2009 NOAP Summit Discussion Paper: Towards a National Organic Action Plan

National Organic Action Plan Summit Discussion Paper
February 25 & 26, 2009, LaCrosse WI

Towards a
National Organic Action Plan

TOWARDS A NATIONAL ORGANIC ACTION PLAN- Summit Discussion Paper

This document is dedicated to the hundreds of participants around the country who donated their time, talent,
and expertise to participate in multi-day dialogue meetings, numerous workshops, conference calls, or written
input to share their vision of the future of organic food and agriculture in the United States.
And of course, we all give thanks and acknowledgment to the family farmers who began, built, and continue to
innovate the organic production system in this country and around the world.

The National Organic Action Plan (NOAP) Project is a collaborative project led by RAFI-USA which provides overall
programmatic development and organizing support. Michael Sligh and Liana Hoodes led this work for RAFI, and
led the NOAP Planning Team (listed below) -- a working group of volunteers. This Team came together to plan the
Project, including the writing of this document (*denotes Drafting Team members), the Summit content and logistics,
and the planning for attendance and input at Dialogue meetings and the Summit.
*Liana Hoodes
*Michael Sligh Published By: Rural Advancement
Foundation International-USA
*Elizabeth Henderson, editor PO Box 640, 274 Pittsboro
*Jim Riddle Elementary School Rd,
*Faye Jones Roger Blobaum Pittsboro, NC 27312
*Harriet Behar Steve Etka www.rafiusa.org
*Mark Lipson Steve Gilman (919) 542-1396
*Lynn Coody Cynthia Hayes
*Zachariah Baker Brise Tencer

© 2009 Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA. No reprinting without prior permission.
2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 5
- The Method 5
- Why Now? 6
- Action Plans Elsewhere 6
- On-Going NOAP Dialogue 7

BACKGROUND 9
- Current Status of U.S. Organic Agriculture 10

DEVELOPING THE U.S. NOAP PROJECT 11
- Chronology of the U.S. NOAP Dialogues 11
- The Dialogues 11
- Summary of Data from the Dialogues 12
What is Working with Organic? 13
What is Not Working? 15
- Key Overarching Objectives from Dialogues 17
- Quantitative and Qualitative goals 18
- Draft Components of the U.S. NOAP 18
- SMART Objectives 19

NOAP - Priority Objectives and Benchmarks 20
A. Environment 20
B. Health 22
C. Social and cultural change 24
D. Research 26
E. Education 28
F. Organic Integrity: Standards, Enforcement, and
Compliance 30
G. Marketplace 32
H. Transition and Incentives 34

Next steps for the U.s. Noap 36

what you can do 37

3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This National Organic Action Plan Summit Discussion Paper represents nearly five years
of dialogue meetings among a wide cross section of organic movement and industry
with the express purpose of encouraging the development of a National Organic Action
Plan that reflects the passions, concerns, hopes, and visions of this diverse and thriving
community.
The true significance of organic agriculture emerges when we view it in the broad
context of its potential to contribute to reversing our planetary collision course with
the earth’s ecological carrying capacity. Organic agriculture offers concrete solutions to
many of our societal, environmental and rural development challenges today. Mitigation
of agricultural causes of global climate change, improved soil, animal and human health,
and improved quality of life, water quality, and rural economic development head the
list of the major contributions of the organic agricultural approach to solving the food
and fiber challenges of the 21st Century.
This paper establishes goals and objectives and outlines benchmarks for achieving and
measuring our collective and on-going progress toward these solutions.
This is not a scientific or peer-reviewed exercise but rather an organizing effort to
empower the grassroots to engage more effectively in reaching organic agriculture’s
potential. The real measures of progress on organic food and agriculture will only be as
good as our collective abilities to articulate clear goals, benchmarks and timelines:
Our central challenge is how best to continue the growth of organic agriculture while

Five major themes that emerged during the dialogue sessions provide an overarching
preserving organic integrity and retaining farmer and customer confidence.

and broad framework for this effort:
• To ensure organic integrity and continued organic quality improvements.
• To ensure a fair marketplace for U.S. family farms and workers.
• To ensure access to healthy organic food for all U.S. income levels.
• To maximize U.S. organic production potential to ensure an increasing U.S.-
produced share of the U.S. organic marketplace and ensure that each state
maximizes its potential to meet in-state organic demand.
• To move U.S. organic food and agriculture policy from its focus on the
marketplace to encompass the significant goals associated with the public

This paper attempts to reflect honestly what was heard during the grassroots listening
good, including social change, public health and environmental protection.

sessions, and will serve as the basis for setting priorities at the 2009 National Organic

It will be the guide for prioritizing the specific major objectives to meet the five
Action Plan Summit on February 25-26, in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

overarching goals for the future of U.S. organic agricultural development.
The resulting post-summit final report will be distributed to all dialogue and summit
participants and widely posted. It will also serve as the basis for further societal, policy
and civil engagement to establish mechanisms for on-going and measurable progress.
Michael Sligh, founding chair of the National Organic Standards Board and member
of the NOAP Drafting Team, reflects: “History will not only judge us by how well we
managed our resources but by how well we defended the opportunities of future
generations. Now is the time for us to set the course.”

4


INTRODUCTION

The promise of organic agriculture to provide integrated solutions to the persistent
problems of modern culture and the environment has inspired farmers and non-
farming citizens alike to join in a vital grassroots movement and a growing market
for organic products. Underlying this movement are shared values – respect and care
for the natural environment, the central importance of healthy soils for human and
livestock health, and humility about the role of humans in Nature. Recent research
confirms the grassroots faith that organic agriculture can help reduce world hunger
and global warming, that organically grown foods provide greater nutritional value, and
that family-scale farming can revitalize rural economies. The development of a National
Organic Action Plan has been a multi-year effort to engage the diverse participants
in the organic movement and industry in envisioning a future for organic food and
agriculture in the United States as well as strategies for advancing and evaluating
progress to realize that vision.
The goals of this project are to articulate a shared vision, set objectives and benchmarks
for measuring organic agriculture’s social and environmental benefits, and formulate
proposals for the future growth of U.S. organic food and agriculture for the next decade
and beyond. Just as important is creating a participatory and democratic process that
engages the organic community in defining policies on the federal, state, regional, and
local levels, as well as actions in the marketplace and in rural and urban communities.
Through a series of dialogues over five years, citizens from all sectors of the organic food
chain – shoppers, farmers, farmworkers, retailers, processors, educators and activists
- participated in creating this Draft National Organic Action Plan (NOAP) Discussion
Paper for the United States. Participants in the widely publicized and open summit
meeting in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, February 25-26, 2009, will set priorities among the
many proposals in this paper, and the public at large will have the opportunity to offer
comments and suggestions. Public review and reevaluation will continue into the
future.

