' describes the disadvantages of using uncomposted manure under the second section 'Pros and Cons of Milking Sheep'
^ Asami, Danny K. "Comparison of the Total Phenolic and Ascorbic Acid Content of Freeze-Dried and Air-Dried Marionberry, Strawberry, and Corn Grown Using Conventional, Organic, and Sustainable Agricultural Practices". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (American Chemical Society), 51 (5), 1237 -1241, 2003. 10.1021/jf020635c S0021-8561(02)00635-0. Retrieved 10-Apr-2006.
^ Donald Davis, et. al. (2004). "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999". Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23: 669-682.
^ Note For North Americans: this is not necessarily the case--increasingly, organic foods are grown by larger corporations who use South American farms for growing. This has led some observers to point out that the higher amount of fossil fuel burned to ship these "organic" products means that purchasing them is more ecologically destructive than buying many non-organic vegetables grown stateside, such as New Jersey tomatoes.
^ "Banana Wars", by Joanna Blythman (The Observer, 13-Mar-2005) and "Bananas & Plantains", Honduran Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA).
^ "The organic label just won't stick if feds keep this up", by Julie Deardorff (Chicago Tribune, 9-Dec-2005) and "Dole urges organics board to approve ethylene use", by Joan Murphy (The Produce News, 22-Nov-2005).
^ "Local food 'greener than organic'", BBC News, 2-Mar-2005.
^ Reganold et.al (April 2001). "Sustainability of three apple production systems". Nature 410: 926-930.
^ Maeder et.al. (May 2002). "Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming". Science 296: 1694–1697.
^ Welsh, Rick (1999). "Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States". Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.
^ Johnston, A. E. (1986). "Soil organic-matter, effects on soils and crops". Soil Use Management 2: 97-105.
^ Lotter, D. W., Seidel, R. & Liebhardt W. (2003). "The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year". American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18: 146-154.

Rural infrastructure

Critics condemn agribusiness practices for putting small, independent farmers out of business, destroying rural communities in the process, and causing the "art of farming" to be lost. According to these critics, small-scale organic farming encourages local economies, and provides social and employment alternatives to concentrated, energy-dependent urban living, thus improving the quality of life for everyone.

As discussed previously, the entry of large-scale businesses into production of organic food undermines the belief that a preference by consumers for organic food will necessarily translate into a substantive change in the nature of agribusiness. This is where the distinction between organic farming, organic food, and organic certification becomes tricky. If the strong consumer trend represents simply the desire for an "organic" stamp on their food, then the trend to large-scale, global, corporate farming, certified organic or not, will continue. If consumers embrace a broader concept of "organic", which includes fresh, local food, substantial changes in the food industry would have to follow to meet this demand.

Sustainability

Although it is common to equate organic farming with sustainable agriculture, the two are not synonymous. Sustainability in agriculture is a broad concept, with considerations on many levels, such as "environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity."^[5] With regard to organic farming methods, one goal of sustainability would be to approach as closely as possible a balance between what is taken out of the soil with what is returned to it, without relying on outside inputs. An organic operation that imports the manure it uses to replace the nutrients taken out of the soil by crops, must factor in the resources required to produce and transport that manure, when calculating sustainability. Organic farming today is a small part of the agricultural landscape, with a relatively minor impact on the environment. As the size of organic farms continues to increase, a new set of large-scale considerations will eventually have to be tackled. Large organic farms that rely on machinery and automation, and purchased inputs, will have similar sustainability issues as large conventional farms do today.

Certification

Organic certification, particularly where mandated by law, as in the US and the EU, is increasingly being seen by individual organic farmers and consumers as a contentious issue. Where the push for regulation was originally a grassroots effort by organic producers and buyers looking to uphold standards and prevent fraud, the complex regulations and opportunities for loopholes that have emerged have led to charges being levelled against major certifiers and government programs. In the US, where standards became law in 2002, serious complaints have been lodged with the USDA against the largest US certifying agency, and the USDA itself has been taken to court, based on such challenges. A leading US proponent of organic farming, Eliot Coleman, who served as an adviser to the USDA during the drafting of the original organic guidelines in the US in the 1980s, and served a term as Director of IFOAM, more recently stated: "The label 'organic' has lost the fluidity it used to hold for the growers more concerned with quality than the bottom line, and consumers more concerned with nutrition than a static set of standards for labeling."[7] Concern about the "watering down" of standards to facilitate large-scale production is currently a significant aspect of organic farming regulation.

