The Conscious Consumer

by Sharman Gill, Newsletter Volunteer, from the July 2007 Newsletter

The following article is the first in a series that explores food sourcing and the complexities of organic versus local foods.

An Introduction to “Organic” Versus “Local”

We are in a dilemma. So says, Michael Pollan, Berkley professor and author of the bestseller, The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Homo sapiens have developed large brains, in part, to select from a variety of foods in the environment. Through complex agriculture and industry we have distanced ourselves from food production to the point of a “national eating disorder.” We are bewildered by our choices. “When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer,” Pollan writes, “deciding what you should eat will inevitably stir anxiety.” One component of this food anxiety comes with the dilemma of whether to buy organic or local foods, when perhaps the best-choice scenario of organic and local is not available.

The “organic” versus “local” debate is becoming increasingly prominent in the food world, and Moscow Food Co-op, like many across the nation, is caught between the founding ideology of early organic adopters and the expanding “Big Organic,” with its accompanying industrialization and long-distance shipping. While Walmart is importing organics from China, the alternative food culture is asking for more. But “more” isn’t necessarily straightforward.

Kenna S. Eaton, Moscow Food Co-op General Manager, expresses that, “it’s a really complex issue … I’ve been here since 1982 when there were no organic standards whatsoever. We pushed hard for standardization. The irony is, when we got it and it came under the USDA arm, it became a target for special interest groups. Everyone wants a piece of that organic pie and the only way to pull it off is to get the standards watered down. The standards are constantly under attack in a way that suits mass manufacturing … Now we have the organic label but it’s constantly changing and it doesn’t necessarily stand for good land stewardship, decent wages, or low energy costs … We are looking for something a little better.”

The Co-op is constantly weighing trade-offs that come with each food choice. So, what exactly is meant by the “USDA Organic” label? What are some potential unknowns in the way that our food is produced, with or without the organic label?    

What does the “USDA Organic” Seal Mean?

• Crops are produced without most conventional pesticides. Also synthetic fertilizers and sewage sludge are banned.
• No antibiotics or hormone use in animals.
• Animals are kept on 100% organic feed.
• No bioengineering or ionizing radiation.
• 38 additives are allowed (one example is ascorbic acid, a form of vitamin C), as opposed to several thousand additives that are allowed in conventional foods. 
• An approved certifier inspects the farm to ensure that the requirements are being met. Companies that handle or process the food must also be certified.

Beyond “USDA Organic”:  What the Seal Does Not Mean

The National Organic Program consumer brochure states that “Natural and organic are not interchangeable.” Following are some specific examples:

• Organic animal products don’t necessarily come from free-range animals. Dairy cows, chickens and beef cattle are commonly grain-fed, and this may be in cramped quarters due to the difficulty of managing large-scale organic pasture.

For example, the Cornucopia Institute (an organic watchdog) recently announced that the Case Vander Eyk Jr. dairy, a 10,000-cow feedlot near Fresno, was recently shut down after a 7-year challenge that the operation violated “the spirit and letter of organic law.”

• Organic standards say nothing about the energy costs associated with production or transportation. The Economist recently reported that several British companies are planning to add “carbon footpring” labels that indicate carbon dioxide emissions associated with manufacturing and transportation of food.

Locally, Nancy Taylor, a Co-op member, offered the following insight from her perspective as an organic farmer and an inspector for the Food Alliance: “Organic farming requires more tilling to get rid of the weeds, and in some cases it may require more energy for harvest because the weeds can’t run through a combine, they have to be cut first. Essentially, we go over the ground twice, using twice the energy.”

• Organics are not necessarily good for the soil. The Palouse is especially susceptible to soil erosion. Nancy Taylor feels that every farm situation is different (her own organic farm is in northern Utah) but “it’s harder to go organic on the Palouse. There is more moisture and a lot more weed pressure and disease pressure.” Tilling combats weeds without chemicals but is also destructive to soil health and topography. Taylor advocates additional research for direct seed, organic agriculture on the Palouse.

I appreciate the USDA’s effort to put out a certification program that helps to keep nasty contaminants at bay. The organic seal is a strong deciding factor in many of my own purchasing decisions. However, the complete story behind the food may not be consistent with the broader vision of what we hope organics to be. The challenge is to become more connected to our food, to learn the story of its production and transportation, to learn how it interconnects with animal welfare and the environment, as well as other factors such as nutrition, economics and social responsibility. Next month, I’ll explore more of these issues in the context of sustainable agriculture. 

Sustainability... Now What Exactly Does That Mean?

by Sharman Gill, Newsletter Volunteer, from the August 2007 Newsletter

The following article is the second in a series (continued from above) that explores food sourcing and the complexities of organic versus local foods.