The national dialogues were organized by project leaders Michael Sligh and Liana
The Method

Hoodes with assistance from the NOAP Planning Team. The agenda set the parameters
for the dialogues (see sample agenda, p. 12), but participants were free to bring forth
any topic or concern. Lively and sometimes heated discussions took place as the
agenda moved from identifying the positives and negatives in organic today to looking
towards a vision of organic food and agriculture in the future. The staff at each session
made every attempt to capture all contributions. With the goal of being as inclusive as
possible, the Drafting Team then took the many pages of notes and boiled them down
into eight general categories, eliminating repetition and consolidating closely related
suggestions.
The Planning Team put a lot of energy into publicizing the summit meeting all over the
country and to raising funds to subsidize the cost of attending so that no one would be
excluded because of financial constraints.

5


At the summit, participants will review, revise and prioritize the many proposals. The
process for the summit provides opportunities for all participants to express their
views, to engage in discussion with one another, and to come to consensus around
a final plan. The concluding session will be devoted to agreeing upon next steps to
maximize the usefulness and effectiveness of the NOAP and to energizing and activating
the participants and their communities.

The Planning Team decided to undertake this NOAP project for a number of pressing
why now?

reasons:
• Continued exponential growth of U.S. organic food and agriculture over the past
three decades,
• The far greater growth of organic acreage and production in European Union
countries where governments are far more supportive of the development and
spread of organic agriculture, and where action plans have been developed,
• Failure of the U.S. government to provide vision or leadership for growth of the
organic sector,
• Failure of the U.S. government and U.S. food and agriculture sector to develop goals
for the growth of the organic sector beyond retail/market-based growth goals,
• Desire of the grassroots voices of the organic community to be better heard in
federal, state and local policy arenas, and
• Desire to create an expanded policy agenda that reflects the broader environmental,
social, health, and economic goals and benefits of organic agriculture, including
access to healthy food for people of all income levels.

Most of the member countries of the European Union (EU), plus the EU as a whole, have
Action Plans Elsewhere

developed some form of government-supported organic action plans. In general these
focus on specific goals to increase organic acreage, production, and commerce. More
importantly these action plans create a broad “platform” and transparent process that
provide for the public review and revision of key organic regulations and legislative
mechanisms.
Some of the NOAPs have been “top-down” and government-led and others have been
“bottom-up” and grassroots-led. Examples of the “bottom-up” approach include
Andalusia, Spain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom (UK). Nearly all however result in plans for government action.
The UK plan sets targets not only to increase organic acreage, but also to increase the
UK-generated organic supply to replace imported organic foods. In 2002, the UK was
importing 70% of the organic foods consumed in the country; their NOAP set the goal
to reverse the percentages so that 70% would be UK- grown products. Other countries
have simply sought to increase production or increase acreage (or both) by a specific
percentage.

6


In its initial plan (2004), the EU sought to “ensure the on-going development of the
organic sector in the Community and also, through this development, to facilitate
imports of organic produce from developing countries.” [European Action Plan for
Organic Food and Farming, Commission of the European Communities, Commission
Working Document, 10 June 2004, p.3] Significantly, the EU recognized early on the
environmental value of organic and eco-agricultural practices. The EU plan states:
“where farmers provide services to the environment beyond the reference level of good
agricultural practices, these should be adequately remunerated.” [p.4] Examples of this
include payments for the creation of specific habitats of targeted species and support
for documented water quality protection.
In the fall of 2008, the EU began to consider incorporating organic principles in the EU
Common Agriculture Programme (CAP) to reach specific objectives:
• Ensure food safety, including public health aspects;
• Contribute to global dietary health to participate in world food safety;
• Preserve the equilibrium of rural areas; and
• Participate in the fight against climate change and for environmental improvement.
[19/09/08 IFOAM/EU Group Press Release]

By contrast, the U.S. government has been slow to acknowledge organic as more than
On-Going NOAP Dialogue

another marketing scheme. For example, the founding legislation, the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990, limits its purposes solely to marketing; establishing national
standards for marketing of organic products; assuring consumers of a consistent
standard, and facilitating interstate commerce. [Sec. 2101. [7 USC6501] Purposes]
In the present globalized food system, however, a focus on marketplace value does not
necessarily translate into growth in U.S.-produced organic agricultural production.
For instance, in the UK cheap imports have undermined domestic development. Most
importantly, focusing on market growth leaves out the urgent environmental and social
changes needed to achieve a sustainable system of food and agriculture.
The U.S. 2008 Farm Bill may have begun to broaden that focus through the introduction
of new federal programs that acknowledge some of the conservation benefits of
organic agriculture. Yet without a developed vision, piecemeal programs will be slow
to advance a comprehensive agenda.
The energy of the organic movement in the United States springs from local and regional
initiatives. While there are unifying principles, organic methods are site specific, no two
farms are alike and the many organizations promoting organic food and farming are
deliberately decentralized. The recent proliferation of “buy local” campaigns reflects
the success of these closely related yet autonomous efforts. Nevertheless, localized
projects and organizations often gain strength by learning from one another. Thus
developing a set of practical, effective, and strategic local, state and regional policies
will complement policy efforts at the federal level.
A critical aspect of a National Organic Action Plan is to establish the proper role for the
government in the organic sector, current and future. The farmers, their customers,
community activists and processors who came together to ask for a federal organic

7


program believed that the establishment of a national label with consistent standards
and comprehensive oversight would advance the cause of organic food and agriculture.
The energy required to move government agencies in a new direction, combined with
the lack of an overall strategic vision, has limited progress in realizing the multiple
benefits of organic systems.
As U.S. organic agriculture expands and matures, citizens must decide who will
continue to define what is and what is not organic. A successful, transparent and
participatory NOAP process can provide a way for citizens to periodically evaluate the
role and performance of the U.S. government, and to update and perfect U.S. organic
regulations and statutes.
The National Organic Action Plan Project is an on-going dialogue, in which the voices
of the organic grassroots from all sectors listen to one another in a dynamic process
that lays out goals for the development of organic food and agriculture in the United
States for the next decade and beyond.

Geographic Distribution of Certified Organic Growers in the United States
Geographic Distribution of Certified Organic Producers and Handlers in the U.S., 2006

Source: Organic Farming Research Foundation, 2007, by Jose Torres, from USDA National Organic
Program Data, using Google Earth software.

8


BACKGROUND

In the United States and many other countries, farmers and other citizens who
were determined to resist the accelerating industrialization of agriculture were
inspired to promote and define organic agriculture as an alternative. By 1972, the
adherents of organic had the resources to establish the International Federation
of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), which has grown to include over 700
organizations from over 100 countries. A central purpose of IFOAM was to write
standards for organic farming and processing in a democratic and participatory way.
The IFOAM Basic Standards served as the template for most of the organic standards
used today. The European countries were the first to develop governmental policies
and regulations for the promotion of certified organic agriculture. In addition to
the multi-lateral, UN-based Codex organic food labeling guidelines, more than 50
countries now have national organic policies and/or regulations. While organic
standards have not been harmonized globally, there is an increasing movement
in that direction. This may further spur worldwide growth in production and
international trade.
Global certified organic acreage has increased steadily at the impressive rate of 20%
per year, reaching over 76 million acres in 2008 with global sales of over $40 billion
USD. Sales of organic products have paralleled the expansion of acreage, growing at
20% per year for more than a decade in the United States. Even in a down economy,
this growth appears to be continuing.
The largest geographic
area of organic
production, as the
table on this page
demonstrates, is in the
Oceania region with
its large expanse of
pasture-based organic
acreage.