The future

Organic farming is at a crossroads. Despite the growth in the organic food market over the last decade, the future of the small, independent farmer, organic or otherwise, is as much in jeopardy now as it has been in recent decades. The local infrastructure to support small farmers is all but non-existent in most developed nations - the current food distribution system favors high-volume production, and large farming operations. What is commonly known as "organic farming" may change quite dramatically in the coming few years.

Organic farming is now gaining popularity and is being accepted by people all over the world. In Deborah Koons Garcia's film The Future of Food^[6], it is stated that the American market for organically grown food amounted to $1 billion in 1994, and $13 billion in 2003. A growing consumer market is naturally one of the main factors encouraging farmers to convert to organic agricultural production. Increased consumer awareness of food safety issues and environmental concerns has contributed to the growth in organic farming over the last few years.

References

^ Maeder, P. et al Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming from Science v296, 31 May 2002, 1694-1697. Retrieved on 2006-01-06.
^ the Information Bulletin of the Organic Farming Research Foundation. Retrieved on 2005-12-18.
^ 404. Retrieved on 2005-12-18.
^ Le Dossier juin/juillet 2001 (in French). Retrieved on 2005-12-18.
^ What is Sustainable Agriculture?. Retrieved on 2005-12-18.
^ The Future of Food. Retrieved on 2006-01-04.

Kuepper, George and Gegner, Lance. "Organic Crop Production Overview", ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: August 2004.
Emsley, John (April 2001). "Going One Better Than Nature". Nature 410: 633-634.
Smil, Vaclav (2001). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food. MIT Press.
Trewavas, Anthony (November 1999). "Much Food, Many Problems". Nature 402: 231-232.
Trewavas, Anthony (March 2001). "Urban Myths of Organic Farming". Nature 410: 409-410.

Community-supported agriculture

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a relatively new socio-economic model of food production, sales and distribution aimed at both increasing the quality of food and the quality of care given the land, plants and animals – while substantially reducing potential food losses and financial risks for the producers. It is also a method for small-scale commercial farmers and gardeners to have a successful, small-scale closed market. CSA’s focus usually on a system of weekly delivery or pick-up of vegetables, sometimes also flowers, fruits, herbs and even milk or meat products in some cases. A variety of production and economic sub-systems are in use worldwide.

The CSA system

CSA generally, is the practice of focusing on the production of high quality foods using ecological, organic or biodynamic farming methods. This kind of farming operates with a much greater-than-usual degree of involvement of consumers and other stakeholders—resulting in a stronger than usual consumer-producer relationship. The core design includes developing a cohesive consumer group that is willing to fund a whole season’s budget in order to get quality foods. The system has many variations on the theme of how the farm budget is support by the consumers and how the producers then deliver the foods and thus also a variety of levels of risk for the producers. The greater the whole-farm, whole-budget support, the greater the focus can be on quality and the less risk of food waste or financial loss.

In its most formal and structured European and North American form, CSAs focus on having:

a transparent, whole season budget for producing a specified wide array of products for a set number of weeks a year;
a common-pricing system where producers and consumers discuss and democratically agree to pricing based on the acceptance of the budget; and
a ‘shared risk and reward’ agreement i.e. that the consumers eat what the farmers grow, even with the vagaries of seasonal growing.

Thus, individuals, families or groups do not pay for x pounds or kilograms of produce, but rather support the budget of the whole farm and receive weekly what is seasonally ripe. This approach eliminates the marketing risks and costs for the producer and an enormous amount of time, often manpower too, and allows producers to focus on quality care of soils, crops, animals, co-workers—and on serving the customers. There is little to no loss, i.e. waste in this system as well, since the producers know in advance who they are growing for and how much to grow, etc.

Some confusion about the CSA system has arisen as some CSAs are less whole-budget, whole-farm oriented and have more the character of subscription farming. This kind of arrangement is also referred to as crop-sharing or box schemes. In such cases, farmers often simply set the weekly prices and retain a high level of risk, marketing costs and so on. Thus there is an important distinction between the producers (farmers, gardeners, etc.) selling shares in the upcoming season's harvest or selling a weekly subscription that includes x, y, z amounts of produce. In all cases, participants contributes a pre-agreed to amount (sometimes an equal amount, sometimes variable) and in return receive a weekly harvest.

