sign in sign up
<<
Home , Organic food, Organic movement

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic

George Kuepper

Kerr Center for

2010 Copyright 2010 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture

Editing: Maura McDermott and Wylie Harris

Layout and Design: Tracy Clark, Argus DesignWorks

For more information, contact: Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture PO Box 588 Poteau, OK 74953 918.647.9123; 918.647.8712 fax [email protected] www.kerrcenter.com Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 2

The Origins of Organic Agriculture ...... 2

How Farming Becomes ...... 4

Two Enduring Ideas about Organic Agriculture...... 4

Earning Credibility: Groundbreaking Research...... 7

The Influence of the ‘60s and ‘70s Counterculture...... 9

The Slow March towards Federal Regulation ...... 10

Enter Federal Regulation...... 11

Organic Agriculture and ...... 12

Keys to the Standard ...... 14

USDA/NOP Organic Meets Humus Farming ...... 16

USDA/NOP Organic Meets the Counterculture Vision ...... 17

USDA/NOP Meets… Itself ...... 18

End Notes ...... 19

About the Author ...... 23

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 1 the has the fifth largest amount Introduction of acreage in organic production, following For most of its history, organic agriculture Australia, Argentina, China, and Italy.[5] has been given short shrift. If they paid attention To better understand today’s org a n i c at all, conventional agricultural institutions phenomenon, it helps to know the origins of treated it as an antiquated, unscientific way to o r ganic agriculture and its evolution to the present. farm – suitable, perhaps, for gardeners, but not a serious means of commercial production. Anyone who advocated for organic farming was derided; it was professional suicide for an agron- The Origins of Organic omist or soil scientist to do so. Agriculture[6]

While its methods, proponents, and philos- As a concept and ideal, organic agriculture ophy are still derided in some quarters, things began in the early part of the twentieth century, have been turning around for organic agricul- primarily in Europe, but also in the United States. ture. Organic consumption is increasing and The pioneers of the early were organic acreage is growing. An organic industry motivated by a desire to reverse the pere n n i a l is developing that not only commands respect, p roblems of agriculture – erosion, soil depletion, but now demands a growing share of re s e a rc h decline of crop varieties, low quality food and live- and educational services from USDA, land-grant stock feed, and rural povert y. They embraced a universities, and state agriculture departments. holistic notion that the health of a nation built on

By the end of 2008, the organic sector had a g r i c u l t u re is dependent on the long-term vitality grown to a whopping $24.6 billion industry.[1] of its soil. The soil’s health and vitality were While many sectors of the agricultural economy believed to be embodied in its biology and in the are growing slowly and even stagnating, the o r ganic soil fraction called h u m u s . organic sector has been growing at roughly 20% A soil management strategy called humus [2] a year since 1994. Even during the recession farming emerged, which employed traditional [3] year of 2008, growth was a respectable 17%. farming practices that not only conserved but At present the organic sector constitutes about also regenerated the soil. These practices – 3.5% of total U.S. food sales, but should these drawn from mainly from stable European and growth rates continue, it could reach 10% in less Asian models – included managing cro p than a decade. residues, applying animal , composting,

According to ERS statistics from 2005, U.S. green manuring, planting perennial forages in organic acreage now exceeds four million, with rotation with other crops, and adding lime and c e rtified production in all 50 states.[ 4 ] Worldwide, other natural rock dusts to manage pH and

2 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture ensure adequate minerals.[7]

Since the strategy revolved aro u n d soil building to nourish crops, “feed the soil” became the humus farm i n g mantra. “Feeding the soil” meant feeding the soil food web. The soil food web is the living fraction of the soil, composed of bacteria, fungi, eart h- w o r ms, insects, and a host of other o rganisms that digest organic matter and “meter” nutrition to crop plants (see Figure 1). This contrasts with the FIGURE 1 (then emerging) strategy of using soluble , which bypass the soil food web to fertilize plants dire c t l y. m a n u re crops in cropping sequences. These Humus farmers typically avoided, or used crops not only supplied to subsequent very few, synthetic fertilizers. Obviously, they crops in rotation, but sustained soil biology and were not consistent with the idea of crop fertil- organic matter levels. Wherever synthetic fertiliz- ization through the soil food web. Humus ers and were used to cut corners on farmers felt that soluble fertilizers led to imbal- and soil building, they were in direct anced plant nutrition and “luxury consumption,” opposition to the principles of humus farming. which reduced food and feed quality. Many also Humus farming, then, was a conscious, well- believed that many synthetic fertilizers actually founded approach to farming and soil manage- harmed the soil biology – either killing organisms ment. It embodied a commitment to or upsetting the natural balance. They also saw t h rough soil regeneration; it sought to avoid wasteful this danger in the use of pesticides, and chose to exploitation of natural resources. This was i n use few, if any, of those. stark contrast to many of the world’s agricultural Still other humus farmers recognized that systems, which, in so many cases, led to the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides would lead to downfall of nations through mismanagement of shortcuts in – eliminating many of re s o u rc e s . [ 8 ] It puts a lie to the commonly held the soil building and pest control benefits that notion that organic agriculture is simply farm i n g good rotations confer. The use of synthetic as it was practiced before the advent of synthetic nitrogen , especially, would reduce the c h e m i c a l s . inclusion of perennial legume forages and green

