As an apprentice farmer hoping to strike off on my own sometime soon, I’m pretty much always asking myself, “where should I farm?”  Should I return to Georgia, where I have family and friends?  Stay in Massachusetts, with its farmer-friendly state government and affordable health insurance?  I hear Pennsylvania has a great climate for tree fruit…  Recently I asked my current farm boss, Don, if he thought that the market near Williamstown could support another CSA farm.  “That depends on whom you ask,” he noted after some thought.  “There are farmers who hear of a new farm in the area and worry that the extra competition will hurt their own business; others view a new farm as an asset, an additional resource when you’ve got problems or questions, as well as another reason for townsfolk to buy local.”

His answer stuck with me.  And since I received it, I’ve begun to notice more and more the ways that the farmers I know support and assist one another.  There’s Cricket Creek Farm, the raw milk dairy down the road, which provides us with milk all winter long in return for a share of veggies come spring.   Or Hand Hollow Farm, a fledgling CSA 20 minutes in the opposite direction, founded by one of Don’s former apprentices (we call her the Prodigy Farmer).  With Don’s help, she spent her spare time in the fall of her apprenticeship planning the following spring on her own farm, and she hasn’t looked back since.

I saw this spirit of mutual support more clearly than ever on Monday, when I and about 30 other apprentices visited Indian Line Farm for one of our bimonthly lectures and tours through the CRAFT (Collaborative Regional Alliance for Farmer Training) program.  Indian Line is a farm with a story, by virtue of its having been the first CSA farm in the country.  In between that founding in 1985 and the present day, the farm passed through several manifestations before settling into the capable hands of its present farmer, Elizabeth Keen.

Elizabeth and her husband Al had only apprenticed for one year when the opportunity to take on Indian Line presented itself for them in 1997.  With only a single shared apprenticeship between the two of them, their learning curve was steep, as they related to us.  So steep, in fact, that for Elizabeth’s second and third seasons at Indian Line, she took on off-farm work in the mornings—working for Martin Stosiek of Markristo Farm down the road. After two seasons of farming in double-time, Elizabeth made Indian Line her single focus, though the close ties between Indian Line and Markristo remain strong.

As the tour led us into the basement of the barn, Elizabeth spoke to us about her decision to opt out of the USDA organic certification process.  While USDA certification can certainly be a boon to supermarket consumers, many of the farmers I know consider the associated paperwork and fees a headache not worth the cache of the organic label.  Indian Line concurred with this perspective, but had sought a way to convey to customers at market the sustainability of their growing practices.  Their solution, to join the farmer-based non-profit “Certified Naturally Grown,” perfectly suited the thread of cooperation and farmer community that runs throughout their operation.

Certified Naturally Grown is grassroots alternative to the USDA, through which farmers audit one another for sustainable practices.  Certified Naturally Grown is neither costly (the program requests a donation of $50-150 annually, though the exact amount is left to an individual farmer’s discretion), nor overburdened with paperwork, thus allowing small farmers to devote their energies to farming, rather than to proving themselves to strangers via a mountain of forms.

Though a Certified Naturally Grown farm leaves less of a paper trail than a Certified Organic one, all CNG records are openly available online. Growers clearly state their growing practices and sign a statement that they have abided by all of the CNG regulations (which are essentially the same as certified organic).  So what’s the difference?  Besides price and time, the auditors are other farmers and are allowed offer advice as they walk the fields, talk to the grower, and evaluate the farm (USDA certifiers, on the other hand, are not allowed to offer any suggestions during an audit).  To avoid conflict of interest problems, you are not allowed to audit the farmer who audited you.  In addition, every year, CNG randomly selects farms for pesticide residue testing, at no cost to the farmer.

Could someone cheat this system?  CNG admits that “no one can ever really know what may or may not be happening on an isolated farm at 5AM on a Sunday morning,” but they believe that their combination of deterrents (random testing), community support (audits by other farmers), and a transparent, easily navigated process to certification create a system that is uniquely accessible to small farmers and informative for consumers.

From my perspective, probably the most striking example of farmer collaboration I see is the CRAFT program itself.  The exposure to varied farming models and practical agricultural information is priceless, but I imagine that the greatest benefits will only become visible over time.  Through CRAFT I’m interacting with 40 other apprentices, most of whom seem eager to grow their own farms as soon as they can scrounge together a few packs of seeds and a flat patch of earth.   We probably seem a motley crew–drinking from mason jars, traipsing uphill and down in thick rubber boots and manure-stained work pants—but we are a passionate crowd, full of questions, ideas, and dreams of good food.

After a hot, sweaty introductory year of organic farming in Georgia, I decided to devote a second year to working as an apprentice farmer in Massachusetts.  Cooler weather was not my only reason for the migration; I wanted to be a CRAFT apprentice.  CRAFT (the Cooperative Regional Alliance for Farmer Training) is a loosely affiliated network of small sustainable farms , all of whom take on apprentices and send these young greenhorns on bi-weekly visits to other CRAFT farms for lectures, tours, and farmer networking.   Several CRAFT farmers were among the first sustainable growers in the country; Community Supported Agriculture was born here.  It is a fine place to be a student of farming.

