History                    Present                       Future

Beginning October 21, 2002, all farms and handling operations selling organic agricultural products worth more than $5,000 a year must be certified by a state or private agency accredited by the USDA. Organic farmers are, among other things, required to:

• have an Organic Systems Plan (OSP) describing how their operation will achieve, document and sustain compliance with applicable regulations
  
• maintain records concerning the production and handling of agricultural products that are sold, labeled or represented as organic
  
• submit to audits and evaluations conducted by accredited certifying agents
  
• have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones to prevent the unintended application of a prohibited substance to land under organic management (The national standards do not specify specific dimensions for buffer zones, but leaves the determination of their size to the organic producer and the certifying agent on a case-by-case basis.)
  
• use organic seeds when commercially available
  
• minimize soil erosion; implement crop rotations; and prevent contamination of crops, soil and water by plant and animal nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals or residues of prohibited substances
  
• have had no prohibited substances applied to their land for at least three years prior to harvest

How to Read Organic Labels: http://www.theorganicreport.com/pages/12_how_to_read_the_usda_organic_labels.cfm
"Organic" FAQ: http://www.ota.com/organic/us_standards.html
USDA National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm
Organic Consumer Info: http://www.organicconsumers.org/

History

The origins of modern organic agriculture, in 1940's Britain, are more "down-to-Earth" than the general current day understanding. Its pioneers were concerned, above all else, about the soil beneath their feet. Their philosophy was centered on practices designed to improve the richness and stability of the soil by restoring its organic matter Organic matter : P lant and animal residues, substances made by living organisms, or anything that was once alive. All are based upon carbon compounds. and avoiding synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in the face of the Industrial (and Agricultural) Revolution. Wider concerns about biodiversity, social justice, and animal welfare have grown from Animal welfare : The health and well being of animals is central to organic principles. Health should be defined as a positive physical and mental state whereby the livestock are robust and able to resist diseases. Positive animal welfare means the satisfaction of 'all the animals' needs, including their behavioral needs, not just the avoidance of cruelty. The foundation stones of animal welfare are good nutrition, careful management and the use of appropriate breeds. Biodiversity : The diversity of living organisms in any one place --whether in a handful of soil, the garden, the region, or the planet. Species richness contributes heavily to a healthy environment on every level, creating balance through an elegant distribution of the work of the planet. Diversity helps to insure that a single pest, event, or disease doesn't cause irreparable damage to an entire ecosystem. In the same way, growing a variety of crops while supporting a diverse community of organisms will help insure you a successful harvest year after year. Social justice : Concern for the working conditions and labor standards implemented for workers in the agriculture industry. There is a significant movement internationally whose goal is to link the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable agriculture. this core concept about how to manage our farmland's key resource.

The phrase "organic farming" first appeared in Lord Northbourne's book "Look to the Land," published in 1940 where he elaborated the idea of the farm as an "organic whole", one where there is a "biological completeness" based on a "cycle of conversion of vegetable products". But the truth is, organic farming is the oldest form of agriculture. Before the end of World War II, farming without the use of petroleum-based chemicals (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) was the only option for farmers. Technologies developed during the war were found to be useful for agricultural production. For example, the chemical ammonium nitrate

Probably the most famous residual of the post WW II era was DDT

The most important legacy of Silent Spring, though, was a new public awareness that nature was vulnerable to human intervention. Rachel Carson had made a radical proposal: that, at times, technological progress is so fundamentally at odds with natural processes and human ability to articulate this gross imbalance is so immature that it must be curtailed. This proclamation may sound familiar to those of us living in the modern era, or to many it may not. However,it is with this mindset that we must move forward. It is with this mindset that the world of hydroponics must be

The development of agribusiness is elucidated in a famous quote attributed to Nixon era Agricultural Secretary Earl Butz: "When you hear the word organic, think starvation." Butz was part of the old school of agriculture. He and his cronies believed in "better living through chemistry," and thus corporate America set its sights on turning agriculture into agribusiness- and how successful they have been. Over time, a few large companies came to control most segments of our food production. It is this way today, with very few corporations having a stranglehold on food production in the US, effectively undermining healthy food and our ability to grow it. Think about this when purchasing your food. Do you want to contribute to the relative monopoly and waste or to the local little guy and efficiency? Local Agriculture = Food Security

