Land of Confusion – Part III Is It Organic?

The summer has been busy on the farm and has kept me from my favorite pastime – writing! As I’ve been outside working I’ve conjured up all kinds of topics of discussion in our land of confusion called farming. I know, I keep intending to bring the subject of genetics into my next discussion but there are things that keep leading me astray.

A recent article in the New York Times, “Has Organic’ Been Oversized” written by Stephanie Strom on July 7th captured my attention and I’ve been thinking of little else.

What disturbed me the most was the admission by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director at the Organic Consumers Association saying “I understand that there are very few 100 percent organic businesses left…”. If a consumers association readily admits what has been whispered among us farmers out here trying to the right thing I have to ask myself what’s the point in trying to produce under a label that has been bastardized like the rest of our food system. Is it any wonder that farmers and consumers are confused?

Becoming organic certified is an expensive and time consuming prospect for a farmer. In doing so, farmer’s intention is to produce food for consumers that is free of GMO’s, additives, chemicals, and the list goes on. Traditionally organic has had the implied meaning of food in its purist form.

In 1990 our government set into motion the Organics Food Production Act requiring the U.S Department of Agriculture to develop national standards for organically produced products and to assure consumers that agricultural products sold as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. A National Organic Standards Board was created to make recommendations in the development of organic standards and certification. The 15 member board was to be representative of interested parties: farmer/grower; handler/processor; retailer; consumer/public interest; environmentalist; scientist; and certifying agent. Okay, that sounds easy enough!

At the time organic products were a niche market being produced by farmers labeled as left over hippies and the production and sales didn’t put a dent into the mainstream food market. I distinctly remember in the mid 90’s meeting many of these so called “hippie farmers”. Being part of the industrialized food production world my mindset was not in the same mode as theirs and I wondered why in the world they would create so much more work for their selves on the farm when chemicals could take care of most of the work.

The organic markets began to develop and grow. By 2011 organic products demanded premium prices, consumers had become more aware of where their food was coming from and how it was being produced, and organic food was a $30 billion dollar industry. Consumers wanted better food without all of the junk.

Enter the “big boys” and let the bastardization party begin! Like Mr. Potter in the NY Times article I believe that the “so called organic food” needs to be challenged. I want to know where the protection is for the farmers who are doing all of the right things to be truly organic and where the protection is for the consumer to be totally assured that they are getting the real deal. According to the NY Times story – “Pure, locally produced ingredients from small family farms? Not so much anymore.”

Some believe that the organic standards are being watered down; green washed, and corrupted by corporate agribusiness giants who have entered the organic markets and are industrializing it. When I hear comments from the big boys saying that the demand is greater than the supply and that the demand requires the scale that only they can provide I say “look out”! Faux organics are here and confusion abounds.

This past year, I had reason to question organic and its relationship to raising chickens. I became aware of the fact that if I were to put 10,000 chickens into one of my chicken houses, feed certified organic feed, and allow them access to the outdoors, I could have an organic farm. I didn’t need to worry about the land around the chicken houses because no chemicals had been used over the past 3 years and I could easily fence in a “sun porch” for outside allowance and nothing said that the chickens actually had to go out.

In my mind organic was about much more than just what was fed to the chickens. 10,000 chickens crammed into a confinement house conjured up memories of the days of industrial production. What type of product would I be producing from animals living a miserable existence having only a look at the outdoors but never really experiencing it? The waste created from that many chickens would have to go somewhere.

A friend laughed at my irate comments over this and told me to go to the meeting of the National Organics Standards Board and express my thoughts. Then told me “come back and tell me if they heard you or if they even cared”. Something like – let me know how far you get. I knew it would be a waste of time. After reading the NY Times article and Mr. Potter saying he had done exactly as my friend suggested I do and got nothing but being allowed to speak for 3 minutes and then a “thank you”, I realize that this issue is much bigger. Assuring the integrity of organic food won’t come through government process it will only come from consumers knowing their farmer and seeing how their food is produced.

It Never Ceases to Amaze Me!

Although my next post was to be a continuation of the Land of Confusion this week has been one of those weeks! Un-freaking-believable is a more apt description! Of course I’ve been completely sidetracked from talking about genetics in farming.