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 3 than conventional fare is a foundational belief of How Humus Farming Becomes o rganic farming that continues to drive the Organic Farming market today. Surveys continue to show that “healthfulness” is the main reason that The term “humus farming” went out of consumers buy .[9,10,11,12] vogue in the 1940s as the term “organic” became more popular. According to one source, the first Pioneers of the organic movement believed use of “organic” to describe this form of agricul- that healthy food produced healthy people and that t u re was in the book Look to the Land, by Lord healthy people were the basis for a healthy society. N o rt h b o u rne, published in 1940.[ 4 2 , 4 3 ] N o r t h b o u rn e Since most food originates with the soil, they natu- uses the term to characterize farms using humus rally promoted a method of growing that was based farming methods, because he perceived them to on soil health and vibrancy – the organic/humus mimic the flows of and energy in farming method. They believed that soils thus biological organisms – “…a balanced, yet managed would yield more nutritious food. dynamic, living whole.”[44] Therefore, the word Is the organic community justified in its “organic” was intended and used to describe belief? The answer depends on who gives it. In process and function within a farming system – the recently published article Nutritional Quality not the chemical nature of the fertilizer materials of Organic : A Systematic Review[13], the used, and not adherence to a discredited notion British authors conclude that there is no differ- of plant nutrition.[45] ence in quality between organic and conventional foods. This has been challenged by scientists from the Organic Center (TOC) – a Two Enduring Ideas about nonprofit organization whose stated mission is Organic Agriculture “to generate credible, peer reviewed scientific i n f o r mation and communicate the verifiable People believe many things about organic benefits of organic farming and products to farming. Some of them are true and some are s o c i e t y. ” [ 1 4 ] The TOC reviews support the British not. Some originated with humus farming and findings on some classes of nutrients, but disagre e persist in contemporary organic thinking. Two of on others. Specifically, TOC cites considerable these are the beliefs that organically grown food research that shows organic foods are higher in is healthier or otherwise “better for you,” and total antioxidants.[ 1 5 ] The British review generally that organic crops are naturally resistant to pests. i g n o r ed this body of re s e a rch. TOC further cites a Both hypotheses are very controversial. f a i l u r e to recognize the higher non-pro t e i n nitrogen levels in conventional foods for the Is organic food healthier? h a z a r d they present through formation of The belief that organic food is healthier nitrosamines in the human digestive tract.[16]

4 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture Nutritional content is not the only factor the observation that these effects were caused at that interests organic consumers. Since the very low dosages.[21] In a similar vein, University 1960s, they have been concerned about of Wisconsin researchers have recently reported residues. The concern is not about acute poisoning, a connection between exposure of pre g n a n t but the possible effects from bioaccumulation women to the popular pesticide over time. (trade names include Dursban® and Lorsban®) and long-lasting birth defects in female That there would be less on o f f s p r i n g . [ 2 2 ] Again, the damage appears at o rganic produce seems to be a given. It was re - extremely low dose levels. c o n f i r med by a 2002 study of residue data fro m several sources over time. Organic produce had Beginning in the 1990s, genetic engineering o n e - t h i rd the residue levels of conventional fru i t s became another issue in the organic food quality and vegetables and half the level found on pro d u c e debate. The National Organic Standard pro h i b i t s g rown using integrated pest management.[ 1 7 ] the use of genetic engineering in organic agricul- t u r e as per §205.105(e), where its various permu- The compelling question is whether pesti- tations are referred to as “excluded methods.” cide residues actually have significant negative The concern over so-called “frankenfoods” and effects on human health. This is not clearly their possible effects on human health were a n s w e red. The scientific community is most c e rtainly a major factor in the organic community’s c o n c e r ned about the possible impacts on insistence that genetic engineering be banned c h i l d r e n . [18] Whatever those impacts, several from organic food production. studies do demonstrate marked reductions in pesticide metabolites in children switched to a Do organic crops resist pests? diet of organic food.[19,20] The assertion that organic culture induces The concern for children is certainly valid. pest and disease resistance in crops is much less Their body weight is lower and small effects in well known than the healthy food claim, though childhood can grow to major problems over a the notion has been around for some time. In long lifetime. But the danger may occur well The Soil and Health, one of the earliest classics of before childhood. A 2009 article in Newsweek organic thought, the father of organic agricul- suggests that the impact of pesticide (and other ture, , writes that health is the e n v i r onmental chemical) exposure may be “birthright of all living things,” and that health in equally or more significant to those in the womb. humans depends on a chain of health that begins T h e r e is growing evidence that horm o n e - in the soil. He goes on to state that “vegetable mimicking pollutants from pesticides and plasti- (and animal) pests and diseases…are evidence of cizers are a major factor in infant obesity, which a great failure of health” in the plant and animal has risen 73% since 1980. Of particular note is links in that chain and those failures begin with

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 5 the soil and its management. In other words, pests susceptible.[29] If, as research shows, organic and diseases may be considered a g r i c o l o g e n i c – crops produce more antioxidants, induced by the farmer. The organic method was, it is logical to believe they might also produce according to Howard, a means for restoring and more pest-repellant . sustaining soil health, thereby reducing and even Another theory about how predisposition eliminating most pest problems.[23] works relates to the breakdown of proteins under The notion that plant stress and disease/ stress, leading to the accumulation of soluble pest tolerance are related did not originate with amino acids in plant sap. It is believed that these A l b e rt Howard and the organic movement. f o r ms of free nitrogen are more digestible by insect There is an independent school of thought on pests, many of which lack the enzymes to break predisposition theory that traces back to the work proteins down to their amino acid constituents. of H.M. Ward in 1890 and continues at least T h e re f o r e, they thrive on stressed plants.[30,31] through the mid-1970s.[24,25] Subsequent inquiry A further theory links total dissolved plant- became increasingly bound to re s e a r ch on sap solids to susceptibility and resistance. Higher o r ganic systems. A prime example is P. L. levels of sugars, minerals and other components Phelan’s work with European corn borer that of plant sap are treated as indicators of plant found reduced pest damage under org a n i c health and, therefore, improved resistance.[32] management.[26] Since dissolved solids can be readily monitored Early work on predisposition theory focused using inexpensive hand-held refractometers, this on fungal diseases but later expanded to address theory is quite popular among growers, though other diseases and arthropod pests. It is the basis research has not always supported a direct corre- for a common belief among organic farmers that lation. California-based research by Dr. Mark insect pests are nature’s “garbage collectors;” Mayse, for example, did not find a correlation that their main function is to remove unhealthy between dissolved solids in grapes and resistance and unsuitable plants. to leafhoppers during a two-year study.[33]