Some farms are dedicated entirely to CSA, while others also sell through on-farm stands, farmers' markets, and other channels. Most CSAs are owned by the farmers, while some offer shares in the farm as well as the harvest. Consumers have organized their own CSA projects, going as far as renting land and hiring farmers. Many CSAs have a core group of members that assists with CSA administration. Some require or offer the option of members providing labor as part of the share price.

Typically, CSA farms are small, independent, labor-intensive, family farms. By providing a guaranteed market through prepaid annual sales, consumers essentially help finance farming operations. This allows farmers to not only focus on quality growing, it can also somewhat level the playing field in a food market that favors usually large-scale, industrialized agriculture over local food. Vegetables and fruit are the most common CSA crops. Many CSAs practice ecological, organic or biodynamic agriculture, avoiding pesticides and inorganic fertilizers. The cost of a share is usually competitively priced when compared to the same amount of vegetables conventionally-grown, partly because the cost of distribution is lowered.

Method of distribution is a distinctive feature in CSA. In the U.S. and Canada, shares are usually provided weekly, with pick-ups on a designated day and time. CSA subscribers often live in towns and cities - local drop-off locations, convenient to a number of members, are organized, often at the homes of members. Shares are also usually available on-farm.

CSA is different from buying clubs and home delivery services, where the consumer buys a specific product at a predetermined price. CSA members are actively involved in the production process, providing a form of direct financing through advance purchase of shares, and assisting with distribution by picking up their shares.

An advantage of the close consumer-producer relationship is increased freshness of the produce, because it does not have to be shipped long distances. The close proximity of the farm to the members also helps the environment by reducing pollution caused by transporting the produce.

Share prices can vary dramatically depending on location. Variables also include length of share season, and average quantity and selection of food per share. As a rough average, in North America, a basic share may be $350-500 for a season, for 18-20 weeks (June to October), with enough of each included crop for at least two people (perhaps 8-12 common garden vegetables). Seasonal eating is implied, as shares are usually based on the outdoor growing season, which means a smaller selection at the beginning and perhaps the end of the period, as well as a changing variety as the season progresses. Some CSA programs offer different share sizes, also, a choice of share periods (e.g. full-season and peak season).

History

The pre-history of the CSA concept is still somewhat sketchy, and not well-documented^[1]

According to most sources, community supported agriculture began in the early 1960's in Germany, Switzerland, and Japan as a response to concerns about food safety and the urbanization of agricultural land. Groups of consumers and farmers in Europe formed cooperative partnerships to fund farming and pay the full costs of ecologically sound, socially equitable agriculture. In Europe many of the CSA style farms where inspired by the economic ideas of Rudolf Steiner and experiments with community agriculture took place on farms using biodynamic agriculture. In 1965, mothers in Japan concerned about the rise of imported food and the loss of arable land started the first CSA projects, called teikei in Japanese - most likely unrelated to the developments in Europe.

Community supported agriculture began in the United States in 1984, when Jan Vander Tuin brought the concept of CSA to North America from Europe. Vander Tuin had co-founded a community-supported agricultural project named Topanimbur, located near Zurich, Switzerland. Coinage of the term, community-supported agriculture, stems from Vander Tuin and the Great Barrington CSA that he co-founded. They started with their first season early in 1986 and developed an independent supporting consumer group called Mahaiwe Harvest. Vander Tuin worked with John Root, Jr., Hugh Radcliffe, Charlotte Zannechia and with Robyn Van En on the farm Indian Line Farm. The group was soon also joined by Andrew Lorand who later helped to organize the first three CSA conferences on the East Coast, in Kimberton, PA with Rod Shouldice of the Biodynamic Association and the first two conferences on the West Coast at UC Davis and at Fort Mason, San Francisco.

Two other farms one on the East Coast (Trauger Groh and co in Wilton, NH) and one on the West Coast (at the Summerfiled Walorf School in Santa Rosa, CA)- started also - almost simultaneously - around 1986. Since that time, community supported farms have been organized throughout North America, mainly in the Northeast, the Pacific coast, the Upper-Midwest, and Canada. North America now has at least 1,300 CSA farms, with estimates ranging as high as 3,000. One of the largest CSA's in the US, Angelic Organics.