In recent decades agribusiness became the dominant force in food production, at a tremendous cost to farmers and our society as a whole. Millions of small farmers were -- and continue to be -- driven off their land. Many local processors and other farm support businesses have been shuttered. Homogenization, on the surface, may be a more efficient way of doing things; but it leaves the overall system vulnerable. Hence, you may be able to produce more food with fewer growers; but it is surely less nutritious, has a shorter shelf-life, must be shipped outrageous distances using inordinate amounts of fossil fuels and packaging waste, and is enormously more wasteful than a more flexible and diversified food production system. Our current market-based system leaves millions of tons of viable produce in fields or on shelves due to lack of demand, not to mention degradation of the land as you go. The positive repercussions of a localized system are so vast that it is impossible to quantify it with a number or projection.

The organic movement grew up in England, but quickly spread around the world through agricultural circles. The origin of organic farming evolved along with a form of religious mysticism, as seen by a correspondence with Dr. Siegfried Marian an advocate of the organic movement in the 1950's, "All that lives relies on the connection between the life creating factor in our earth, our bodies and plants, connecting with the incessant energy sent to us from above…Man is thus obliged to care for the earthly part of life while God is sending us the cosmic part".

Although from the beginning there was an allegiance to the religious aspects of organics, the field quickly began to splinter forming offshoots of opinion in myriad different eclectic communities, one being Rudolph Steiners biodynamic cultivation.The technique utilizes composts made from herbs, such as chamomile and valerian and adheres to Eastern philosophy regarding the moon's cycles and cosmic influence. Some examples of biodynamic cultivation techniques would be to bury a cow horn full of manure for an entire winter so that the manure could capture the Earth's etherizing and astralizing rays and be transformed into a powerful fertilizing force or how to sew up dandelion heads in a bovine mesentery in order to attract silicic acid or how

Steiner utilized the idea of organic 'plus'. The 'plus' consisting of specially prepared composts and treatment of the soil with "homeopathic doses of cow-horn-based sprays to enhance its fertility." Steiner drew conclusions deductively from a complex theory of cosmic correspondences. The opposite being inductive

The major proponent of the inductive mindset was Albert Howard who made a name for himself in Indore, India in the 1920's. Howard drew inspiration from the Eastern image of the Wheel of Life. This in its full form comprehended not just the soil and plants, but animals and human beings. He believed that humanity's survival would depend, not on a fantasy of technological domination of nature, but on learning from proven practices that had enabled so-called "primitive peoples" to survive for many centuries. Underlying those practices was the Rule of Return, an eternal feature of the natural order. He developed what is known as the Indore Process in the 1920's, which strived to make municipal compost through traditional practices. He was appointed the first

Some considered the biodynamic movement potentially damaging to the wider organic movement. Why not apply Occam's Razor

The organic movement in the US was spearheaded by Jerome Rodale. The Dust bowl, so powerfully portrayed in John Steinbeck's novel Grapes of Wrath, was a gift to the organic movement. Within a lifetime rich virgin soils had been worn out to the point where they simply blew away. Irresponsible farming had created deserts and caused untold human misery through the resulting social dislocation. What clearer evidence could there be that a healthy soil was an essential basis of a stable society? Rodale experienced open conflict with the American Medical Association regarding pesticide use on foods. He followed Howard's view that a crop's infestation by pests should be regarded as indicating the poor health of plant and soil. He was a prolific author, beginning with his book "Pay Dirt" in 1945 and publisher, beginning with the magazine "Prevention", which dealt with the inextricable nature of sound agriculture, health, and nutrition in 1950. Rodale was the beacon for the emerging US organic movement as a spokesman for Howard's ideas, forerunner of Carson's case against pesticides, critic of food additives, inspirer of the next generation of organic farmers and gardeners, and popularizer of the organic cause through his magazines, books, and plays. His legacy lives on through the Rodale Institute located in Emmaus, PA the site of the first farm bought by Rodale and where he honed his craft.