There are several theories regarding the While induced resistance offers gre a t mechanisms of predisposition. One re v o l v e s promise, it is not a panacea and its mechanisms around phytochemicals that plants produce to are hard to nail down. Furthermore, the degree protect themselves from diseases and pests. A of resistance is likely to vary with the pest or prime example is DIMBOA, a chemical disease involved. Predisposition theory may be compound found in young corn plants that totally irrelevant where a new crop species is protects against fungi, bacteria, and a range of involved, or a new pest or disease introduced.[34] insect pests, including European corn borer.[27,28] If organic crops are more resistant to pests S t ressed plants, it is argued, produce fewer and diseases, the root cause is most likely the soil protective phytochemicals, making them more

6 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture food web. A healthy food web leads to good tilth a re inevitable, no matter how a crop is grown, and and a better air and water balance. Increased that they must always be dealt with by dire c t humus means more moisture retention and less means such as pesticides. drought stress. There is also a significant nutri- tional benefit. Though organic agriculture recog- nizes that plants absorb soil nutrients in soluble Earning Credibility: (inorganic) form, it places great importance on the organic compounds – chelated nutrients, Groundbreaking Research amino acids, natural , vitamins, gro w t h Because the organic movement criticized factors, humic substances, etc. – that plants also and diverged from mainstream agriculture, it absorb. Traditional practitioners believe that these became something of a pariah in the profession- p h y t a m i n s contribute much more to plant health al community. Few researchers would consider [ 3 5 ] and growth than is generally re c o g n i z e d . proposing serious research for fear of ridicule,

The soil food web not only makes phyta- isolation, and damage to their careers. A slow mins available, it also aids in their uptake. Albert change began in the late 1970s with two widely Howard noted this and wrote in considerable publicized studies. detail on the importance of mycorrhizal associa- The better known of these was a USDA [36] tions in particular. Mycorrhizae are fungi that evaluation of organic farming that was published coat, and form symbiotic relationships with, in 1980 as the Report and Recommendations on plant roots. They effectively increase the absorp- O r ganic Farm i n g . [ 4 6 ] The USDA team inter- tive surface of the root hairs, aid in the uptake of viewed a large number of organic spokespeople, minerals and water, and provide a barrier to promoters, writers, and farmers, studied a variety [37] p a t h o g e n s . High-humus, biodiverse, org a n i c a l l y of farms across the country, toured European managed soil certainly favors the survival and operations, and produced a positive report that [38] proliferation of mycorrhizae. pointed to the environmental benefits of organic

As early organic farmers embraced pre d i s p o - farming, its wise use of resources, innovations in sition theory, it led to a p l a n t - p o s i t i v e paradigm for pest and disease management, and the need for disease and pest management. By accepting agri- the USDA and land-grant universities to respond cologenic stress as a root cause of pest pro b l e m s , better to the needs of these growers. o rganic growers sought to change and impro v e At roughly the same time, a large study of their systems and reduce plant stress by impro v i n g Midwestern organic farming was also underway. tilth, balancing crop nutrition, and whatever else It was conducted by The Center for the Biology they could do to protect and enhance the soil of Natural Systems (CBNS) at Wa s h i n g t o n [ 3 9 ] food web. This is in contrast to a conventional University in St. Louis, Missouri.[47] CBNS had pest-negative paradigm that assumes outbre a k s

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 7 a c q u i red a multi-year National Science Foundation In four out of five years, the lower org a n i c grant to study energy use in Corn Belt agriculture . yields and higher labor costs were offset by lower The study zeroed in on organic farms because input costs, resulting in generally similar net they used few energy-intensive inputs. re t u rns per acre. The significance of this becomes most apparent when one realizes that all sales fro m The CBNS study took a snapshot of organic these organic farms were made into the conven- farming at a time before the organic marketplace tional market at conventional market prices.[ 5 3 ] developed in the Midwest. Therefore market premiums were almost nonexistent and did not With no market premiums available, the influence crop selection, agronomic practices, motivations for converting to organic farming were the economics of farming, or the decision to somewhat diff e rent from today. Organic gro w e r s farm organically. Among its many findings: in these studies cited livestock health, soil pro b l e m s , and the cost of chemicals as their top thre e Though conventional wisdom dictated reasons for convert i n g . [54] otherwise, commercial organic farming of agro- nomic crops was a fact in the Corn Belt. It is right to question how relevant the Washington University findings might be to other Organic crop farms growing corn, soybeans, p a rts of the country, including the Mid-south and small grains and hay crops consumed 40% of the the Southeast. Higher temperatures and rainfall energy used by conventional farms to produce a p a t t e r ns that deplete the soil, resist the buildup of dollar’s worth of crop. The key factor in the humus, and increase pest and disease pre s s u re accounting was the high use of energy-intensive hint at challenges for humus farming in the nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms.[48] South. They tend to buttress the conventional These same farms had 33% less soil erosion wisdom that insists “it doesn’t work here.” than conventional farms, based on crop mix H o w e v e r, prior to the Washington University alone. Though not quantified, almost all organic s t u d y, conventional wisdom also denied the viabil- farms had converted to mulch- and ridge tillage ity and existence of organic farming in that re g i o n , to conserve soil. These practices were seldom in w h e r e it has ultimately proven workable and evidence on neighboring conventional farms.[49] competitive. No doubt, successful org a n i c Organic farming sequestered more carbon f a r ming systems in the South will look diff e re n t in the soil. There was no evidence of phosphate f r om their nort h e rn counterparts, but to deny that or potash depletion.[50] such systems can be developed is pre m a t u r e.