Today, millions of Japanese consumers participate in teikei systems that account for a major share of fresh produce consumption. In Europe, numbers are hard to come by, but there are CSA farms and organizations in many countries. In Holland, CSA's are, for example, called "Pergola" and in France AMAP ^[2].

[edit]

References

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): An Annotated Bibliography and Resource Guide, by Suzanne DeMuth. Sep. 1993. Retrieved 16-Feb-2006.

^ It is pieced together from a variety of anecdotal stories, first-person accounts, magazine articles, and coverage in small-press publications. The Internet has helped to draw together various threads, and make available a number of what would otherwise be obscure sources
^ AMAP : Association pour le maintien d'une agriculture paysanne

Local food

Local food (also regional food) is a principle of sustainability relying on consumption of food products that are locally grown. It is part of the concept of local purchasing, a preference to buy locally produced goods and services.

The concept is often related to the slogan Think globally, act locally, common in green politics. Those supporting development of a local food economy consider that since food is needed by everyone, everywhere, everyday, a small change in the way it is produced and marketed will have a great effect on health, the ecosystem and preservation of cultural diversity. They say shopping decisions favoring local food consumption directly affect the well-being of people, improve local economies and may be ecologically more sustainable.

In general, local food is in opposition to the ideas of global free trade. Critics argue that by convincing consumers in developed nations not to buy food produced in the third world, the local food movement damages the economy of third world nations, which often rely heavily on food exports and cash crops.

Critics also say that local food tends to be more expensive to the consumer than food bought without regard to provenance and could never provide the variety currently available (such as having summer vegetables available in winter, or having kinds of food available which can not be locally produced due to soil, climate or labor conditions).

However, proponents indicate that the lower price of commodified food (which is sometimes called cheap food) is often due to a variety of governmental subsidies, including direct ones such as price supports, direct payments or tax breaks, and indirect ones such as subsidies for trucking via road infrastructure investment, and often does not take into account the true cost of the product. They further indicate that buying local food does not necessarily mean giving up all food coming from distant ecoregions, but rather favoring local foods when available.

What defines local or regional?

The definition of local or regional is quite flexible and is disputed. Some see "local" as being a very small area (typically, the size of a city and its surroundings), others suggest the ecoregion size, while others refer to the borders of their nation or state.

However, some proponents of "local food" consider that "local" has little to do with distance or with the size of a "local" area. For example, some see the American state of Texas as being "local", though that state is much larger than some European countries. In this case, transporting a food product across Texas could involve a longer distance than that between a northern and a southern European country.

It is also argued that national borders should preferably not be used to define what is local. For people living in, say, the south of England, food produced in northern France is more "local" than food produced in Scotland. Similarly, a cheese produced in Alsace is likely to be more "local" to German people living in Frankfurt, than to French people living in Marseille.

Where local food is determined by the distance it has travelled, the wholesale distribution system can confuse the calculations. Fresh food that is grown very near to where it will be purchased, may still travel hundreds of miles through the system before arriving back at a local store. This is seen as a labelling issue by local food advocates, who suggest that, at least in the case of fresh food, consumers should be able to see exactly how far each food item has travelled.

Local is also often seen in terms of ecology, where food production is considered from the perspective of a basic ecological unit defined by its climate, soil, watershed, species and local agrisystems, a unit also called an ecoregion.

Local food is often equated with organic food

Local food is, by definition, food locally grown.

Many local food proponents tend to equate local food with food produced by local independent farmers, while equating non-local food with food produced and transformed by large agribusiness. They may support resisting globalization of food by pressing for policy changes and choosing to buy local food.

Local food is also often interpreted as being organic, or produced by farmers who adopt sustainable and humane practices, while non-local food is often seen as a result of corporate management policies, heavy subsidies, poor animal welfare, lack of care for the environment, and poor working conditions. This limited interpretation is likely due to the fact that the organic movement is largely responsible for renewed public interest in local and regional markets. Those subscribing to this interpretation often insist on buying food directly from local family farms, through direct channels such as farmers' markets, food cooperatives and community-supported agriculture plans.