Sustainability—what does that mean? I think I know. And yet I don’t. The meaning of “sustainability” is subjective, value-laden, and sometimes abused as special interests seek a buzzword with a loyal following. But defining “sustainability” is critical to shaping an alternative food culture, especially one that can help us move beyond the “organic” versus “local” dilemma to an understanding of choices that will best meet our needs without compromising future generations.

So I’m offering some definitions. David Suzuki, a geneticist and science educator with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, sums it up nicely: “We live in a finite world with finite resources . . . sustainability means living within the earth’s limits . . . sustainability means doing things better—not doing without.”

In further exploring “sustainability” I turn to my favorite author and recipient of the only fan letter I’ve ever sent—Wendell Berry. In his “Seventeen Rules for a Sustainable Community,” Berry defends rural communities and traditional family farms in an effort to preserve the “ecological diversity and integrity, and the renewal, on sound cultural and ecological principles, of local economies and local communities.”

Furthermore, he emphasizes the fundamental connection of our eating patterns to “sustainability.” In his 1989 essay, “The Pleasures of Eating,” Berry encourages us to think of ourselves as participants in agriculture rather than as consumers: “Eaters, that is, must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and that how we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used.”

Great definitions. However, Suzuki lives in Canada and Berry farms in Kentucky. What about the Palouse? What does “sustainability” mean for the Moscow Food Co-op? Kenna S. Eaton, the Co-op’s general manager, speaks of “sustainability” as being “grown or manufactured with care and attention for the impact on the community—the environment, the animals, the people.”

Co-op member and farmer, Nancy Taylor, expands further on this: “It varies. It’s different for different farms and geographies. What are your limiting resources? Here on the Palouse keeping the soil intact is one of the first priorities . . . The production practices must maintain the integrity of the natural resources and also be economically sustainable and socially just.”

The Co-op is filled with products that meet many, if not all, of our expectations for “sustainability.” But sometimes the complete spectrum is not available, in which case we then must weigh our concerns for pesticides, animal welfare, soil erosion, rural economies, oil gluttony and climate change, and many potential other factors. Following are several examples of “sustainability” choices that the Co-op staff has made, which don’t include “organic” certification

Oregon Country Natural Beef: This co-op of cattle ranchers is third party certified by the Food Alliance for meeting “environmental goals, land sustainability and equitable labor practices.” The cattle are free of hormones and antibiotics. In their own words, the company believes their product is an example of “sustainability” in practice: “While family based agriculture across the country is in decline many of our ranchers are making modest land expansions to accommodate the next generation.”

But Oregon Country Natural Beef is not certified organic. That would require moving the cattle to a crowded feedlot, due to the impossibility of managing 4 million acres of organic pasture. Kenna Eaton explains, “We have organic beef in the store and, ten to one, people want the Oregon Country Naturals because it is clean, grass fed, and much more affordable.” All of this—environmental concerns, preservation of local economics, humane treatment of animals—is wrapped up in the word, “sustainability.”

Shepherd’s Grain: We live in wheat country but unfortunately most of the Palouse’s wheat is shipped overseas. Shepherd’s Grain is a cooperative of 18 different farms that emphasizes soil quality through direct seeding and crop rotations. But they aren’t certified organic. Why?

Karl Kupers, of Shepherd’s Grain, explains: “While under current technologies, direct seeding does rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic production still relies on tillage. The key point is that with the topography of the Northwest the soils are most vulnerable to erosion and in my opinion that must be the focus of any sustainable production system adoption. While I have great respect for benefits of organic production systems, I strongly believe that long-term, ecologically and economically successful food production in the inland Northwest demands a production system that squarely addresses the need to tackle soil loss and erosion. And currently, only direct-seeding production systems do that most effectively.” So the Co-op has embraced the “sustainability” aspects of Shepherd’s Grain, although the option isn’t ideal because it’s non-organic.

Visit the Tuesday Grower’s Market and you’ll find that other farmers are pursuing “sustainability” through their own green labeling systems that keep with the old organic values but sidestep the financial and labor-intensive burdens that the federal organic seal demands. They are finding alternative labeling systems with third party nonprofits such as the Food Alliance and Certified Naturally Grown (see Carrie and Nate Lowes’ “Food for Thought” in the June 2007 Community News).

Organics are a component of “sustainable” food, but if not available, looking at the complete spectrum of “sustainability” can help us weigh the costs and benefits of our food choices.

Sharman Gill has finally produced an outstanding back-yard pea crop. She and her family are still craving more.

Copyright: Copyright on articles, recipes and images are jointly held by the Moscow Food Co-op and the respective contributors, except were otherwise noted.

Return to Resource Archive

For additions or corrections to this page, please contact the Webmaster.