Organic farms had lower yields of corn (about 10%), comparable yields of soybeans, and required about 12% more labor per dollar of crop produced.[51]

8 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture The Influence of the ‘60s and ‘70s Counterculture

Organic agriculture is beset by many myths. Among the most common is that it was created by the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously, this is not true. What the counterculture did, instead, was to co-opt what was then a small and rather obscure organic movement whose political and social tendencies were ultraconservative and even reactionary.[55] The counterculture FIGURE 2 gave it a left-leaning political and social flavor. It also gave organic food, farming, and traditional organic method. A lot of unattractive, gardening greater visibility and popularity. But low-quality produce appeared, grown using a do- most significantly, it gave it customers and set nothing approach that became known as the stage for an industry to develop. So while one “ o r ganic by neglect.” “Organic by neglect” was can’t say that the ‘60s counterculture invented p recisely the approach to farming that the pioneers organic farming, it is fair to say that it created of organic farming railed against in the first half of the organic industry. the twentieth century. They would have been appalled to see the critics label these poor The 1960s also married organic agriculture examples of gardening and farming as “organic.” to the wider . ’s , published in 1962, high- One very positive residual of the ‘60s and lighted the dangers – real and perceived – of 70s counterculture was a holistic and enduring pesticides, making organic agriculture especially vision of what organic agriculture was and how it attractive, as it eschewed the use of most contrasted with mainstream, industrialized food synthetic pesticides.[56] and farming. This vision is well articulated by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma. He The 1960s and 1970s also spawned a back- writes that there are three pillars or legs to the to-the-land movement, with a new generation counterculture vision of organic (Figure 2). The setting out to farm and garden org a n i c a l l y. first pillar is environmentally sound farm i n g Unfortunately, many novices failed to under- without the use of synthetics, to produce high stand that growing quality food without pesti- q u a l i t y, safe food (i.e. humus farming). The second cides or synthetic fertilizers would not work very is an alternative food distribution system with well without the regenerative practices of the few middlemen. One bought organic food either

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 9 directly from the grower or from food coopera- As organic standards developed in the tives, buying clubs, or health food stores – never 1970s and 1980s, they came to include the from “industrial food” . Last of all, absolute exclusion of most synthetic pesticides organic food meant whole, fresh food, with and fertilizers. This was significant. As USDA minimal processing and no artificial ingredients – investigators learned in the late 1970s, the “counter cuisine” for the “counterculture.” There organic movement represented “a spectrum of would be no room here for an organic version of practices, attitudes, and philosophies” that the Twinkie.[57] included purists who used no synthetic chemi- cals whatsoever, and those who were more flexible – using small amounts of agricultural The Slow March towards chemicals in limited circumstances.[58] Such Federal Regulation circumstances might have included spot spraying of problem weeds, using an insecticide to rescue The growing demand for organic food in the an infested crop, or using starter fertilizer in cold 1960s and 1970s produced a more sophisticated spring weather. marketplace. Supply chains lengthened as org a n i c p r oducts traveled longer distances to re a c h The emerging organic standards did not customers. Third party certification emerged as a allow these. All and pest management means of assuring those consumers that the would be accomplished without these inputs.[ 5 9 ] p roducts they purchased were truly org a n i c . F rom this time onwards, unfort u n a t e l y, org a n i c Certification agents, as the “third party,” stand became better known and understood for what it between organic farmers and food processors, did not allow (synthetic pesticides and fert i l i z e r s ) and the ones who buy their products. They than for positive farming practices and enviro n- provide assurance to the consumer that he or she mental benefits they yielded. is truly getting an organic product. C a l i f o rnia Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) Certification begins with the establishment established the first pro g r a m of a standard that defines what organic means. in 1973. Many more followed. By the late 1980s, The standard details which practices, inputs, t h e r e were quite a few agencies, both large and ingredients, and so forth, are required, permit- small. Each adopted standards that were consis- ted, and prohibited in organic food production tent on basic principles, but varied on details like and processing. Farmers and processors submit the permissibility of mined Chilean nitrate, the plans that explain how they will meet the re q u i rements for field buffer zones, and the need standard, and submit to an annual inspection by for pesticide re s i d u e testing.[60] the certification agent. Those that measure up to These diff e r ences led to complications, the standard become certified and can sell their especially for processors making multi-ingredient products as certified organic.

10 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture products. The certifier might insist that all ingre- Enter Federal Regulation dients be certified only by itself or a handful of The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA ) other agencies with which it had equivalency mandated creation of a National Organic Pro g r a m agreements. It was clear that a single national (NOP) and a National Organic Standards Board organic standard was desirable, but not clear (NOSB). The NOP is the federal body responsi- whether that should be brought about by ble for writing, interpreting and enforcing the industry or by federal regulation. O r ganic Regulations, which are the National O r ganic Standard. The NOP is part of the USDA That issue was settled in the late 1980s and is administered under the Agricultural when an unrelated matter brought things to a Marketing Service (AMS). head. That matter centered on a popular agricul- tural chemical called Alar. Alar is one of several The NOSB is a 15-member advisory panel, trade names for , a plant growth comprised of individuals from the org a n i c regulator used to regulate fruit growth, make community appointed by the Secre t a r y of h a r vest easier, and enhance color. It was Agriculture. The NOSB advises the NOP on commonly used on conventionally grown apples. how to interpret the National Standard. It also The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has statutory responsibility for the content of the (EPA) had noted that Alar was a potential National List. The National List is the part of the but, by 1989, had not yet taken any Standard that catalogs the synthetic materials action. In February of that year, the CBS news allowed, and the nonsynthetic (natural) pro d u c t s program 60 Minutes broadcast a story highlight- p r ohibited, in organic production and processing. ing the concerns about Alar.[61] As a conse- The process of drafting the National quence, market demand for organic apples, and S t a n d a rd was slow, but very public. NOSB o rganic products in general, soared. While this was meetings were held three to four times a year in a brief boon for organic growers, the longer term various parts of the country in an attempt to consequences were grim as unscru p u l o u s gather input. From that input, the NOSB devel- marketers slapped organic labels on just about oped a number of recommendations to the NOP. e v e r ything. The credibility of “organic” was in peril. According to many close to the process, the The “Alar Scare,” as it was called, finally NOP chose to ignore many of those recommen- drove representatives of the organic community dations in the first draft, which was published in to Washington to seek regulation for the late 1997. The draft – which the organic commu- industry. The result was the passage of the nity had waited seven years to see – was greeted Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.[62] with outrage. The problems were many, but thre e issues drew the most fire. These were the allowance of food , sewage sludge as fert i l i z e r, and