For many, local food is interpreted as unprocessed food, to be transformed by the consumer or local shop rather than by the food industry. As such, local food (as opposed to global food) reduces or eliminates the costs of transport, processing, packaging, and advertising.

As large food corporations and supermarket distribution steadily dominate the organic food market, the concept of local food, and sometimes 'sustainable food', is increasingly being used by independent farmers, food activists, and consumers to refine the definition of organic food and organic agriculture. By this measure, food that is certified organic but not grown locally is viewed as possibly "less organic" or not of the same overall quality or benefit, as locally grown organic products. Some consumers see the general advantages of "organic" as also invested in "locally grown", therefore local food not grown "organically" may trump generically "organic" in purchase decisions. Also, because local food tends to be fresh (or minimally processed, such as cheese and milk), as opposed to processed food, the bias against processed food is often at least implicit in the local food argument. The marketing phrase, fresh, local, organic, summarizes these arguments.

Impacts of local food systems

It has been suggested that food miles be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

A goal of a local food system might be to minimize food transport distance, known as food miles. A consumer report published in 2003 by The Guardian newspaper in the UK found that a selection of 20 fresh food items purchased from British supermarkets had travelled an average of 5,000 miles each[1]; in North America, an average fresh food transport distance of 1,000-1,500 miles is often cited. Transport costs must consider weight as well as distance. If food is processed, it may lose weight compared with unprocessed food. To the extent it is processed nearer production, less weight is transported a longer distance. If it is processed by the consumer, more weight may be transported, though the trip from production to processing can be avoided. The amount of fossil fuel consumed and CO₂ emissions released in the atmosphere of more local, unprocessed food compared with less local, processed food are thus ambiguous. This issue is addressed by the field of regional science.

Food quality

Another effect could be an increase in food quality and taste. Locally grown fresh food can be consumed almost immediately after harvest, so it may be sold fresher and usually riper (e.g. picked at peak maturity, as it would be from a home garden). Also, the need for chemical preservatives and irradiation to artificially extend shelf-life can be reduced or eliminated.

One food quality argument holds that better nutrition results when people eat food grown in the ecoregion in which they live. The general theory is that regional conditions affect the composition of plants and animals, and eating local provides an optimized nutritional fit. Scientifically, this has neither been proven nor disproven.

Agrisystems and sustainable farming

A major potential effect of local food systems is to encourage multiple cropping, i.e., growing multiple species and a wide variety of crops at the same time and same place, as opposed to the prevalent commercial practice of large-scale, single-crop monoculture.

With a higher demand for a variety of agricultural products, farmers are more likely to diversify their production, thereby making it easier to farm in a sustainable way. For example, winter intercropping (e.g. coverage of leguminous crops during winter) and crop rotation may reduce pest pressure, and so the use of pesticides. Also, in an animal/crop multiculture system, the on-farm byproducts like manure and crop residues may be used to replace chemical fertilizers, while on-farm produced silage and leguminous crops may feed the cattle instead of imported soya. Manure and residues being considered as by-products rather than waste, will have reduced effects on the environment, and reduction in soya import is likely to be economically interesting for the farmer, as well as more secure (because of a decrease of market dependence on outside inputs).

In a polycultural agrisystem, there is usually a more efficient use of human capital (labour) as each crop has a different cycle of culture, hence different time of intensive care, minimization of risk (lesser effect of extreme weather as one crop can compensate for another), reduction of insect and disease incidence (diseases are usually crop specific), maximization of results with low levels of technology (intensive monoculture cropping often involves very high-technology material and sometimes the use of genetically modified seeds). Multiculture also seeks to preserve indigenous biodiversity.

These farming approaches happen to be the essence of the sustainable organic farming approach, although local farming is at present predominantly not, and doesn't have to be, strictly "organic" (from, for example, a certification standpoint).

Local economies

Local food production would seem to strengthen local economies by protecting small farms, local jobs, and local shops, thereby increasing food security.

One example of an effort in this direction is community-supported agriculture (CSA), where consumers purchase advance shares in a local farmer's annual production, and pick up their shares, usually weekly, from communal distribution points. In effect, CSA members become active participants in local farming, by providing up-front cash to finance seasonal expenses, sharing in the risks and rewards of the growing conditions, and taking part in the distribution system. Some CSA set-ups require members to contribute a certain amount of labor, in a form of cooperative venture.