One of my repetitive sayings is “it never ceases to amaze me”. This usually accompanies me closing my eyes and shaking my head as if trying to clear it in order to take in the latest assault to my brain. I’ve done this a lot this week. More often than not, it takes me a couple of days to absorb “the latest” and to wrap my mind around it.

I should be of a very jaded mindset in regards to the meat and poultry industries and their relationships with government/politicians in power. I don’t discriminate when it comes to political parties – I call it as I see it.

One of the latest revelations to my brain was the release of emails between Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, and Perdue, mostly through the company’s attorney. Cozy, is a polite description. This really shouldn’t have come as a surprise because in the recesses of my mind, it was something that I already thought and something that many had speculated about.

Through a Freedom of Information request, Food and Water Watch, a Washington, DC based nonprofit organization, emails between O’Malley and a Perdue representative were obtained and released to the public. It’s interesting, informative reading and certainly lends credibility to theories as to why taxpayers in Maryland are picking up the tab for industry and its share of pollution caused by company owned chicken poop! This is one of those “indirect” subsidies that continue to prop up cheap chicken.

On another subject, and leading back to the saga of The Land of Confusion, I’ve had several conversations this week about objections to farmers using the term “pasture raised”. I discussed this in my last post, The Land of Confusion Part II and from what I gather it has ruffled feathers of some who have adulterated the term “free range”.

In my mind and in the minds of many other farmers who are practicing the method of “pasture raised” it’s a term used to inform consumers that animals are REALLY outside on pasture. The animals REALLY do eat grasses, bugs, and worms and are able to forage.

The term “pasture raised” most definitely goes above the term “free range” because some have coined the term “free range” to conjure up a picture in consumer’s mind of animals being out on lush green forage. In reality, those who’ve bastardized free range through the definition of animals only needing to have “access” to the outside created the need for farmers who actually let their animals outside and provide actual pasture, to clearly define their farming methods.

It appears to me that coining of phrases can only be used if it suits the purpose of a select few. Like it or not, this argument is something that USDA is going to have to address. The high jacking of labels for the sheer purpose of greed has been going on in the farming community for quite some time. Closing loopholes through clear definitions of what actually happens on the farm needs to happen in order for farmers who REALLY do what they say they do can be the only ones to claim the phrase or term and consumers can be assured. To further add credence to the need for this to happen can be found from several sources who’ve felt the need to search out and write about this issue. The latest comes from Rodale

It’s perfectly clear where I stand on this issue and I’m sure that we can look forward to a huge and long battle! Of course we will see a lot of wheeling and dealing during this process and the flexing of money, power, and influence.

While there were other assaults to my brain throughout the week I haven’t quite decided what to make of them so discussion will have to wait for other posts. Hopefully, the next post will get back to the subject of genetics and the effects created by them in farming and food.

The Land of Confusion – Part II

Although I started out with explaining the confusion of a visitor to the farm over different farming methods, the saga of The Land of Confusion continues and expands after being bombarded with questions from readers. Before going forward I have to go back to my first post and explain to the many who’ve asked how I decided upon “The Land of Confusion”.

While I was writing the first post about animal confinement, fancy names for hen cages, and thinking about why these names are thought up, the song by Phil Collins (one of my favorites) Land of Confusion kept popping into my head. I have a tendency toward equating situations to music. It’s not something that I consciously do, it just happens. At times, it can be annoying, especially when I’m trying to concentrate.

I left off last time bringing into the conversation the term’s “free range” and “pasture raised” and how things can get really fuzzy. Again, I say it’s all about words and what kind of picture those words conjure up in the consumers mind.

Free range in my mind first conjures up the old song “Home on the Range”. What a lovely thought, right? Animals freely roaming the “range” with lots of lush grass to forage on – is NOT what it’s about. Free range varies greatly from farm to farm. Providing “access to the outdoors” is the key to free range. It could mean that the animals have huge pastures to forage in or it could mean that the animals have a small penned in area on dirt.

According to USDA, the term free range for poultry means that farmers must show that the “poultry has been allowed access to the outdoors”. What USDA doesn’t say is that the farmer must show that poultry actually went outdoors, for how long of a time period, or if grasses are readily available in the outdoor space.