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 11 the use of genetically engineered crops and other genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Organic Agriculture and An astounding 275,000 public comments flowed into the USDA from the organic commu- Genetic Engineering n i t y. Since the estimated number of cert i f i e d he 1997 draft of the National Organic U.S. organic farms at that time was only about TS t a n d a r d flooded the USDA with 5,000, it was clearly the voice of org a n i c 275,000 public comments. The tidal wave consumers speaking.[63] The NOP was sent a included a clear and resounding message clear message that this was a community not to be taken lightly— not easily snowed or manipu- stating that the organic community lated by bureaucracy or monyed interests. would not accept genetic engineering in o rganic food. As a result, the National A chastened NOP returned to the drawing S t a n d a rd contains a broad 86-word defini- board and, in the spring of 2000, produced a tion of genetic engineering, which it re f e r s revised draft that was much less controversial to as Excluded Methods (§205.2). These and largely welcomed by the organic community. After reviewing the second round of comments, Excluded Methods are s p e c i f i c a l l y a Final Rule for the National Organic Standard p r ohibited under §205.105 – Allowed and was published in the Federal Register by late p rohibited substances, methods, and ingre d i- winter. Full implementation went into effect in ents in organic production and handling October 2002. ( § 2 0 5 . 1 0 5 ( e ) ) .

The clear and thorough pro h i b i t i o n against genetic engineering surprised many in the biotechnology world. They believed cro p technologies, such as Bt crops, would give o rganic growers a “leg up” in controlling pests without synthetic pesticides. (Genetically e n g i n e e red Bt crops are implanted with a gene(s) from the soil bacteria B a c i l l u s t h u r i n g i e n s i s , which is capable of making a biological poison toxic to some insect pests.) O rganic growers were already using various c o m m e rcial spray and dust formulations of Bt

12 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture in the field and had no compunctions about c o n t r ol and manipulate nature . [ 6 5 , 6 6 ] , it. Still, genetically engineered cro p s , F u r t h e r m o r e, humankind does not yet including those with Bt genetics, were understand the possible environmental and rejected by the organic community. human health impacts of this technology that has been in our midst for less than two It would be a simple matter to write off the prohibition based simply on consumer decades. Concerns have certainly been fear of “frankenfoods,” not that this raised, and environmental research is only wouldn’t be justified. The biotech industry beginning to point to possible conse- has fought against the labeling of foods quences. Among the most recent is made from or with genetically engineered research published in the Proceedings of the ingredients. Consumers Union lists only National Academy of Sciences s u g g e s t i n g three labels that verify non-genetically engi- negative effects on aquatic organisms from neered contents.[64] Organic is clearly the upstream plantings of Bt corn.[67] most widely known and recognizable of these, and the only one backed by federal Decisions about new technologies for regulation. It is understandable that organic agriculture generally defer to the consumers might want to have a choice! , which reads: When an activity raises threats of harm to the envi- However, the rationale for prohibiting ronment or human health, pre c a u t i o n a r y genetic engineering in organic agriculture m e a s u r es should be taken even if some cause runs both broader and deeper than food and effect relationships are not fully estab- quality concerns or pre s e r vation of lished scientifically.[ 6 8 ] The impacts of consumer choice. Genetic engineering represents a fundamentally different philos- genetically engineered crops, animals, and ophy and worldview than organic. Organic agricultural inputs are not yet well under- principles are holistic and based on cooper- stood and have not been clearly proven ation with nature. Genetic engineering is harmful, but in the eyes of the organic highly reductionist, seeking single-factor c o m m u n i t y, enough concern has been raised solutions to complex problems; it seeks to to prohibit their use for the foreseeable future .

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 13 organic it must have distinct boundaries and be Keys to the Standard b u f f e red from chemical sprays and other forms of The National Organic Standard is a large contamination. The National Standard does not document. The details are well beyond the scope specify the width of buffer zones or even specifi- of this paper. However, highlighting some of the cally re q u i re them. It re q u i res only that contami- key elements of the Regulation can aid in under- nation be prevented. So, in most circ u m s t a n c e s , standing the evolution of organic agriculture and buffers are a practical option. Customarily, certi- the present state of affairs. In general, key elements fiers accept 25-foot wide buffer zones, when of the National Organic Standard include: neighboring farmland or roadsides are ground- sprayed. However, much wider buffers are C e r tification Require m e n t . All org a n i c usually required where aerial application is used. p r oducers and handlers must be certified thro u g h a c c r edited certifying agents. Certification is Biodiversity & Natural Resource Pro t e c t i o n . optional for operations selling less than $5,000 of Biodiversity and natural resource protection are o rganic product annually. at the core of humus/organic farming. Crop rotation is one of the main supportive practices; O r ganic System Plans. E v e r y operation it is specifically required by the National Organic must submit an Organic System Plan (OSP) as Standard under §205.205. Since crop rotation is part of the application for certification. The OSP a practice associated with annual crops, it would details how the operation will comply with the appear to leave perennial systems without a National Organic Standard. A complete OSP requirement or a strategy. However, the defini- includes all inputs to be used, production prac- tion of crop rotation under §205.2 includes the tices, strategies to prevent contamination and statement: “Perennial cropping systems employ commingling, monitoring pro c e d u r es, and means such as alley cropping, intercropping, and records to be kept. hedgerows to introduce biological diversity in Records. Detailed documentation of inputs, lieu of crop rotation.” Therefore, the National field activities, crop yields, and sales must be S t a n d a r d re q u i r es a temporal biodiversity strategy kept. These records should accurately reflect the for annual crops and a spatial strategy for peren- OSP. Most operations need to develop an audit nial plantings. control system to track production, ensure NOP As for resource protection, there are several compliance, and provide critical information in provisions within the National Standard similar the event of product recall. to §205.203(c), which reads: “The pro d u c e r For crop production, additional key elements must…not contribute to contamination of crops, include: soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, , or residues of prohibit- Land Integrity. For land to become certified ed substances.” As in the case of land integrity,