A synopsis of the historical origin of the organic mythology is as follows, "…..respect for the natural order as revealed particularly by the wilderness brings economic benefit to those who are not fixated on short-term gains; true science goes out from the laboratory and studies the ecological context, observing rather than trying to dominate; variety is more productive than monoculture; industrial products bring disease and waste."

These days, farmers are turning to organic agriculture once again, but now with an ecologically based, systematic approach that includes long-term planning, detailed record keeping and major investment in equipment and supplies. Although it is still only a small industry, the number of organic farmers is growing by about 12 percent per year and now stands at more than 12,200 nationwide as of 2003 (www.ota.com).

* Quotes from, "Origins of the Organic Movement", by Philip Conford

back to top

Present

The state of organic agriculture in the US today is strong and getting stronger. While most people have a general understanding of what "organic" entails, most do not fully understand the repercussions of their choice between "organic" food and that of conventional practice and the corresponding Buying Power that they hold. Like anything else in the world of supply and demand, the more people buy the cheaper it becomes. Think TV's and CD players.

The acceptance and finalization of the USDA organic standards in October of 2002 has created tremendous public awareness in regards to organics. Essentially, the new organic standard offers a national definition for the term "organic." It details the methods, practices, and substances that can be used in producing and handling organic crops and livestock, as well as processed products. It establishes clear organic labeling criteria, and specifically prohibits the use of GMO's, food irradiation, and sewage sludge for fertilization. Across a variety of criteria regarding the understanding of organics, 48% of consumers seem to have a firm grasp of the true meaning (The 2002 Organic Consumer Trends Report, produced by The Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) and SPINS, October 2002). Additionally, and much more concerning, is the low recognition of the perceived product benefits that are derived from organics, including taste, nutritional benefits, and others. If more people fully understood the personal, economic, societal, and environmental benefits our Buying Power could make this form of agriculture more cost effective, in turn, creating repercussions that can hardly be imagined. For example, it is no stretch to imagine that by ensuring healthy food will decrease the need for myriad doctors visits, thereby reducing health care costs. Politicians should be paying more attention!

One of the most overlooked aspects of organic agriculture is the environmental effect. According to the 15-year study "Farming Systems Trial" conducted by the Rodale Institute, organic agriculture can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by effectively locking more carbon into the soil rather than releasing it into the atmosphere, as happens in conventional agriculture. The study showed that if organic fertilizer were used in the major corn and soybean growing regions of the United States, annual carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be reduced by an estimated 2%. The study also found that organic farming uses 50% less energy than conventional farming methods.

The impact of pesticides is also overlooked, or not fully articulated by most people. Most benefits of pesticides are based only on direct crop returns. Such assessments do not include the indirect environmental and economic costs associated with pesticides. It has been estimated that only 0.1% of applied pesticides reach the target pests, leaving the bulk of the pesticides (99.9%) to impact the environment (David Pimentel, "Environmental and Socio-Economic Costs of Pesticide Use," Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use, John Wiley & Sons, 1997, p. 71). Additionally, the

If you liked those check this out. In Florida, 7,000 acres were in vegetable gardens in 1992. Additionally, the Florida Department of Agriculture reports that 418,000 acres of commercial vegetables were grown in Florida in 1992. If only yard trash and animal manures were used in Florida in vegetable gardens, between 25,000 tons and 50,000 tons of 6-6-6 inorganic fertilizer would be replaced. Each pound of nitrogen fertilizer manufactured from natural gas uses 31,870 Btus. Each ton of manufactured nitrogen fertilizer that is replaced by yard trash and animal manures represents a savings of 456 gals of diesel fuel equivalent. Yard trash contains about 0.6% nitrogen, wet weight basis. The potential for replacing 25,000 tons to 50,000 tons of 6-6-6 commercial fertilizer with yard trash and animal manures presents the potential for replacing 1,500 tons to 3,000 tons of manufactured nitrogen per year. Based on 456 gals of diesel fuel per ton of manufactured nitrogen, the potential savings in diesel fuel could be in the range of 684,000 gals to 1,368,000 gals per year! (from Florida Cooperative Extension Service) http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/MG323

For more stats on the environmental impact of AgriBusiness and pesticide use go here http://www.theorganicreport.com/pages/22_environmental_facts.cfm