In the beginning of the “free range” movement farmers who practiced this method intended for it to mean that their chickens were foraging outside on grasses and for the most part not confined. These were small scale farmers practicing a farming method which allowed for natural behaviors of chickens to abound. As the term caught on corporate agri-businesses saw opportunity in a market that was appealing to consumers. Legal minds went to work figuring how the phrase “free range” could be coined to suit the needs of industrial sized production and capture market share.

In my travels I’ve seen fenced in dirt lots running the length of an industrial sized chicken house that were considered “free range”. I found this method of farming to be appalling and although there is no legal definition for “free range” in my opinion the term has been adulterated. I don’t believe that this is the picture that consumers have in their minds when thinking about “free range”.

Enter the term “pasture raised”. When farmers saw what was happening to the original intents and purposes of the free range method of farming they saw the need to clarify. Farmers use this term to set their selves apart from “free range” and its meaning is the opposite as well. Chickens that are identified as “pasture raised” are outside on pasture and have access to shelter (indoors). To be more specific the chickens have continuous and unconfined access to pasture throughout their life.

To further complicate matters the “organic” seal of approval relates more to the diet of chickens than to how the chickens are raised. Again, the original intents and purposes of “organic” have become muddled whereby industrial agriculture has inserted itself into organic farming. Today there are several corporate giants that are synonymous with organic. The chickens only need “access” to the outside.

Another confusing type of phrase that is used to grab consumers describing laying hens and how they are raised – “cage free hens provided ample space and allowed to roam freely”. General thought would be that these chickens are not kept in cages and have lots of open space on the farm to roam at will. I’ve seen this type of wording used to define cage free hens raised in confinement buildings and never allowed outside. One might say that this is a misleading statement however there is nothing that says that the hens are outside roaming freely it just says that they are not caged and are allowed space to walk around. What it doesn’t say is that the space and freedom allowed is inside a confinement building or that the chickens aren’t allowed to forage. Technically this isn’t illegal.

As a farmer it’s hard to sift through all of the confusing language to figure out what method is right for the individual farm. Having now lived on both sides of the fence, so to speak, the choice was a no brainer. One could say that our farm took a drastic approach going from one side of the spectrum to the total opposite side of the spectrum.

Having become totally disgusted with industrial mass production of chickens and the methods used to adhere to the demands, from the farmer aspect and the animal aspect, changing to the complete opposite method was an easy transition. Knowing this doesn’t diminish the frustration when trying to explain different methods of farming to consumers and for their part, consumers are similarly frustrated in not having clear and concise language to understand what each claim or type of wording means.

A concise explanation about different claims of how chickens are raised and fed can be found here.
Not All Eggs Are Created Equal

Enter genetics. Most unknown to non-farmers is what type of animal is used for production. Maybe back in the 1920’s and 1930’s people were assured that a chicken was a chicken. What I call the “mix-master age of chickens” is today, a high stakes profit driven formula. For those who don’t know what a “mix-master” is, simply put, it’s a blender.

There’s a game that kids play called “mix em up, match em up” which is akin to the mix-master age of chickens. Genetics is an entirely different subject and we’ll talk about that in my next post about the land of confusion.

GIPSA Rule – A Really Bad Joke

I recently had a contract chicken farmer, Craig Watts, ask me for advice after hearing the news that our illustrious politicians had delivered a crippling blow to farmers and consumers.

Specifically, the farmer was referring to the gutting of the USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards (GIPSA) Final Rule which would have dealt with many of the abuses contract farmers face. Known as the GIPSA Rule and something that I’ve opined about many times, House Republicans and Mealy Mouthed Democrats allowed language in a budget bill that defunded the GIPSA Rule which would have provided “commonsense protections that allow small livestock producers to compete and check the abusive practices of the poultry industry” says Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food and Water Watch. House Republicans Drive More Nails Into Livestock Rule Coffin

I had no good advice to give Craig and I fear for his livelihood. He has been one of the most outspoken contract chicken farmers about the GIPSA Rule and took a public stand against the abusive practices towards farmers in the poultry industry. Although no laughing matter, my first thought was to tell Craig to cover his head and duck.

On a serious note I told him to prepare for contract termination because he will be retaliated against for speaking out. One way or another, Craig will be paid back and or illustrious politicians, who claim that they support the farmer, have assured that he has no protection. Over the past twenty years or more, I’ve seen this happen many times to farmers.

