Whorganic Farming

It’s all about quality assurance. A mark of distinction – to bear it means that a good has standards, a third party backs it up – this good is worth the money. And there you have it: “Organic certification”.

That’s it.

My first Malbouffe “Organic Charming” was, I admit, an attack on the organic establishments movement away from it’s routes of a “Man in harmony with nature” philosophy to that of a clandestine Big Brother movement bent on control of their members. It was not an attack on the producers, whom the vast majority I think are truly the last hope for agriculture.

This Malbouffe is more of the same.

I like to buy organic food whenever I can. I like what organic food stands for – besides it’s taste and quality. The problem I increasingly find is that the elements of organic agriculture that appeal so much to me - the social, cultural and family elements inherent in organic agricultural philosophy – seem no longer important or necessary for that symbol on the side of the packet.

Taking a look at what is wrong with agriculture in general it is clear that organic certification is not a system designed to help any of the long-term social issues present in today’s Agriculture. For anyone involved in and caring about agriculture the definition “the cultivation of soil and rearing of animals” does no justice to the practice. It has life, it has history, it incorporates cultures, communities and environments, and it evokes emotions. It rejects standardisation. It rejects homogenisation and monoculture. It thrives on [Bio] diversity. And it can’t be helped by third party accreditation. Organic certification is increasingly used as a tool of big business to sell a concept, a generic standard, to the concerned masses. It is not for the good of agriculture. The scandal of this is that originally it promised to do so much more for farmers and consumers alike.

The vast majority of Organic® produce sold for consumption is done so via the Supermarkets. Most of this produce is in ingredient form locked within processed foods and beverages. The chances are that these ingredients are imported – and mass purchased from large-scale suppliers. Organic® is big business – especially when all it takes to assure today’s concerned customer is a pretty symbol. Ah food politics: a simple arena dedicated to pleasurable consumer clarity – capturing the very best in human endeavour to do ones neighbour good. Don’t quote me. It is true that many product lines from large multinational pharmaceutical companies to cosmetic companies (ops…they are the same people) have jumped on board the Organic® marketing bonanza and have totally ripped off the emotions and ethos of the organic movement to con unwitting consumers. But, I argue, the certification bodies have themselves to blame, and in fact, are no better than the Organic® pirates out there. You see - organic certification is only for itself and for those who can.

If you can adhere to the standards, pay the fee and behave yourself – then even if you are a multinational corporation responsible for countless past pesticide poisonings of child field workers – who work on land once theirs and now yours through political subversion – you too can join the “Certified Organic” circus. Furthermore, you’ll probably be more welcome than most, at this party. A commercial, corporate owned farm – usurped from indigenous peoples and devoid of community participation – can be certified organic. Whereas, a small vegetable producer in the central American tropics or a lamb producer in highland Scotland, though self sufficient suppliers to local markets, not interested in expensive chemical inputs or concerned with nitrate additions to the land they work – may not be granted “Organic certification” because they either can’t afford it, or they share the land with other farming families. Which one of these producers food is more consciously palatable is a question of taste. The Organic certification industry is now just another tool used to control, standardise and subvert people for market share purposes. Soon “Organic” farmers will be encouraged to compete for market share with other “Organic” producers from abroad. And then it will be back to square one – and farmers will be pitted against each other once again.

So long as Organic agriculture, and the promotion, marketing and validity of it, is dependent on symbolisation for authenticity it will never fulfil the dreams and aspirations the movement started with. Already, organic agriculture is heavily subsidised through direct payments to producers compliant with the recognised certification organisations. The government and the certification bodies in question will claim these are necessary to ease the cost burden of change over and encourage entrants to the market, but what it effectively does is create government endorsed monopolies (as farmers must register with and pay the fees of the certification bodies to qualify for support), tied financial incentives for farmers, subsidised produce for the main markets (the supermarkets) and overall distorted markets from the outset. It also enables outside control of on-farm decision-making – culminating in the loss of autonomy for farmers and a further step backwards for agriculture. If you happen to produce a product to standards beyond those of the certification bodies – you still cannot sell your produce as organic unless certified.

Directly, here in lays the crux of the problem with organic certification. It pays no attention to anything other than production standards: It takes no account of situation. It takes no account of local markets. It makes no allowances for cultural practices. It is a process dependant on economic viability for participation – and it is geared to encourage economies of scale. It is also alarming that in order to find out the exact standards for compliance with many organic certification bodies one must purchase the information. So if you really wish to know what standards are applied to your symbol toting yoghurt you cannot freely access this information without incurring a charge.

Producers should be encouraged to produce organic produce, but not find themselves with less autonomy in the running of their farms. Recognition of their efforts should not be reduced to a rubberstamp that charges for the privilege of adorning the produce. Producers servicing local markets, or in commonage systems, or wishing to be independent should be able to practice organic agriculture and market their produce thus. And for this, consumers should be provided with, if demanded, comprehensive information on produce. They should expect to have unlimited access to details on the producer and their agriculture. And they should know exactly what is factored into the premium price they will pay for this produce. Clearly a lifeless, sterile rubberstamp system – devoid of emotion and starved of producer/consumer interaction can’t meet these needs. As a consumer, producer and marketer I feel very strongly about this situation – and I stand firm on my rejection of the prostitution of the values, practices and philosophy of organic farming for corporate gain.

Malbouffe.

AC