Organic agriculture today is a thriving, albeit relatively small, business. It is practiced in approximately 100 countries throughout the world, with more than 24 million hectares (59 million acres) now under organic management. Australia leads with approximately 10 million hectares (24.6 million acres), followed by Argentina, with approximately 3 million hectares (7.4 million acres); both have extensive grazing land. Latin America has approximately 5.8 million hectares (14.3 million acres) under organic management, Europe has more than 5.5 million hectares (13.5 million acres), and North America

The global market for organic food and drink reached $23 billion in 2002, according to Organic Monitor. Increasing demand in North America helped fuel the 10.1 percent increase, as North America overtook Europe as the largest market for organic food and drink. Continued growth is predicted for the global organic food industry, although at slower rates than in the past year. Organic agriculture is expanding rapidly in the United States, as consumer interest continues to gather momentum and new organic production and marketing systems evolve. Frequency of use of organic products has grown, with daily use growing from 8 percent of consumers in 2000 to 11 percent in 2003, weekly use growing from 9 percent to 16 percent of consumers, and monthly growing from 5 percent to 10 percent of consumers. Although those reporting occasional use dropping from 34 percent to 28 percent, those reporting never eating organic dropped from 45 percent to 34 percent (The Hartman Group, Organic Trends Study, December 2003). Similarly, consumer demand rose throughout the 1990s-20% or more annually-and that pace has continued. Organic products are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73 percent of conventional grocery stores, and account for approximately 1-2 % of total food sales in the U.S (Catherine Greene and Carolyn Dimitri, in Amber Waves, February 2003, USDA's Economic Research Service). While this is still a miniscule portion of the overall food sales in the US the trend is undeniably positive. The burden is on the people involved in the industry to mainstream their views and educate the general public about the beneficial aspects of organics for our nutrition, for our food supply, and for our environment.

back to top

Future

The future of many things can be elicited from its past, being that there is a certain specific momentum behind it. This is not the case regarding "organic" farming and cultivation. Its pioneers were concerned, above all else, about the soil beneath their feet. Their philosophy was centered on practices designed to improve the richness and stability of the soil by restoring its organic matter and avoiding synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. It also originated out of a form of religious mysticism regarding the connection of the divine to "natural" processes. Wider concerns about biodiversity, social justice, and animal welfare have grown from this core concept about how

Today, support for organic farming is frequently part of a bigger social and political mindset - one that holds that 'natural' is best, and that naked capitalism is a threat to the health of the planet and its inhabitants. While this stance patently renounces certain arguably inevitable occurrences, such as globalization and the economic proliferation of humanity, it nevertheless represents a positive development in the understanding of food cultivation and recognition of the necessity for healthy food.

These ideals have always set the organic movement squarely against intensive farming and chemical-based agribusiness. And, at least in public and in the media, those arguments rage more fiercely today than ever before. Yet behind the harsh rhetoric, a little-noticed convergence of views is taking place. For decades, the study of organic farming sat on the fringes of the agricultural revolution, as intensive techniques marched across the world, sending yields skyrocketing. But the latent effect on the vitality of the soil and its direct repercussions on continual and reliable yields were overlooked by mainstream groupthink regarding horticulture. Agronomists are becoming concerned about the long-term sustainability of this approach, and are focusing increasingly on soil integrity. Could it be that both sides of agriculture's great divide now want the same thing? How is it that we ever reached a point where we didn't? Shouldn't the focus be on the most nutritious and sustainable food production methods available? Shouldn't the focus be on healthy food, not healthy soil? Money has a way of creating blinders to our natural world. It is only through human ingenuity and the undeniable nature of progressive ideas that this diversion can be righted and united. Some may look at the prevalence of the synthetic attitude as a liability, but we at PG look at it as an opportunity.