It further worries me that farmers were led down a path of destruction by our government. I’ve had my doubts from the very beginning of the latest attempt by farmers to reign in Big Ag from the monopolization of food production and the anti-competitive nature of contract farming.

USDA and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) held field hearings all over the country and encouraged farmers to speak out. Farmers believed in this process especially since they had the DOJ covering their backs……. many spoke. Even still, with the mighty DOJ at their backs, some farmers gave private testimony. A statement in itself about the fear farmer’s harbor!

When USDA finally proposed the GIPSA Rule and opened a public comment period over 60,000 comments were received by the agency and the majority was in favor of the rule. At this juncture of the game some farmers were still fearful and submitted unsigned comments so that they could not be identified by Big Ag.

Farmers have written letters and spoken in person to USDA and their illustrious politicians who supposedly represent them and have put their selves in a precarious position. Anyone who really knows me also knows that I hold no faith in our elected officials whether they are Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or Independent.

My cynical view overwhelms me when I travel to our Nation’s Capital because I get the feeling that our illustrious politicians are doing nothing more than paying “lip service” to their constituents. They tell you what you want to hear and send you on your way. They then turn around and “toe the line” from wherever the most power, money, and influence come from. It’s cronyism at its best!

Personally, I have no faith in our government to do what is right for the majority. I don’t think that I’m alone in my cynicism about our elected officials. On occasion I think there are some people who run for public office with good intentions toward doing the right thing. When they reach the destination of being elected to office they quickly learn that their ideals have no place in the political machine that runs our country.

In this particular situation, the GIPSA Rule, is a really bad joke that has been played on farmers and Big Ag is laughing all the way to the bank! I hope our illustrious politicians and government agencies feel good about selling out the American farmer and leaving them to suffer the tyranny of Big Ag.

Congresswoman Kaptur Stands up for Farmers!

Over the last few months I’ve witnessed a 3 ring circus going on in the US House of Representatives and if ever there were a time that faith in our government was at an all time low, it is at this moment in time.

Despite the expressed majority in favor of the USDA Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Proposed Rule change relating to fairness in the livestock and poultry industry, the House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee mark up of their appropriations bill yesterday included a provision to stop USDA from implementing a Final Rule.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition reports  that Representative Kaptur (OH) spoke out against the provision saying the bill would prevent USDA from implementing the rule even though the 2008 Farm Bill explicitly directs USDA to do so.  Kaptur has been a long time proponent for family farms.

I’ve written several posts relating to the Proposed Rule and the issue has become larger than life. Many contract poultry growers have come out of hiding from the fear of losing their contract for speaking out about the many problems within the poultry industry. It’s a big no, no as was revealed in Food INC.

Through contracts to raise livestock and poultry, corporations cohabiting in farmer’s neck of the woods have absolute control over the farms and farmers they contract with. The USDA GIPSA Proposed Rule would go a long way in ensuring fairness and level the playing field for farmers in their contract relations with corporate agribusinesses. Self described by farmers as being “serfs on their own land” has no place in today’s world.

One of the major players lobbying in opposition to a Final Rule implementation, the National Chicken Council (NCC), representing industrial chicken companies says that the proposed competitive market rule by USDA GIPSA “will fundamentally change how chicken companies operate especially with contract growers”.

Intimation from industry has been that companies would no longer contract with farmers they would own the farms that produce chickens for them. For those of us who are familiar with poultry industry maneuvering, subtle and indirect hints of putting farmers out of business is nothing new. Intimidation/coercion is what we call it! I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about subtle hints that the chicken industry will move operations to a foreign country being used while lobbying congress!

The one thing that both sides of the issue agree on is that the Proposed Rule will bring fundamental change. From the farmer standpoint the change would be a positive step forward however industry is adamant that this change will not happen.

What comes to mind is the question that if everything is wonderful and we don’t need change, why is this issue being vigorously debated? Why did farmers decide “contract termination be damned” and come out of hiding to support the Proposed Rule Change?

One thing certain about the issue is that corporate agribusiness has shown its hand and can no longer say that they support their partners the farm families they contract with. Farmers want and need the fundamental change that the Proposed Rule would bring and their partners in the chicken industry are fighting against them.