14 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture the National Standard is “non-prescriptive.” It levels of contamination with heavy metals or requires that contamination be prevented and other substances may prohibit their use. allows the farmer and the certifier to agree on Multi-ingredient pest control products may the strategy. contain only EPA List 4 and a few select List 3 . Here, the National Standard inert ingredients. becomes quite “prescriptive,” requiring that live- The definitions of synthetic and nonsynthetic stock either be composted or applied a lack clarity. This has been discussed by the NOSB minimum number of days prior to harvest; it for several years, but resolution is slow in coming. p rohibits sewage sludge completely. The compost- ing requirements in the Regulation reflect EPA O rganic agriculture emphasizes systems requirements for the composting of biosolids to design and cultural practices, and shuns input ensure safe use.[69] substitution – the strategy of simply replacing conventional inputs with organically acceptable Seed & Planting Stock. The NOP made it ones. Still, at the farm level, the issue of what can clear at the outset that it sought to create more and cannot be used in organic agriculture has sources for organic seed and planting stock to become the most compelling. The reason is clear. bolster organic agriculture. As a result, organic A single misapplication of a prohibited substance production requires organic seed and planting to a crop not only decertifies that crop; the entire stock. Only if a needed variety is not commer- field becomes decertified for three years. cially available, may the grower use untreated, For those producers dependent on a market non-GMO, non-organic seed and stock. Annual premium, such mistakes can be catastrophic. transplants must be grown organically, though variances may be granted in cases where a farm’s For livestock production, The National organic transplants are accidentally destroyed. O r ganic Standard contains additional key elements. These include: Prohibited Substances. The rule of thumb is that nonsynthetic (natural) materials may be Origin of Livestock. E s s e n t i a l l y, the Regulation used in organic crop production unless they are requires that slaughter stock be under organic specifically prohibited and cataloged on the management from the last third of gestation. National List under §205.602. Synthetic materials Dairy stock, by contrast, can, in many instances, a re automatically prohibited unless specifically be transitioned to production in 12 allowed on the National List under §205.601. months. Poultry can be transitioned if under While this appears straightforw a r d, there are many organic management from the second day of life. real world complications. Among the problems: Livestock Feed. Organic livestock must be While manures from conventional confined fed 100% organic feed. Synthetic hormones and animal feeding operations are allowed, high antibiotics are prohibited in organic feed; so are

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 15 plastic pellets, urea, manure, and slaughter begins with prevention. This includes selection of b y p roducts. Synthetic feed supplements and livestock species and type, nutrition, pro p e r additives are allowed only if they are on the housing and pasture, sanitation, stress reduction, National List at §205.603(c) or §205.603(d), and vaccination. There are also restrictions on respectively. physical alterations.

Living Conditions. When it comes to living P r oducers may not withhold tre a t m e n t conditions, the National Standard reflects the from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its considerable influence the animal welfare organic status. Sick animals may be treated using community has had on its development. Living natural therapies such as herbs, homeopathics, conditions must accommodate the natural flower remedies, essential oils, acupuncture , behavior of each livestock type. Outdoor access, radionics, etc. Synthetic medications on the fresh air and sunlight, and space to exercise are National List at §205.603(a) may also be used. required. Shelter must also be provided. It, too, All appropriate medications must be used to must allow natural maintenance and behavior, re s t o r e an animal to health when methods must provide protection from temperature acceptable to organic production fail. extremes, have adequate ventilation, and be safe. Synthetic parasiticides on the National List Some specific details include re q u i r e d at §205.603(a) may also be used, but they are p a s t u r e access for ruminants and provision of highly restricted. External parasites and other bedding, which must be organic if it is consumed. pests may be controlled using nonsynthetic pest means such as traps, botanicals, biologicals, and Temporary confinement is allowed only as mineral-based materials like diatomaceous earth. protection from inclement weather, if required for a specific stage of production, to protect soil Livestock treated with a pro h i b i t e d and water quality, or to ensure the health and substance must be clearly identified and may not safety of the animals. be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced. . M a n u r e must be managed in a manner that does not contribute to contam- ination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms, and USDA/NOP Organic Meets which optimizes of nutrients. Under Humus Farming ideal circumstances, manure is returned to the land from which feed is harvested, preferably on Humus farming is, almost by definition, a the same farm.[70] soil-based system of agriculture. As it evolved directly from humus farming, organic agriculture Health Care. Organic livestock health care has also been understood as “soil-based.”

16 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture H o w e v e r, since the 1960s, the meaning of organic has shifted to mean any production system that does not use synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or other prohibited substances. Reflecting this shift, the NOP has decided things like fish, shellfish, and mushrooms fall within their scope and can be certified as organic. Even more i n t e r esting is NOP recognition of soilless hydroponic production, which it indicates can also be considered for certification.

USDA/NOP Organic Meets FIGURE 3 the Counterculture Vision

The National Organic Standard captures ture vision built solely on whole food, fresh food, only part of the ‘60s–‘70s vision that Michael Pollan and no synthetic ingredients. While non-agricul- described. The National Organic Standard eff e c t i v e l y tural food ingredients are limited to those on the deals only with organic production – advancing a National List under §205.605, and irradiation is production system that is environmentally sound p r ohibited, there is nothing to prevent the and capable of producing abundant clean and formulation of what might be called organic healthy food and fiber. “junk food.” A number of organic food products might well earn that label, though there is no As for an alternative food distribution “organic twinkie”…as yet. system – the second “leg” of the counterculture vision – it is not addressed at all. In fact, at least Still, the counterculture vision of organic 40% of all organic food is now purchased in main- food and farming remains strong in the market- s t ream, big box store s . [ 7 1 ] Much of it travels gre a t place. And the struggle to sustain that vision is at distances from such places as South America and the core of debates over whether or not the China before it hits the store shelves. organic industry, and even the movement, has lost its soul in the wake of the NOP. As for the third “leg,” processing and handling are part of the National Standard, but the Regulation falls well short of the countercul-

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 17 USDA/NOP Organic Meets… Itself

The National Organic Standard contains a The latter definition is a well-stated defini- two-part definition of organic production. The tion for sustainable farming that combines the first part defines it as: a production system that is spirit of traditional humus farming with the managed in accordance with the Act (OFPA) and s t r ong vision and values acquired in re c e n t regulations (National Organic Standard)… The decades. The regulatory language of Part One – second part says that an organic production the National Organic Standard – must live up to system: respond(s) to site-specific conditions by inte- the spirit of organic embodied in Part Two of the grating cultural, biological, and mechanical p r a c - definition. This struggle, too, is about the soul of tices that foster cycling of re s o u rces, promote ecological organic agriculture. balance, and conserve biodiversity.