Source: Willer and Yussefi, editors, The World of Organic Agriculture, Statistics and Emerging Trends, 2007,
2007.

9


The United States remains the largest single-country market leader with over $16
billion USD in organic sales in 2007 and a projected continued growth rate.

The chart illustrates continued U.S. growth in the number of organic farms and
CURRENT STATUs OF U.S. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

acres in certified organic production. However, the United States continues to import
a major portion of its organic food and fiber from the EU, Asia, Canada, and Latin
America to meet growing consumer demand. USDA sources estimate the ratio of
organic imports to exports to be approximately 10 to 1. A major opportunity exists
for a much greater portion of U.S, organic food and fiber consumption to be produced
by U.S. farmers.

United States Organic Acreage

Source: Adapted from USDA/ERS 2005; Courtesy of RAFI-USA Archives.

10


DEVELOPING THE U.S. NOAP Initiative

In 2004, following a decade of advocacy for family-scale farming and small scale
certification programs during the development of U.S. federal organic regulations and
the 2002 Farm Bill, RAFI and the groups that formed the National Organic Coalition
(NOC) agreed the time was ripe for a more comprehensive process for advancing
organic food and agriculture. Tired of just reacting, they initiated work on a grassroots
organic vision, similar to National Organic Action Plans developed in the EU countries
and elsewhere. The early phases of this U.S. NOAP process focused on outreach to
stakeholders to develop an organic agenda for the 2007/08 Farm Bill, later broadening
the discussion to include goals beyond the federal policy arena.

2004 Pre-Dialogue Workshops
Chronology of the U.S. NOAP regional dialogues:

Input to Farm Bill priorities
2006 National consensus for Organic
Agenda in 2007 Farm Bill
2007 Regional Dialogue Meetings
2008 Synthesis and Draft Plan
2009 National Summit
Final Draft Plan
Final Document shared with stakeholders, appropriate officials, and
authorities
2010 -- 2011 Policy implementation and Ongoing re-evaluation
2012 Farm Bill Development

Beginning in the Summer of 2006 and continuing, through 2007 and 2008, National
The Dialogues

Organic Action Plan dialogue meetings were held in 11 venues, engaging over 300
participants from 35 states in structured discussions about the current state and future
vision for organic food and agriculture in the United States.
DIALOGUE VENUES
• Northeast Organic Farming Association meeting, Amherst, MA, August 2006;
• Oregon Tilth Annual Meeting, Salem OR, October 2006,
• North Carolina State Dialogue Meeting, November 2006,
• Southern SAWG Annual Meeting --Kentucky, January 2007,
• California Ecological Farming Conference, Asilomar, CA, January 2007,
• Pennsylvania Association of Sustainable Agriculture Meeting, State College, PA,
February 2007,
• Upper Midwest Organic Farm Conference, LaCrosse, WI, February 2007; plus an

11


update workshop in 2008
• Washington, DC Environmental Groups meeting, June 2007,
• New Mexico Organic Farming Conference, Albuquerque, NM, February 2008,
• Southeast African American Farmers Organic Network, Savannah, GA, April 2008,
• Expo East Industry groups meeting, October 2008
Dialogue meetings generally took place over a full day or day-and-a-half, usually prior
to/or following an existing conference venue.
These meetings have been genuine dialogues. Only one hour of the total was
presentation; the rest was facilitated discussion. The agenda allowed for celebrating
the successes of organic and articulating complaints about what needs to be improved
(See a sample Agenda below). The section dealing with the implications of Wal-Mart’s
entrance into the organic market guaranteed vigorous debate regarding mainstreaming
of organic as well as alternatives. The dialogue process built on that energy, taking the
discussion beyond venting and toward creating regional solutions, such as sustainable
food and fiber production chains and independent retail stores and cooperatives that
institutionalize regional and local buying.
In general, we found a surprising level of optimism despite the fears of a “Wal-Mart-
ization” of organic or declining contract/price structures. The role of organic agriculture
in addressing peak oil, global climate change, the
Farm Bill, and local foods as well as international food
security were a few of the hot topics. Sustainable family
farmers recognize that they can capitalize on the local
premium if they can offer products that consumers
seek and are willing to pay a fair price for. It is the
growing demand for local PLUS organic PLUS fair
trade that is igniting enthusiasm. The identification of
the many facets and benefits of the organic approach
helps guide the farmers’ struggle through the fast-
changing economic landscape.

The first part of each of the NOAP regional dialogues
Summary of Data from the Dialogues

posed questions leading to an assessment of the
current U.S. state of organic, using a variation of the
typical “SWOT” analysis: strengths – weaknesses
– opportunities – threats. It allowed for a full
brainstorming of what has gone right and what
has gone wrong with the industry, government
involvement, the marketplace and the system of
agriculture itself. This led to discussions aimed at
defining specific challenges and opportunities. The
questions were broken down into:
• What is working with organic?
• What are the challenges or problems?
• Specifically, what about challenges from the
changing marketplace?

12


• Specifically, what about challenges of re-inventing regional organic food systems?
• What are needed federal reforms based on this analysis
• What are the best ways to strengthen farmer and consumer voices?
In an attempt to synthesize this very rich and powerful input we have summarized
some of the major successes, progress and challenges ahead for U.S. organic. We hope
to set the stage and create a common framework to view the work ahead.

Organic agriculture has continued its very impressive domestic and international
What Is Working With Organic?

growth -- in acres, sales, supply, consumer demand, number of farmers, as well as in
institutional recognition and support from businesses, government, universities, and
civil society.
The growth and impacts of organic agriculture in the United States and around the globe
are emerging with an ever-widening range of benefits and successes and promising new
activities that are expanding rapidly and in very diverse directions. They range from
local to international; from health to social justice; from protection of soil and water
quality to biodiversity enhancement; from global warming response to addressing the
energy crisis; from research to education; and from all aspects of civil society.
Organic agriculture has now reached a new major international milestone in its
acceptance as an agriculture system by being recognized by the United Nations’
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a real contributor to addressing world
hunger and local food security challenges [Organic Agriculture and Access to Food,
International conference, May 3 – 5, 2007, FAO, Italy]. Organic production methods
are useful to all types of farmers in developing and developed regions, including those
who do not wish to become certified organic producers, by aiding them in production
practices that lessen dependence on outside inputs while improving soil, plant, and
animal health as well as farm profitability.
The benefits of a consistent U.S. nationwide organic program were initiated through
the enabling legislation, the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), and implemented in
the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) regulation. It defines the “USDA Organic”
label and regulates use of the word “organic” in the United States. Certification and
compliance capacities have increased consumer confidence, raised organic farmer
status, provided a basis for research funding, and helped expose more potential
customers to organic products. This benefit has been borne out in the political arena
with increased political clout and recognition, as exemplified by inclusion of significant
organic provisions in the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill legislation.
The 2008 Farm Bill contains numerous provisions that directly and indirectly expand
support for organic agriculture. Among such provisions, the legislation:
• Re-authorizes and expands funding for the national organic certification cost share
program;
• Expands funding for the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI);
• Creates an organic conversion incentive program;
• Expands support for organic data collection;
• Authorizes removal of surcharges placed on organic farmers for federal crop
insurance; and