The popular resurgence of farmers markets in many parts of the world, including Europe and North America, contributes to local economies. Farmers markets are traditional in many societies, bringing together local food and craft producers for the convenience of local consumers. Today, some urban farmers markets are large-scale enterprises, attracting tens of thousands on a market day, and vendors are not always "local". However, the majority of markets are still built around actual local farmers.

Another at present small but notable trend is local food as part of a barter system. In localized economies, where a variety of common goods and services are provided by individuals and businesses within the immediate community (as opposed to by outlets and branches of large corporations), a direct of exchange of values is quite feasible. Some CSA projects, for example, trade services or labor for food.

Particularly in the developed nations, the move away from local food to agribusiness over the last 100 years has had a profound socioeconomic effect, by redistributing populations into urban areas, and concentrating ownership of land and capital. In addition, the traditional farming skill set, which by necessity included a diverse range of knowledge and abilities required to manage a farm, has given way to new generations of specialists. When farming for local consumption was a cornerstone of local economies, the farmer was an integral, leading member of the community, a far different position from today. Support for local food is seen by some as a way to rediscover valuable community structures, values and perspectives.

Pioneering and influential work in the area of local economies was done by noted economist E. F. Schumacher.

History of the local food movement

The local food movement in the European Union has been hindered by EU rules requiring things produced in the EU, including food, to be marked as products of the EU, rather than as products of any particular country. The instinct of customers to buy nationally produced food in the name of patriotism was deemed to be a barrier to free trade. Of course, as was mentioned above, for people living in the South of England, food produced in Northern France is more "local" than food produced in Scotland.

Those who eat local food sometimes call themselves "locavores."

Food miles

This page was last modified on August 29, 2006 01:06 PM

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into local food. (Discuss)

Food miles is an expression for the concept that the mileage of food before it reaches the consumer (or the plate) is a good indicator for the environmental impact of the food and its components. The concept of food miles is part of a broader issue of sustainability which deals with a large range of issues including local food. Recent findings indicate that it is not only how far the food has travelled but how it has travelled that is important to consider. The positive environmental effects of specialist organic farming may be offset by increased transportation, unless it is produced by local farms. But even then the logistics and effects on other local traffic may play a big role. Also, many trips by personal cars to external shopping centres would have a negative environmental impact compared to a few truck loads to neighbourhood stores that can be easily accessed by walking or biking.

Slow Food

Jump to: navigation, search

This article needs to distinguish between the organization and the food aspects of the Slow Movement.

The Slow Food movement was created to combat fast food and claims to preserve the cultural cuisine and the associated food plants and seeds, domestic animals, and farming within an ecoregion. It was the first part established of the broader Slow movement.

The Slow Food movement was begun by Carlo Petrini in Italy as a resistance movement to fast food. It has since expanded globally to 100 countries and now has 83,000 members. It humorously describes itself as an "eco-gastronomy faction" within the ecology movement, and some refer to the movement as the "culinary wing" of the anti-globalization movement.

he Slow Food organisation

The Slow Food organisation spawned by the movement has expanded to include over 80,000 members in over 100 countries, every country with its own chapters. All totaled, 800 local convivia chapters exist. 360 convivia in Italy - to which the name condotta (singular) / condotte (plural) applies - are composed of 35,000 members, along with 450 other regional chapters around the world. The organizational structure is decentralized, each convivium has a leader who is responsible for promoting local artisans, local farmers, and local flavors through regional events such as Taste Workshops, wine tastings, and farmer's markets.

Offices have been opened in Switzerland (1995), Germany (1998), New York (2000), France (2003), and the latest, Japan in 2005; the head offices are located in Bra, northern Italy. Numerous publications are put out by the organization, in several languages. In the US, the Snail is the quarterly of choice, while Slow Food puts out literature in several other European nations. Recent efforts at publicity include the world's largest food and wine fair, the Salone del Gusto, a biennial cheese fair in Bra called Cheese, the Genoan fish festival called SlowFish, and Turin's Terra Madre (‘Mother Earth’) world meeting of food communities.

In 2004 Slow Food opened a new University of Gastronomic Sciences at Pollenzo, in Piedmont, and Colorno, in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Carlo Petrini and Massimo Montanari are the leading figures in the creation of the University, whose goal is to promote awareness of good food and nutrition.