18 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture millions of Americans are buying organic foods. Notes Organic Consumers Association. www.organic- consumers.org/organic/millions033004.cfm. 1. Organic Trade Association. 2009. Organic Trade Association 2009 Organic Industry Survey. Organic 11. Hartman Group, The. Organic 2006: Consumer Trade Association, Greenfield, MA. Attitudes & Behavior, Five Years Later & Into the Future. As cited by: Organic Trade Association. 2. Organic Trade Association. 2007. Organic Trade 2008. Consumer Profile Facts. Association 2007 Manufacturer Survey. Organic www.ota.com/organic/mt/consumer.html Trade Association, Greenfield, MA.

12. Anon. 2009. Despite economy, consumers still 3. Organic Trade Association. 2009. Op. cit. are choosing organic. What’s News In Organic. 4. USDA ERS. 2005. USDA Economic Research Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, Service, Washington, DC. Massachusetts. August. p. 1. www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/ 13. Dangour, A.D., et al. 2009. Nutritional quality 5. Willer, Helga, and Minou Yussefi. 2006. The of organic foods: a systematic review. American World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Journal of Clinical Nutrition 90: 680-685. Trends 2006. IFOAM, Bonn, Germany & FiBL, 14. Excerpt from The Organic Center’s Web site. Frick, Switzerland. p. 28. www.organiccenter.org/about.mission.html 6. Information on the origins of humus and organic 15. Benbrook, C. et al. 2009. Organic Center farming was taken primarily from: Conford, Philip, response to the FSA study. The Organic Center. 2001. The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action= Books, Edinburgh, UK. 287 p., and Heckman, view&report_id=157 Joseph. 2007. A History of Organic Farming – Transitions from Sir Albert Howard’s War in the Soil to 16. Ibid. the USDA . The Weston A. Price Foundation, Washington, D.C. 17 p. 17. Baker, B. P., et al. 2002. Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)- 7. The necessity for adding or re t u rning organic matter to grown and organic foods: insights from three US cropped field became known as “the law of return.” data sets. Food Additives and Contaminants 19(5): 427–446. 8. Lowdermilk, W.C. 1975. Conquest of the Land T h rough Seven Thousand Years. Bulletin No. 99. USDA 18. Benbrook, C., et al. 2006. Joint statement on Service, Washington, DC. 30 p. pesticides, infants and children. American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium. 9. Dimitri, Carolyn, and Nessa J. Richman. 2000. St Louis, MO. February 19. As cited in: Scientists Organic Food Markets in Transition. Henry A. call for more decisive action in lowering children’s Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental exposures to pesticides. The Organic Center. Policy. Policy Studies Report No. 14. www.organiccenter.org/reportfiles/1581_Pesticide_Sy 10. Howie, Michael. 2004. Industry study on why m_Joint_Statement.pdf

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 19 19. Harder, B. 2005. Organic choice: pesticides 25. Coleman, Eliot W., and Richard L. Ridgeway. vanish from body after change in diet. Science 1983. Role of Stress Tolerance in Integrated Pest News 168(13): 197–198. As cited in: Williams, Greg, Management. p. 126. In: Knorr, Dietrich (ed.). and Patricia Williams. 2005. All-organic diet 1983. Sustainable Food Systems. AVI Publishing quickly rids body of (some) pesticides. HortIdeas Company, Inc., Westport, Connecticut. 416 p. 22(11): 121. 26. Phelan, P.L. 1997. Soil management history 20. Curl, Cynthia, et al. 2003. Organophosphorus and the role of plant mineral balance as a determi- pesticide exposure of urban and suburban pre-school nant of maize susceptibility to the European corn children with organic and conventional diets. borer. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 15(1- Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 377–382. 4): 25–34. As cited in: Anon. 2005. A predominantly organic diet virtually eliminates children’s exposures to two 27. Anon. 2008. Maize. New World Encyclopedia. common insecticides. The Organic Center. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Maize www.organiccenter.org/science.pest.php?action=view 28. McLeod, Murdick J. 1992. First-Generation &report_id=26 European Corn Borer Management. Ex8079. 21. Begley, Sharon. 2009. Early exposure to South Dakota State University Cooperative common chemicals may be programming kids to be Extension. . Newsweek 154(12): 56–62. www.abs.sdstate.edu/PlantSci/ext/ent/entpubs/ ex8079.htm 22. Bowman, Greg. 2009. Tiny pesticide exposure during can have long-term impact on 29. Willis. Op. cit., p. 17. female offspring. Rodale Institute, Kutztown, 30. Eliot Coleman, as quoted by Stoner, Kim, and Pennsylvania. Tracy LaProvidenza. 1998. A history of the idea www.rodaleinstitute.org/20091110/porter_chlorpyri- that healthy plants are resistant to pests. p. 4. In: fos_tiny_dose_pregnancy_impact_daughters Stoner, K. 1998. Alternatives to Insecticides for

23. Howard, Albert. 1947. The Soil and Health: A Managing Vegetable Insects: Proceedings of a Study of Organic Agriculture (1972 edition). Farmer/Scientist Conference (NRAES – 138). Schocken Books, New York. p. 12. NRAES, Ithaca, New York. December 6–7.

24. It should be noted that Albert Howard probably 31. Anon. 1999. Pests starve on healthy plants. developed his ideas on predisposition while at Ecology Action Newsletter, Willits, California. Cambridge, where he studied with H.M. Wa r d in 1898 May. p. 3–4. (according to Eliot Coleman, as quoted by Stoner, 32. Willis. Op. cit., p. 18–28. Kim, and Tracy LaProvidenza. 1998. A history of the idea that healthy plants are resistant to pests. p. 4. I n: 33. Mayse, Mark. A., et al. 1997. Field investigation Stoner, K. 1998. Alternatives to Insecticides for of grapeleaf sap brix levels and leafhopper Managing Vegetable Insects: Proceedings of a in San Joaquin Valley . Viticulture and Farmer/Scientist Conference (NRAES – 138). Enology Research Center. California Agricultural NRAES, Ithaca, New York. December 6–7).