13


• Authorizes funding for beginning farmers, farmers markets, value added grants,
breeding research, farm-to-school, specialty crops, and conservation assistance
programs, all of which are open to organic producers.
There is also growth and development of new organic infrastructure to service the
production sector. This is evidenced by the emergence and growth of such diverse
groups as the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI),
Organic Trade Association (OTA), National Organic
Coalition (NOC), Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
“Organic proves there is
an agriculture beyond the (SAC), Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF),
International Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA),
Organic Consumers Association (OCA), the Cornucopia
industrial model.”
Institute, The Organic Center, Congressional Organic
Caucus, Accredited Certifiers Association (ACA), National Association of State Organic
Washington, DC Dialogue meeting, 2007

Programs (NASOP), and eOrganic. These groups, and many others, provide services
to meet the ever-expanding demand for information and institutional support from
farmers, the market, and their customers.
The availability of and access to organic foods and fibers have expanded, along with
the quality, quantity, and varieties of organic food and fiber products. There is also
major growth in the scope of organic into non-food and non-farm organic products and
services (e.g., personal care, pet food, and landscaping).
Organic agriculture is now in the process of being mainstreamed in the marketplace.
This has important positive impacts by increasing access to greater diversity and
numbers of consumers, and increasing the variety of marketing opportunities for
producers. For example, organic dairy products are viewed as a gateway into organic
food for new mothers, leading to the purchase and consumption of additional organic
products.
The environmental and health benefits of organic production are now being more
widely researched, identified, and recognized, including wide-ranging benefits from
increased health of soils to the health of plants, animals, children, and adults. There
has been recent widespread recognition of the benefits of organic agriculture for
increased soil organic matter, carbon sequestration, moisture retention, and drought
tolerance, with organic being generally recognized as a ‘climate and environmentally
friendly’ way to farm. Emerging research demonstrates that organic systems protect
ground and surface water quality from pollutants. Organic foods are shown to have
significantly lower levels of pesticide residues and higher levels of nutrients, compared
to non-organic foods. Improved taste and nutrition, as well as expanding educational
outreach to families, nutritionists, and health care providers, are now being seen as
very important because of recognized health benefits of organic food, especially for
children.
Farmers are attracted to organic farming as a way to be good stewards of their land,
both in respect to those who preceded them on the land and for those who will follow
them. Organic agriculture gives them the tools and knowledge to enhance crop and
animal health and yields, while at the same time enhancing environmental quality and
improving the ecosystem where they live and work.
The improved quality of life of farmers, workers, their families, and rural communities,
as well as improved prices and the promise of additional market-based claims for social
justice and animal welfare, are hopeful signs that the organic sector can provide much
needed additional market protections for farmers and workers.

14


There is an emerging recognition of the broad-based societal contributions of organic
production, including a growing awareness that organic agriculture contributes to an
increased sense of community and a re-kindling of some basic social values, including
a better understanding of where our food comes from. This leads to an important
restoration of closer farmer/buyer relationships and creative new market chains,
enabling U.S. organic farmers to remain profitable in the face of global sourcing.
Because of these opportunities, organic agriculture helps draw both new and younger
farmers either back to family lands or as new entrants into agriculture from suburban,
immigrant, or non-agricultural backgrounds.
Many view organic agriculture as a hopeful direction for restoring culture and values
that have been lost due to the rapid industrialization of conventional agriculture,
contributing to a much-needed return to a “systems” approach to agricultural
production, and a critical shift from reductionism to holistic problem-solving in
agriculture. Organic production is attractive to researchers, who are expanding their
scope from input-based agriculture which studies only the efficacy of specific products,
to more long-term research trials that study natural systems and use this information
to improve crop and livestock production.
Consumer demand for organic foods and the resulting increased presence of organic
products in the marketplace has shown that organic regional producers can supply a
significant portion of the food needs for the local community, from fresh and processed
fruits and vegetables to meats and dairy products. Customers of organic foods seek to
know more about the farmers who grow their food and fiber, building much needed
bridges of knowledge and understanding between producers and consumers. Finally,
organic agriculture builds upon the historical contribution of entrepreneurial farmers
who led to the strength and growth of a fledgling United States.

Many of the concerns about the state of the U.S. organic sector mirror the successes and
What Is Not Working?

progress highlighted in the above section. Concerns about the “industrialization” and
“mainstreaming” of organic agriculture, and the many threats and pressures from both
the marketplace and government on the integrity of the organic label, are now strongly
being expressed. Examples of large confinement dairies being certified as organic,
changes to OFPA in response to lawsuits, the Congressional rider allowing “organic”
chickens to be fed non-organic feed (which was subsequently overturned before being
implemented), and overall concerns about lack of consistent NOP oversight, compliance,
and enforcement, all illustrate recent and on-going threats to organic integrity and
consumer confidence. The question of how close we are coming to a “tipping point”
where organic will no longer be viewed as the “gold standard” of the food system is
now being openly discussed, with the media increasingly willing to challenge organic
food’s superiority.
The overall low level of federal support for organic agriculture, despite progress in
the 2008 Farm Bill, and the key lack of federal recognition of the multiple benefits
of organic production to health, environment, and society remain major barriers to
sustained growth. In fact, the continued resistance of the U.S. government within and
outside USDA, to articulate any vision for the growth of organic beyond the marketplace
or any advantage of organic for the public good is a major stumbling block to significant
organic policy advancement. In U.S. government parlance, organic must never be seen
as better; it is only a “niche market.”