Mainstream agronomists now acknowledge, for example, that intensive farming reduces biodiversity, encourages irreversible soil erosion and generates run-off that is awash with minerals, such as nitrates and phosphates, that create imbalance in ecosystems that result in algal blooms and fish kills and harmful chemicals coming from pesticides and weedicides. It is from these realizations that the practicality and undeniable nature of hydroponics rears its head, as well as the potential for marriage between hydroponics and the organic movement. Being recirculatory by nature and allowing for maximum efficiency of growth in places traditionally not utilized for it, hydroponics uniquely represents an option in the complex game of food production and human

The "Food Movement" has its roots in the end product. It pays no attention to the method of growth, but to the overall quality of the product. It is born out of the understanding that soil-field oriented chemical-based agribusiness is counterproductive to an efficient and sustainable food production mechanism. The "Food Movement" seeks to fully appreciate and implement the undeniable technologies attributed to the arena of horticulture over the last 30 years. With scientists gaining a more complete understanding of plant physiology, the public becoming more comfortable with and aware of the science itself, and the need for a more healthy, reliable, and efficient food mechanism the pieces are coming together to potentially revolutionize what we expect from and the way we grow food, and how we view food production altogether.

For many farmers and consumers, "organic" represents the values that are most important to them. It is truly food with a mission -- representing care for the earth, compassion for animals, commitment to social justice, and support for local farms and communities.

In coming years, organic agriculture will embrace these values in a more defined way. This will occur through the combination of two other movements that are nowpicking up speed, the fair trade movement and regional food systems, or local agriculture. Fair trade is a program that applies social justice criteria, such as environmental and wage concerns, to a certification program for farmers and companies. Regional food systems encourage the production of food on a local level in order to minimize transportation and environmental costs, support local economies, produce safe and healthy food, and maintain family farms.

Through these initiatives more people will be exposed to the quality and assurance of quality food produced efficiently and sustainably. The "organic" market is growing astronomically faster than any other segment of agriculture. The U.S. organic market is projected to reach a value of $30.7 billion by 2007, with a five-year compound annual growth rate of 21.4 percent between 2002 and 2007, compared to a 21.2 percent rate between 1997 and 2002 (Datamonitor). Organic agriculture is expanding rapidly in the United States, as consumer interest continues to gather momentum and new organic production and marketing systems evolve. In the wake of USDA's implementation of national organic standards in October 2002, continued growth in the industry is expected. Similarly, consumer demand rose throughout the 1990s-20% or more annually-and that pace has continued. Organic products are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73 percent of conventional grocery stores, and account for approximately 1-2 % of total food sales in the U.S (Catherine Greene and Carolyn Dimitri, in Amber Waves, February 2003, USDA's Economic Research Service). An online poll of 1,000 U.S. households conducted during the week of Nov. 4, 2002, found that 58 percent had purchased a food item labeled organic. Of those participating, 32 percent said it was somewhat or very important that their food is organic, while 67 percent indicated organic food would become more common in the future. The majority of those buying organic products purchased them from their local grocer or a traditional supermarket chain, 29 percent cited a farmers' market as the source, and 21 percent bought organic products at a specialty grocer such as Whole Foods Market or Wild Oats. Also, 14 percent indicated they bought organic items at their local Wal-Mart or Target super center, reinforcing the fact that organic foods play a role in everyday American households. Twenty percent said they would pay approximately 20% more for organic foods, while 67% said that price was a barrier to their buying these products (http://www.ebrain.org/).

Not only is the retail segment of the organic movement growing, so is the growing end. The Rodale Institute has set a goal of 100,000 certified organic U.S. farmers, representing 5% of the 2 million American farmers, by the year 2013, according to chairman Anthony Rodale in a talk at the Organic Trade Association's 2003 All Things Organic™ Conference and Trade Show in Austin, TX, in May 2003. Certified organic U.S. farmers now number approximately 12,200 (The Rodale Institute). So there's a lot of room for growth and a lot of opportunity for development. The disconnect between "organic" utilization and documented and perceived benefit can be alleviated through education. Across a variety of criteria regarding the understanding of organics, 48% of consumers seem to have a firm grasp of the true meaning. Additionally, and much more concerning, is the low recognition of the perceived product benefits that are derived from organics, including taste, nutritional benefits, and others. Although the recent USDA label initiatives will provide awareness and credibility to the industry, marketers will need to take responsibility of communicating these key benefits of organic products to consumers (www.nmisolutions.com/r_organic.html). The same is true with all types of progressive growth- including hydroponics. This phenomenon is at the center of Progressive Gardens mission- to bring healthy food and practice to all people through progressive and sustainable processes.

back to top