20 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture Technology Institute, Fresno, California. 44. Scofield. Op. cit. cati.csufresno.edu/VERC/rese/97/971101/index.html 45. During the 18th century, it was commonly 34. Coleman, Eliot W., and Richard L. Ridgeway. believed that plants obtained all their nutrients, Op. cit., p. 135. including carbon, by directly absorbing organic matter from the soil. (Tisdale, Samuel L. and 35. “Phytamins” is an occasionally used term that We rner L. Nelson. 1966. Soil Fertility and Fert i l i z e r s, originated among soil scientists in the 1930s. While 2nd ed. The Macmillan Co., New York. p. 13.) its original meaning appears to be more restrictive, it It must be noted, however, that traditional organic is sometimes used to describe the whole range of farmers still place great importance on those organic beneficial organic compounds that plants absorb compounds that plants d o take up from the soil, believing from the soil. The term is used in this manner in the they contribute both to plant growth and health. context of this document. 46. USDA Study Team on Organic Farming. 1980. 36. Howard. Op. cit., p. 24. Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. USDA. July. 94 p. 37. Rai, M.K. (ed.) 2006. Microbial Biofertilizers. www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/USDAOrgFarmRpt.pdf CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton,

Florida. p. 252–256. 47. CBNS was directed by the noted scientist, Dr. Barry Commoner. It was located at Washington 38. Howard. Op. cit., p. 12. Howard understood University in St. Louis, Missouri, during the years cited. that some crops, especially crucifers, do not form m y c o rrhizal associations. He argued that non-symbioti c 48. Lockeretz, William, Georgia Shearer, and Daniel microbial complexes in the soil were still important H. Kohl. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. to plant absorption of nutrients, including larg e r Science 211(4482): 540–547. molecules of nitrogen-bearing compounds (p. 24–25). 49. Ibid. 39. Willis, Harold. No date. Crop Pests and Fertilizers – Is There a Connection? Midwestern 50. Ibid. Bio-Ag, Blue Mounds, WI. p. 17. 51. Ibid. 40. Scofield, A.M. 1986. Organic farming – the origin of the name. Biological Agriculture and 52. Ibid. Horticulture 4: 1–5. 53. Eliot Coleman once remarked that, considering all

41. Northbourne, Lord. 1940. Look to the Land. the public and private resources supporting conven- J.M. Dent, London. tional research, development, extension, and educa- tion at the time, having organic farms perform this 42. Scofield, A.M. 1986. Op. cit. well was comparable to pitting a professional football team against a high school junior varsity and having 43. Northbourne, Lord. 1940. Look to the Land. them split the wins. Coleman, Eliot. 2004. Indiana J.M. Dent, London. H o r ticultural Congress, Indianapolis, Indiana.

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 21 54. Wernick, Sarah, and William Lockeretz. 1977. outset and continue to oppose it to this day. Motivations and practices of organic farmers. Compost Science 77(6): 20–24. 63. OFRF. 1998. National Organic Certifiers Directory. Organic Farming Research Foundation, 55. Personal observation of the author while a Santa Cruz, California. September. research assistant for CBNS, 1977–1979. 64 .Consumer Reports. 2009. Label Report Card. 56. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton www.greenerchoices.org/eco- Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. September. 400 p. labels/reportLabelCategory.cfm?labelCategoryName =No%20Genetic%20Engineering%20&mode=view 57. Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin Books, 65. Koechlin, Florianne. 2002. Genetic engineering London. p. 143. versus organic farming. IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements), 58. USDA Study Team on Organic Farming. 1980. Okozentrum Imsbach, Tholey-Theley, Germany. Op. cit., p. xii. 66. Riddle, Jim. 2005. The constellation of organic 59. A very few synthetic materials were allowed by values. The Rodale Institute, Kutztown, most organic standards, though many of them would Pennsylvania. not even be recognized as “synthetic.” They newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/2005/1105/cons included things like seaweed extracts, which are tellation/riddle.shtml made synthetic by the extraction process, fish emulsion, which is preserved by phosphoric or 67. Rosi-Marshall, E.J., et al. 2007. in trans- sulfuric acid, and insecticidal soap, which was genic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream considered relatively benign. Most of these synthet- . Proceedings of the National Academy of ics were later included in the national list of the Sciences of the United States 104(41): 16204-16208. National Organic Standard. www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16204.abstract

60. Fetter, T. Robert, and Julie A. Caswell. 2002. Note: This paper produced a strong response from Variation in organic standards prior to the National the biotech community. For details, see: Waltz, Organic Program. American Journal of Alternative Emily. 2009. GM Crops: Battlefield. GM Free Agriculture 17(2): 55–74. Cymru Web site. w w w. g m f r e e c y m r u . o r g / p i v o t a l _ p a p e r s / b a t t l e f i e l d . h t m l 61. Lutz, Karen. 1999. Alar shifts the focus of public debate. (from: Pest Management at the 68. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Crossroads, 1996) February 22. www.ecologic- Principle. 1998. January. www.gdrc.org/u-gov/ ipm.com/pmac_alar.html precaution-3.html

62. While most organic farmers are learning to live 69. USDA/AMS. 2000. 7 CFR Part 205. National with the federal regulation of organic agriculture, Organic Program; Final Rule. Federal Register not all are happy with it. The organic community is 65(246): 80564. not now, nor was it ever, monolithic. There were many who objected to federal involvement from the

22 Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture 70. The latter creates a serious challenge for organic operations without an adequate land base. A number of confined feeding operations are certified org a n i c . The author is not aware of how the manure is dealt with, in these cases, to conform to the re g u l a t i o n s .

71. Anon. 2006. Nutrition Business Journal. Marc h .

About the Author

George Kuepper is currently Sustainable Agriculture Specialist and Intern Program Coordinator for the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Prior to this, he was Midwest Office Coordinator and Technical Specialist for the National Center for and the ATTRA Project,

George Kuepper specializing in issues related to organic certification, compliance, and transition.

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture 23