15


Additionally, concerns about farmer and farmworker rights, migrant labor, changing
organic contracts, and farmer and worker pay prices and benefits are now being
challenged with more public attention. The need to find ways to institutionalize fair
prices, wages and benefits, and to build bridges to the worker community as well as
the need to address scale, ownership, and control of the organic sector are all viewed
as critical to the long-term success and sustainability of organic agriculture.
Organic market concentration and increasingly corporate appointments to the
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) are new concerns for civil society and
organic supporters. The lack of continuous quality improvements in organic standards
and the difficulties in tightening federal organic regulations remain common
concerns. Especially expressed are concerns about organic becoming simply an “input
substitution” approach, rather than a holistic, ecologically-sound agricultural system,
when farmers and processors receive certification to the lowest enforceable standard.
The development and implementation of a functioning organic system, as envisioned
in OFPA, are at times viewed as impossible achievements by some, while other long-
time committed organic producers know this is the only way to truly have vibrant
organic farms, where weeds, pests and diseases are well managed and nutrient-dense
foods are produced. The lack of practical, transparent and participatory mechanisms
to continually improve the OFPA, the NOP regulation, and enforcement mechanisms,
are clearly major challenges and needs.
The NOP, as the only federally mandated accreditation body, has yet to produce an
accreditation manual, implement the required peer view oversight requirements, or
address many NOSB recommendations. The NOP, as accreditor, is not in compliance with
internationally accepted accreditation norms, such as 1SO 17011. These deficiencies
are all indicative of the many growing pains, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and lack of
political will impacting this relatively new government program and regulation.
All dialogue sessions, as well as significant numbers of other comments, have pointed to
the problem of an under-funded and under-staffed National Organic Program, its poor
record of enforcement, and the lack of clarity in specific standards development. Lack
of clarity and enforcement of the pasture standard alone has the potential to destroy
the high integrity of the entire label. Interestingly, while these items may individually
be on the road to being addressed, they highlight the potential for very specific federal
program implementation issues to define the success of the organic industry.
Concerns about the pressures, costs and access for small organic farmers and the great
need for additional technical support and education for new farmers, school systems,
and consumers are frequently expressed. The need for a knowledgeable, fully-funded,
and empowered organic extension-type service, staffed by organic farmers, non-
government experts, and others with specific organic knowledge is identified as part of
the missing infrastructure needed to more systematically meet the demands of farmers
converting to organic production.
These concerns, coupled with the urgent need for strategies to address and balance
the pressures between market/pull and supply/push while embracing our national
need to re-invent our regional food systems and infrastructure, are emerging as major
themes, challenges, and opportunities for the organic sector. Concerns about unfair
organic imports and trade are also increasingly heard.
The misconception that organic food fills a “niche” in the marketplace that is available
only to those who can afford higher prices contributes to blocking access to organic
foods by people of all income levels, compounding the injustice of the current “cheap

16


food” system. Food justice would demand that everyone, regardless of income, have
access to the most nourishing food.
The failure to adequately address animal welfare and food safety concerns, or to
respond to the growing number of “eco-labels” and “buy-local” campaigns also poses
major challenges for the organic community. The lack of sophisticated measures and
standards for soil quality, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration has increased the
push for private “eco-labels” and become a barrier to increased support for organic
production.
The perennial call for a research system that is more participatory, meets farmers’ needs,
and addresses demands to expand the current scope of organic standards, remain as
compelling, yet unresolved, challenges. There is also the broad-based concern that the
lack of holistic or systems research leads toward more “input substitution,” justified by
reductionist research.
The lack of organized political power for organic farmers, as well as the increasing
“push-back” from agribusiness due to the organic sector’s successes, is a growing
concern. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) contamination and threats to our
seed and food supply, along with the need for real GMO liability mechanisms, remain as
major threats to the future of the organic marketplace.
Many view one of the negative outcomes of the USDA organic regulation as the
prohibition of organic farmers to sit on their own organic certification boards. Many
viewed this as having “decapitated” organic farmers in the organic regulatory process.
This development has led to a loss of an organized organic farmers’ voice, since it was
organic farmers who had launched and developed many of the U.S. organic certification
programs. These gaps and challenges can best be filled (at least in the short term) from
the grassroots with regional and national structures being organized to provide greater
access, capacity, and effective collaboration.
Finally, establishing full-cost accounting systems to better quantify and promote the
real benefits of organic agriculture, and to highlight the real costs associated with so-
called “cheap foods,” stands out as a major challenge with great potential payback.
Despite these challenges, organic agriculture holds enormous potential to deliver
multiple benefits to society, the environment, and to the economic and social stability
of our food system.

The dialogues created a vast array of creative ideas and passionately held goals.
Key Overarching Objectives:

However, several very broad key goals emerged consistently and were repeated at
each of the individual dialogue venues, despite the fact that the results from previous
dialogues were carefully withheld and not shared during the input process to preserve
the authenticity of the data from each venue.
Some of the most consistent overarching objectives were:
• To ensure organic integrity and continued organic quality improvements
• To ensure a fair marketplace for U.S. family farms and workers
• To ensure access to healthy organic food for the entire range of U.S. income levels
• To maximize organic production potential to ensure an increasing U.S.-produced
share of the U.S. organic marketplace and ensure that each state maximizes its

17


potential to meet in-state organic demand
• To move U.S. organic food and agriculture policy from its focus on the marketplace
to encompass the significant goals associated with the public good, including;
social, health and environmental benefits.

Quantitative and Qualitative goals

• Organic acreage targets to increase overall U.S. organic acreage.
The dialogues identified the following general goals:

• Production targets – increase the domestic organic production share of the U.S.
organic market.
• Increase the number of organic products available.
• Increase the number of farms while maintaining the diversity of their sizes.
• Keep family farmers an integral part of U.S. organic production.
• Increase organic research.
• Increase access to organic for all incomes.
• Increase public procurement of organic products.
• Measure, maintain and enhance organic integrity.
• Measure and create mechanisms for the continual upwards innovation of standards
and for a transparent process for revision of the OFPA.
• Establish GMO contamination liability mechanisms.
• Institutionalize marketplace rewards for fair prices to farmers and fair treatment
and wages for all workers in the organic food industry.
• Establish rewards for organic farmers’ contributions to carbon sequestration.
• Develop infrastructure and support for plant and animal germplasm appropriate
to organic.
• Increase dollars for research that develops and expands organic agriculture.

The following categorized lists of draft objectives have been synthesized from the
DRAFT Components of the U.S. NOAP:

composite input derived from the actual dialogue sessions, entitled (“Developing the
National Organic Action Plan”) and were transmitted in a rapid assessment style. We
have taken the liberty of combining, refining and organizing the participant input by
the following categories and have added where necessary and possible draft testable
benchmarks and timelines for success.
Our goal during the upcoming national summit is to further refine, evaluate and build
agreement for a prioritized set of goals which are Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic, and Timely, or SMART. A well-defined range of benchmarks and timelines
is needed to evaluate progress. These too will be open for discussion and refinement
during and after the national summit. The finished product will be essential to conduct
periodic evaluations of the NOAP implementation and to trigger activities and/or
greater focus on where certain benchmarks are failing to be achieved, or where certain
objectives may need to be re-adjusted.

18


The EU “ORGAP” Project [European Action Plan for organic food and farming – Development of
SMART Objectives

criteria and evaluation procedures for the evaluation of the EU Action Plan for Organic Agriculture]
summarized a common framework for evaluating objectives – making sure that objectives should
be SMART – [ORGAP, No. CT-2005-006591]

a Specific:
Objectives should be precise and concrete enough not to be open to varying interpretations.

a Measurable:
Objectives should define a desired future state in measurable terms, so that it is possible to verify
whether the objective has been achieved or not. Such objectives are either quantified or based on a
combination of description and scoring scales.

a Achievable:
If objectives and target levels are to influence behavior, they must be accepted, understood and
interpreted similarly by all who are expected to take responsibility for achieving them.

a Realistic:
Objectives and targets should be ambitious while realistic – setting an objective that only reflects
the current level of achievement is not useful.

a Time-dependent:
Objectives and target levels remain vague if they are not related to a fixed date or time period.