Objectives

Seed banks to preserve native varieties, usually in cooperation with more local movements
An "ark of taste" for each ecoregion whose foods and flavors are preserved
Preserving and promoting local and traditional food product know-how
Organizing small-scale processing, e.g. slaughtering, of short run products
Organizing celebrations of local cuisine within the region of production, e.g. the Feast of Fields held in some cities in Canada
Taste Education
Educating consumers about the hidden risks of fast food
Educating citizens about the hidden risks of agribusiness and factory farms
Educating citizens about the risks of monoculture and reliance on too few genomes or varieties
Various political programs to preserve family farms
Lobbying for agricultural policy changes to support organic farms
Lobbying against genetic modification of foodstuffs
Lobbying against the use of pesticides
Teaching gardening, especially to students and prisoners
Moral purchasing of foodstuffs produced by locals using methods that are morally acceptable to the consumer

From time to time, Slow Food intervenes directly in market transactions, e.g. preserving four varieties of native American Turkey by ordering 4,000 eggs of these and commissioning their raising and slaughtering and delivery to market.

So how successful has it been to date?

The success the Slow Food movement has generated is tough to measure considering the organization itself is only sixteen years old. The current grassroots nature of Slow Food is such that few people in Europe and especially the United States are aware of it.

Statistics show that Europe is a much bigger consumer of organics than the US, Germany in particular. Slow Food has contributed to the growing awareness of health concerns in Europe, as evidenced by this fact, but on society as a whole, Slow Food has had little effect. An example of this is the fact that tourists visit Slow Food restaurants more than locals, but Slow Food and its sister movements are still young. In an effort to spread the ideals of anti-fast food, Slow Food has targeted the youth of the nations in primary and secondary schools. Volunteers help build structural frameworks for school gardens and put on workshops to introduce the new generation to the art of farming.

A survey

In order to effectively assess the success of the Slow Food movement in persuading people to eat locally grown, healthier food, a survey seems the most logical method to extract public opinion towards the movement and its ideals. Survey questions that would determine if the general population has (1) heard of the Slow Food organization (2) how often people eat organic food, and what are their reasons (3) how do the classes differ in their perception of slow food. To be successful, the movement needs to determine who, if anyone, is interested in slow food, who can afford it, and why. With 83,000 members, Slow Food is on its way into the average household.

Criticism

Critics of the organization have charged it with being elitist, as it discourages nominally cheaper alternative methods of growing or preparing food. Slow Food responds by claiming to be working towards local production and consumption which will exploit "best practices" of science and professions worldwide but ultimately prove cheaper due to less reliance on transport and energy and chemical and technology intensive methods.

These arguments parallel those of the anti-globalization movement, Greenpeace and green parties against global export of monocultured foodstuffs, especially GMOs. A central point related to these arguments is that transport prices are artificially low because the true cost of fuel (including the protection of shipping lanes and other military interventions around the world) are not factored into the price of goods, and are instead paid for indirectly through personal taxes.

special thanks to wikipedia.org

Chef Ed

recipes, cooking tips, Organic and Green, culinary education, food facts, history

Adapted from "10 Reasons to Buy Local Food" 2001 Growing for Market

Farmers' market

Farmer

Sustainable agriculture

Description

Methods

Off-farm impacts

Urban planning

Organic farming

Overview

History

Methods

Standards

Productivity

Pesticides

Genetically modified organisms

The environment

Food contamination

Food quality

Children's Health

Soil conservation

Motivations for organic agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food safety

Chemical contamination

Hormonal contamination

Transgenic contamination

Nutritional value

Taste

Environmental impact

Sustainability

Pollution

Transportation

Efficiency

Large scale organic farms

Summary

References and notes

Rural infrastructure

Sustainability

Certification

The future

References

Community-supported agriculture

The CSA system

History

References

Local food

What defines local or regional?

Local food is often equated with organic food

Impacts of local food systems

Food quality

Agrisystems and sustainable farming

Local economies

History of the local food movement

Food miles This page was last modified on August 29, 2006 01:06 PM

Slow Food

he Slow Food organisation

Objectives

So how successful has it been to date?

A survey

Criticism

Food miles

This page was last modified on August 29, 2006 01:06 PM