Last weekend, we had our first CRAFT visit, to a farm I will not name specifically, out of respect for the farmers’ privacy.  Amidst a potluck of epic proportions and copious introductions we found time to tour the farm and ask all of our nerdy farmer questions about soil, horsepower, and sales.  This farm, though still very much a small family operation, has moved over the years towards greater specialization and scale in their veggies. Salad greens are a particular forte of theirs, as greens are well suited to the cool climate and are always in demand with local chefs.  When their daily harvests (of salad greens, mind you) began totally several hundred pounds, they recently invested in a stainless steel washing system with tanks and hoses and a little conveyor belt.  Tipping the scales at $30,000, this system was a big investment for them.

The washing station catalyzed a Q&A amongst apprentices and farmers that revealed a side of the current food safety debate that many Americans do not recognize or understand, and which, especially at this juncture, is of critical importance to the small organic producers that I work for and strive to someday become.

In short, the issue is largely a matter of scale.

You see, this fancy, efficient, very expensive washing station is now somewhat worrisome to our farmer, on account of a USDA certification program called GAP (Good Agricultural Practices).   At present, GAP is voluntary, though many wholesale distributors, especially groceries, require it of their producers.  Our host worried aloud that with recent food safety scares, his restaurant clients might soon feel pressure from their insurance agencies to source only from GAP-certified farms.  He had attended a recent USDA presentation of GAP, and let’s just say that he was none too thrilled at the prospect of an audit.

This is not to say that his operation is in any way unclean—the fields looked immaculate; they are certified organic; he and his family are efficient, careful farmers.

The problem is not the farm, but the regulations, which are designed based on the recommendations from the USDA “Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.” Participating farms must wade through a quagmire of steps-within-steps, drafting hazard plans and employee education programs, providing documentation that “crop production areas are monitored for the presence or signs of wild or domestic animals entering the land” and other such inane (and frankly unrealistic) rules are abided by.

The regulations prohibit domestic animals within 2 miles of any fruit or vegetable cultivation.  They strongly encourage approved “field sanitation facilities” with individual paper towels, hand sanitizer, and running water.  They take into account every conceivable risk (even that of the light bulbs on the tractor breaking and glass shards entering the spinach) and try to mitigate them.  All of that mitigation means several things.  One, it means that the farmer is spending inordinate amounts of time on a certification process rather than on his or her crops.  Two, it means that an independent certification agency is being paid (by the farmer) for 10-20 hours worth of work to double-check compliance.  A score of 80% or more earns certification.   Three, it means that sustainable, clean farming practices (such as intentionally encouraging a woodland farm border, for the beneficial animals and insects which this facilitates, or washing your lettuce with well water, rather than a hyper-chlorinated brew) are discouraged, because they do not fit the big ag model.

It does not necessarily mean your food is any safer.  Risk, by definition, is not something that can ever be fully eliminated.

Our host looked at his shiny new washing system and shook his head.  “Within two loads of greens, the water in there is contaminated,” he said ruefully.  I assumed I had misunderstood and raised my hand.  “And by contaminated, do you mean with dirt?” I asked.  He laughed yes, and we all shook our heads.  His options to clean the wash water?  He could add a certified organic washing additive to the water, hyper-chlorinate it, or possibly look into UV light purification.

This is not the future of food that I had envisioned for myself.

The problem with GAP, the problem with more pressing legislation like H.R. 875 and H.R. 759, is that they do not differentiate between our CRAFT farms and big agribusiness farms (or even industrial organic growers like Earthbound Farms).  When you move 5000 pounds of spinach in a day, maybe you do need bathrooms in your mammoth fields.  When your neighbor is a CAFO pig operation with an utterly foul manure lagoon, maybe you should put some space between them and the escarole.  But at the level where I’m working, and at which I fervently believe a healthy, safe food system can be a reality, these are not the issues.

The issues are farmer access to land, facilitating direct sales (where farmers, rather than middlemen, make a profit),  allowing farmers to farm rather than do paperwork.  Vote with your pocketbook; vote with your stomach, just please vote with respect for small farms.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) today decided to accept recommendations for “organic” fish production that will allow fish to carry the USDA organic label—despite being raised under conditions that fail to meet fundamental USDA organic principles. The NOSB recommendations allow:

• Fish to be fed food other than 100% organic feed—the gold standard that must be met by other USDA-certified organic livestock;
• Fishmeal used to feed farmed fish from wild fish—which has the potential to carry mercury and PCBs; and
• Open net cages to be used—which flush pollution, disease and parasites from open net fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability and the health of the oceans.

The Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and USA Today have good pieces on what is at stake for the organic label.

“To slap a ‘organic’ label on this fish is deceptive and undermines the entire organic program,” said Urvashi Rangan, PhD, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst at Consumers Union, one of the several groups which submitted public comment before the agency during the three-day hearing. “If enacted, this gutting of the organic standards will not only allow sub-par organic fish to be sold with a premium, but will undermine consumer confidence in the entire organic marketplace.”