The draft objectives with their and benchmarks are presented according to the following
categories:

A. Environment
B. Health
C. Social and Cultural Change
D. Research
E. Education
F. Organic Integrity: Standards, Enforcement and Compliance
G. Marketplace
H. Transition and Incentives

19


NOAP – Priority Objectives and Benchmarks

The United States government remains one of the last of the industrialized countries to recognize the “public
A. ENVIRONMENT

goods’ delivered by organic agriculture. The environmental and health values of organic production are often the
values understood most clearly by the public in and outside of the organic community. But, they are not formally
recognized through the USDA/NOP program.
Worldwide, nearly every government with any focus on organic agriculture lays out the environmental values of
organic alongside its marketplace value, and most distinguish organic farmers’ “services to the environment” as
major public contributions beyond what the organic farmers may retrieve in the marketplace. Governments often
acknowledge the need to pay for or reward those services as public goods delivered.
As increasing amounts of data accumulate demonstrating the quantifiable, long-term environmental benefits of
organic agriculture, as well as its unique ability to mitigate some of the negative effects of global climate change,
the U.S. Government needs to acknowledge and embrace these as well.
In the development of goals, mechanisms, and benchmarks at the dialogues, the environmental category spurred
the deepest and broadest discussion and detail. Implementation will require coordinated efforts to better define the
issues, delineate the values, and formulate the strategies needed to incorporate these values into both marketplace
rewards and governmental policies.

1. Use organic practices to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to 50%
Environmental objectives and benchmarks:

of 2009 levels.
2. Track and improve watershed health by converting farms to organic in key
watersheds by 2020.
3. Establish organic agriculture as a leading strategy to promote agricultural
biodiversity by 2020. Track by measuring key biodiversity indicators.
4. Link NRCS soil conditioning index to organic farm plans by 2012.
5. Create a baseline to track and increase biological system health on organic farms by
establishing measurements of biodiversity, habitats, ecosystems, watersheds, and
foodsheds on the local and regional levels by 2020.
6. Identify and apply soil health measures for organic by 2020, including soil food
web health measurements.
7. Establish baselines by 2012 to track and demonstrate pesticide use and exposure
reductions in the U.S. as organic acres expand.
8. Provide funding for a national pesticide reporting system by 2020.
9. Track the amount of nitrogen fixed from organic techniques and track the reduction
and application of synthetic nitrogen, as organic farming expands its contributions
to the environment by 2020.
10. Establish organic food chain energy audits by 2020 with goals of measuring and
balancing energy produced vs. consumed.

20


11. Measure carbon sequestration contributions from organic production and increase
carbon sequestration by 2020 through organic farming, organic forest management,
and grassland and pasture increases. Establish organic farmer carbon credit
incentives and rewards by 2020.
12. Establish baselines with sustainability and life cycle analysis targets by 2020 for:
• Packaging
• Distribution
• Transportation, food miles, and costs of transport
• Energy use – electric, water, manufacturing
• Recycling of agricultural and packing plastics
13. Implement land use planning which places high value on agricultural lands for
organic use in all regions by 2020.
14. Shift buffer responsibility for both GMO and chemical trespass to manufacturers
and/or patent–holders, to be implemented by 2020.
15. Pass legislation placing the liability for contamination with GMOs on the
manufacturer by 2012.
16. Implement regulations that better protect organic farms from contamination by
pesticides and GMOs by 2020.
17. Reduce runoff into rivers and protect groundwater quality through a significant
increase in organic farming by 2020.
18. Implement marketplace incentives for the eco-system “services” and stewardship
practices of organic production by 2020.
19. Establish the polluter-pays principle as federal policy by 2020 by instituting taxes
on synthetic fertilizers, GMOs, xeno-biotics, and other synthetic substances, with
proceeds used to fund organic research and market incentive programs by 2020,
(replicating the successful Danish program).
20. By 2012, establish enhanced producer payments
through the Conservation Stewardship Program, by
assigning points to raise organic farmer applications to a
“Organic as ‘climate friendly’
farming” California Dialogue meeting, 2007 higher tier, in recognition of the environmental benefits
delivered by organic management practices.
21. Move conservation set-aside lands, such as land coming out of the Conservation
Reserve Program, into working organic agricultural lands through 2020.

21


The health benefits of organically grown foods have long been appreciated and widely understood as one of the main
B. health

attributes that continue to draw new supporters to organic foods and remain a bedrock for long term supporters.
In recent years organic milk has been seen as a “gateway” food for new mothers or families with young children.
A promising trickle of new research, mostly coming from the EU but with a few studies at U.S. universities, is
documenting what consumers have long suspected: that organic foods not only reduce exposure to toxic pesticides
from the foods consumed but that organic foods exhibit nutritional qualities not found in so-called ‘conventional’
foods. In addition, the reduction of occupational exposure for both farmers and workers is increasingly appreciated
as a concrete health and safety contribution from organic farming. The U.S. government, however, has refused to
recognize this contribution in any way, shape or form. Both research and education are key to enabling the many
potential organic contributions to public health, safety and well-being.

1. Develop and implement food safety protocols that address specific scale and
Health objectives and benchmarks:

organic-appropriate strategies for farmers and small-scale processors to meet new
food safety requirements and compliance by 2010.
2. Commit federal research dollars to support major studies on the nutritional, health
and safety benefits of organic diet by 2015 and ensure that the results of these
studies receive wide distribution.
3. Federal Government to publicly recognize the positive contributions of organic
food to public health and safety by 2015.
4. Build alliances within urban health and hunger
networks and the progressive health community to
educate the general public about the health benefits of an
“Access to good food is limited to
those who can afford it.” organic diet, including support for organic as preventive
health care endorsed by progressive health providers by
2012.
Georgia Dialogue meeting, 2008

5. Change federal Food Stamp and WIC program requirements to allow food stamps
and WIC coupons to be used to purchase organic food nationwide by 2010.
6. Increase funding for and availability of the Farmers Market Nutrition Program
and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program with provisions to ensure that
coupons can be used for organic purchases, by 2012.
7. Provide health insurance discount incentives for organic farmers and consumers
by 2020, replicating Wisconsin’s example where insurance companies provide
“health discounts” to CSA members.
8. Require that food labels provide full disclosure of all materials used as ingredients
in production and in processing by 2020.
9. Combine required food safety certifications with organic certification by 2010.
10. Make the public case for organic raw milk and change regulations to allow retail
outlets to carry raw milk by 2010.
11. Implement mandatory GMO labeling by 2020.

22


12. Provide public funding for scientific studies on the health consequences of GMO
foods by 2012.
13. Provide substantive organic food in Senate and House cafeterias by 2012.
14. Establish organic farm-to-school programs throughout the U.S. by 2020.
15. Create additional focus on safety and nutrition of organic products through
consumer education and targeted market research by 2010.

“We need to grow cultural
crops – crops our communities
are used to eating.”
Georgia Dialogue meeting, 2008

23


This category is by far the most expansive, reflecting the broadest range of values and vision for where and how
c. CULTURAL and SOCIAL CHANGE

organic food and agriculture can truly reflect the heartfelt desires of the stakeholders, ranging from health and
education to reform of the entire food and agriculture system. Social and cultural goals reflect the range of what
captivates the imagination of what organic can offer.
These goals require many different mechanisms to be achieved: some are clearly definable, while some are more
difficult to quantify; all will need ongoing assessment to evaluate the best mechanisms for success.

1. Require the price of food to reflect the true costs of production: for all organic
Cultural and Social Change objectives and benchmarks:

farmers, the farm-gate price should cover the cost of production of the food,
maintenance of the farm, and a sustainable living wage for the producer. Establish
baselines and tracks to ensure that organic farmer income increases and stabilizes
by 2020.
2. Target consumer education at understanding the broader values of organic
agriculture by 2012 : e.g., Health and Justice, Nutrition, Environmental Protection,
and Social values.
3. Assure fair organic food access throughout the marketplace by 2020, including
“food deserts” where access to fresh and healthy food is lacking.
4. Rekindle the process of organic standards creation in the public arena by 2020 to
provide pressure for continuous innovation and improvement.
5. Convene organic summits every three years with government, farmers, workers,
traders, and consumers to establish codes of conduct to refine and implement
NOAP and to strengthen collaboration among members of the organic community.
6. Establish a real and enforceable ethical code of conduct for the organic marketplace
by 2010.
7. Increase attention/resources for smaller producers, with a focus on under-served,
immigrant, and limited access communities. Begin by implementing Small Farm
Commission policy goals by 2012.
8. Strengthen links between the international food sovereignty movement and U.S.
organic movement by 2012 to support the rights of all for healthy, nutritious food.
9. Adopt organic as part of real homeland security by ensuring local organic food
production and processing, including increased energy sustainability by 2020.
10. Strengthen organic farmers’ voices and connect to organic consumers’ voices by
creation of a National Organic Farmers’ Association, based on Northeast Organic
Farming Associations (NOFA), with regional chapters by 2020.
11. Build a broad coalition of activists to promote organic agriculture; train more
NGO activists to see organic as a career path; and build stronger links with other
movements, including energy, health, labor, transportation and ecology, by 2020.
12. Integrate organic agriculture as the vehicle for reconstruction of soil, ecologic, food,
cultural, and spiritual communities throughout the United States by 2020.
13. Broaden and measure the diversity of race, ethnic groups and classes of people
growing and buying organic foods by 2010.

24


14. Establish, measure and monitor the continuous improvement of labor issues in
organic food system chains, including access to benefits for workers on organic
farms by 2012.
15. Increase the number of types of farmer cooperatives and monitor and nurture the
growth and emergence of successful organic farmer cooperatives by 2012.
16. Create baseline data by 2012 to track organic enterprise
diversity, diversity of scale, and diversity of ownership.
“Organic is making the
17. Increase local and regional access to land and credit
through education of the banking community by 2012:
connection– ‘re-localize,
re-regionalize, and include Identify the best working examples, create a baseline of
current success, and track progress goals.
18. Establish an organic traders’ code of conduct by 2012 to
justice.’” Boston Dialogue meeting, 2008
foster international organic cooperation with the goals of fair access to international
trade, including no organic export or import dumping.
19. Establish organic garden programs in all U.S. major cities by 2020.
20. Form alliances with organized labor: push for passage of the Employee Free Choice
Act in 2009.
21. Pressure the Department of Justice to enforce laws against excessive monopolization
of markets through agricultural mergers and acquisitions in the organic sector by
2010.

25


The lack of high quality scientific information and its efficient dissemination are severe limiting factors for the
d. RESEARCH

improvement and increased adoption of organic systems. “Fair share” funding1 of organic research and extension
is a first critical benchmark for overcoming these limitations. While significantly increased funding is necessary
to catalyze the overall goals of this NOAP, it alone is not sufficient. To fully meet the need for the identification,
improvement and wide adoption of “best organic management practices,” increased resources must be employed
within a more holistic, systems-oriented approach. Expanded organic research must be more timely, participatory,
and based on real farm-level systems and experiences.
The historic taboo in the United States on conducting research for organic farming (which continued well into the
late 1990s) has ensured a very large backlog of research objectives to be pursued. The first (and still unfulfilled)
compilation was published in 1980 by USDA itself and then buried. Since then farmers and their organizations
have continued to assert and develop research agendas, with institutions slowly but gradually following behind.
Notably, the privately funded Rodale Institute has continued to carry on serious organic research throughout the
last 30 years and has the largest historical data set for an organically managed cropping system. The Organic
Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) produced the most recent iteration of national research goals for organic
agriculture. OFRF’s 2007 National Organic Research Agenda contains national research goals and objectives on
the topics of Soil Management, Systemic Pest Control, Organic Livestock, and Genetics. The publication is available
free online at <http://ofrf.org/publications/pubs/nora2007.pdf>.
The 2008 Farm Bill (“Food, Energy and Conservation Act of 2008”) provides a down payment towards the fair
share funding goal. Further increases to reach that initial goal will still require significant advocacy efforts.
What remains to be constructed is a system of agroecological research and technology development that is broad
and diverse enough that organic principles permeate the entire agricultural research agenda. Organic farmers
stress the need for more farmer-friendly methodologies and farmer-to-farmer peer learning modalities as critical
components of our future organic research. A robust organic research enterprise will provide solutions for organic
and beyond and systematically cross over into more conventional agricultural practices outside the formal sphere
of organic certification to enable improved family farm profitability and performance towards environmental and
climate change goals.

1
“Fair Share funding” means matching the percentage of institutional resources explicit to organic agriculture with
at least the market share of organic products in the U.S. retail marketplace. In 2007 the USDA research funding dedicated to
organic systems was about 1.2%, while the organic retail market share was measured at 3.5%.

1. Increase overall organic research dollars, based on fair share targets for organic
Research objectives and benchmarks:

research, so that budgets for organic research by 2012 are at least proportional to
the percentage of organic food sold.
2. Set specific percentage targets for organic research dollars tied to organic production
and acreage numbers, with built-in annual increases to anticipate market growth
and to reflect the environmental, social, and economic benefits associated with the
adoption of organic systems by 2010.
3. Create an Organic Research Service, operated as an NGO/farmer/Land Grant
University research, technical assistance, and mentoring network by 2020.
4. Increase funding for interdisciplinary research to meet the real world needs of
organic producers by 2012.
5. Provide ATTRA, SARE, eOrganic, & NAL AFSIC with full mandatory funding by
2012.

26


6. Direct funds and training resources to the NRCS so that staff, supervisors, and
technicians understand and are comfortable with a systems approach and the
conservation benefits of organic agriculture by 2012.
7. Establish Regional Organic Research Councils, using the SARE “model,” in all SARE
regions by 2012.
8. Target research funds to help with loss of certain chemicals as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) is implemented, with a focus on the development and
adoption of organic practices to replace toxic inputs by 2020.
9. Conduct objective, public-funded assessment of new and emerging technologies
(e.g., GMO, animal cloning, nano-technology) to determine
impacts on organic agriculture prior to approval, by
2012.
“We now have specific examples
10. Create centralized, searchable organic research
of organic farming measurably
increasing biodiversity.” database by 2012.
Washington, DC Dialogue meeting, 2007

11. Research that better differentiates organic from conventional product qualities
Specific Research Topics:

related to production practices.
12. Full-cost accounting to determine the true cost of food and fiber.
13. Research into nutritional differences in processing methods for dairy (UHT, HTST,
raw).
14. Value of carbon sequestration in organic.
15. Quantify nutritional and environmental benefits and link them with existing
benefits research.
16. Create and/or identify strategies, practices, and equipment to better manage weeds
in various organic cropping systems.
17. Public plant and animal breeding.
18. Research food safety connections.
19. Impact of organic practices on soil health, climate change, and other environmental
benefits.
20. Benefits of organic practices on various aquatic ecosystems and water resources.
21. Safe, effective, and farmer-friendly composting systems.
22. Organic no-till research.
23. Alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
24. Assess efficacy and impacts of approved fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides,
parasiticides, and livestock medicines.
25. Comprehensive economic analysis of organic production, processing, and markets
in the United States.