Furthermore, it was clear at the NOSB hearing that USDA advised NOSB to circumvent the regulations to lower the organic standards bar for fish, standards clearly not wanted by the American public. Just last week, a Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think that fish labeled as “organic” should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Nine in 10 consumers also agreed that ”organic” fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by ”organic” fish farms. Nearly 30,000 signatures have been collected in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.

Some members of the NOSB expressed that they were under pressure from the aquaculture industry to push a substandard through, with the chair of the Livestock Committee, Hue Karreman, claiming that he’s trying to “jumpstart” an industry by finding a middle ground.

“The action taken today by the NOSB illustrate their misunderstanding of their own mission and underscores their willingness to let down the American consumer in favor of industry,” said Rangan. “The NOSB is not a marketing or promotional agency. It is an agency designed to create and maintain strict standards that meet consumer expectations.”

The push to allow non-organic fishmeal—which can be contaminated with mercury and PCBs and environmentally polluting production systems—organic feed and to ensure that waste from farms does not pollute the surrounding environment. The Board said that some “organic” fish that don’t eat 100 percent organic feed receive a “qualified organic” label—something entirely out of line with the law and the goal of the organic program to provide a consistent standard across products in the marketplace and to prevent any adulteration of the USDA organic claim.

The recommendations have been transmitted to USDA, which will issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) immediately.

The NOSB Livestock Committee recommendations are available on the NOSB website

Photo: Spiralia, salmon farm

According to a Consumer Reports poll released this week, Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about U.S. food safety, and the overwhelming majority want the government to do more to monitor the American food supply.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is only required to inspect domestic food production facilities (other than meat plants, which the USDA inspects daily) once every 5 to 10 years; foreign facilities are inspected even less often. According to the poll, two-thirds of Americans believe the FDA should inspect domestic and foreign food-processing facilities at least monthly. Eighty-three percent are concerned about harmful bacteria or chemicals in food, and 81 percent are concerned with the safety of imported food.

“The American public wants to know more about their food, where it comes from, how safe it is, and will vote with their dollars to support highly meaningful labels,” says Urvashi Rangan, senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union. “Consumers want to know that the food they buy meets the standards they expect—our poll shows that right now, that is not the case. Whether that means that ‘organic’ fish eat 100% organic feed without contamination, or that people know which meat and dairy products come from cloned or genetically engineered animals—consumers want the government to ensure safety, quality and meaning in the food marketplace.”

Next week, the USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) will meet to decide what the USDA “organic” label should mean for fish. The NOSB will vote on their recommendations for “organic” fish production that currently allows the use of fishmeal from wild fish—which has the potential to carry mercury and PCBs—and open net cages, which flushes pollution, disease, and parasites from fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability, and health of the oceans. Currently, fish is allowed to carry an organic claim as long as it isn’t a USDA “organic” label. For a good backgrounder check out this article or listen to this segment on Public Radio International’s Living on Earth.

An overwhelming majority of Americans polled—93 percent—agree that fish labeled as “organic” should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Ninety percent agreed that “organic” fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by “organic” fish farms. More than 4 in 10 polled are concerned about the health problems associated with eating wild fish.

In addition, the poll reveals that an overwhelming majority of consumers want country of origin labeling loopholes closed. Mandatory country of origin labeling (also known as “COOL”) for meats, fish, produce and peanuts was finally implemented on September 30, 2008 but there are large loopholes that the majority of consumers want closed. Ninety-four percent of Americans want specialty meat and fish stores to label their products by country of origin. Meat and poultry sold in butcher shops and fish sold in fish markets—some 11 percent of all meat and fish—are currently exempt from country of origin labeling. Ninety-five percent of consumers polled believe that processed or packaged food should be labeled by their country of origin. Processed (i.e., roasted, salted, smoked) and mixed ingredient foods are currently exempt. Consumers Union developed an online guide—the COOL Tool—to help navigate the new rules of what’s COOL and what’s not.

As for cloned food animals, 70 percent polled want them banned entirely. Ninety-five percent want foods derived from genetically engineered (GE) animals to be labeled as such, and more than 60 percent wouldn’t even buy meat or milk products derived from cloned or GE animals.

After soliciting public comments for more than three months, USDA is finalizing its standard for meat that could carry a “naturally raised” claim. The government proposes a very limited definition—only that the meat should come from an animal not given antibiotics, artificial hormones, or animal byproducts. A vast majority of consumers disagree, and think that meat labeled “naturally raised” should come from animals who were not fed chemicals, drugs, and/or animal byproducts, who were raised in a natural environment, who ate a natural diet, who were not cloned or GE, who had outdoor access, who were treated humanely, and who were not confined.

This is just some of the information gleaned from the poll, but it reveals growing consumer expectations for the labeling of food.  On the brink of a new administration, perhaps a new food policy agenda will emerge, one that meets these expectations for food safety.

Photo: M. V. Jantzen