27


Organic education is the key to the expansion of the organic marketplace as it stimulates the growth of the next
e. education

generation of organic supporters, activists, policy makers, processors and farmers. Widespread understanding
of organic practices leads to knowledgeable consumers and producers who can effectively advocate for organic
integrity as well as increased organic food choices.
Organic agriculture relies on both the wisdom of past generations and the latest technologies. Since everyone in
society, as a consumer of food and fiber has a stake in agriculture, education about organic agriculture covers all
levels from kindergarten to high school, technical colleges to post doctorate, farmers to chefs, and food scientists
to consumers.
The success of the various urban school gardens has demonstrated that even those with no family ties to farming
are attracted to working with and understanding agriculture. Agricultural research stations across the United
States have begun transitioning a portion of their land to organic agriculture. Food technology laboratories
are developing foods that do not rely on synthetic inputs that are prohibited in organic production. Across the
countryside conventional farmers are asking their neighboring organic farmers to help them transition to organic
production. The opportunities to integrate organic learning into every age group, economic class and walk of life
are only limited by our imaginations.

1. Increase existing favorable perception of organic food and farming through truthful,
Education objectives and benchmarks:

appropriate and targeted public education by 2010.
2. Increase overall public interest in all farm policy (commodity programs, pricing,
etc.) through compelling public education by 2020.
3. Increase seasonal organic eating systems by 2010.
4. Increase the number of positive articles on organic agriculture by 2010.
5. Increase consumer clarity regarding the organic label by 2010.
6. Increase understanding of organic as a sustainability goal, including widespread
understanding of the multiple benefits of organic to society as whole by 2010.
7. Quadruple the number of organic experts at government agencies and universities
by 2020, with focus on experts who can help farmers and ranchers convert to
organic production.
8. Establish Undergraduate, Master, and PhD programs in organic agriculture offered
by at least 30 universities by 2020.
9. Develop nationwide locally-based transition to organic education programs by
2012, including farmer-to-farmer mentoring and farmworker training programs,
with resources available to underserved, disadvantaged, and immigrant farmers
and farmworkers.
10. Require land grant universities to teach organic agriculture and establish Organic
Master Gardener programs as prerequisites for receiving federal research funds by
2020.
11. Create an Organic Extension Service by 2020 with the missions of improving
connections for farmers to better access technical assistance and government
programs, and of developing more synergy in paperwork among programs.

28


12. Establish regional centers of organic agriculture training in all SARE regions by
2020 to focus on technology transfer, farm business management, season extension
and local food systems.
13. Institutionalize academic rewards for organic
inter-disciplinary and systems research, education, and
“The best protection for
outreach by 2012.
14. Train bankers, economic development
organic integrity is an educated
consumer” Wisconsin Dialogue meeting, 2007 authorities, and investors in organic agriculture and food
systems in all regions by 2020.
15. Establish organic curricula for 4-H, FFA, vocational agriculture, and adult education
programs in all regions by 2020.
16. Develop curriculum and establish pilot programs in all states, tribal lands, and
territories to teach children to grow organic food by 2020.
17. Improve point of purchase information so that shoppers readily understand the
benefits of organic food and farming systems by 2012.
18. Develop and promote cooking skill training courses in public and private schools
nationwide by 2020, based on organic products.
19. Develop and promote consumer information to increase demand for transitional
products by 2012, including technical assistance and public education to stimulate
the consumption of transitional organic products.
20. Provide incentives for Extension Agents, by 2012, to be trained in organic production
and to provide outreach materials and activities for organic producers.

29


In many ways, it was the need for consistent and enforced standards that led to federal involvement in the organic
f. ORGANIC INTEGRITY - STANDARDS, ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE:

sector through enactment of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. In fact, family farmers and their customers
continue to feel that high standards, which represent the foundation of organic agriculture, will keep the playing
field relatively level as they increasingly compete with large-scale producers. Prior to the implementation of
federal regulations, the claim “organic” represented continuous quality improvements of standards as producers
found increasingly better ways to farm in harmony with nature. This category represents both a desire to “hold
the line” on standards as well as a need to find ways to continue the upward innovation of standards, both within
and outside of government. This is also the category listing solutions and strategies for addressing the needs to
improve and periodically update organic regulation, statutes, and enforcement mechanisms.

1. Implement a system of universal interpretation of National Organic Program
Standards, Enforcement and Compliance objectives and benchmarks:

Rules by all certifiers by 2012 so that the standards and their implementation are
consistent. This would be maintained by members of the Accredited Certifiers
Association and the National Association of State Organic Programs working in
cooperation with the USDA NOP.
2. Establish a transparent and participatory mechanism for periodic review and
improvement of OFPA by 2010.
3. Double the number of NOP staff members with organic knowledge by 2012.
4. Strengthen (“standardize”) the accreditation process/integrity, by requiring USDA
compliance to ISO 17011 with a published Quality Manual by 2010; implementing
real peer review system for USDA accreditation program; and allowing “open
–source system” for multiple accreditation choices by 2012.
5. Create stable funding for a professional materials review process for petitioned
substances on the National list, including real sunset reviews of materials and a
clearinghouse for commercial availability of seeds and minor ingredients, to be in
place by 2012.
6. Require NOSB appointments to accurately represent OFPA categories, beginning
in 2009.
7. Populate the ranks of U.S. government agencies that deal with organic agriculture
with bureaucrats who understand and are supportive of organic agriculture in
2009.
8. Establish funds for organic product testing to ensure continued integrity, compliant
with OFPA and NOP requirements by 2012.
9. Establish scale-appropriate health and safety regulations for organic farms and
small-scale processors by 2010.
10. Exempt organic livestock producers from registration with the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) by 2010 since audit control system is already required
by the certification standards of the National Organic Program.
11. Implement state and country of origin labeling of organic products by 2012.
12. Add whistleblower protection to OFPA by 2012.
13. Establish 1-800# for complaints in 2009.

30

2009 NOAP Summit Discussion Paper: Towards a National Organic Action Plan

2009 NOAP Summit Discussion Paper: Towards a National Organic Action Plan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 2009 NOAP Summit Discussion Paper: Towards a National Organic Action Plan

Similar to 2009 NOAP Summit Discussion Paper: Towards a National Organic Action Plan (20)

More from RAFI-USA

More from RAFI-USA (17)

2009 NOAP Summit Discussion Paper: Towards a National Organic Action Plan