Exploring the Meaning of Clean

Is organic the only clean?

Changemakers Day
August 29, 2008

A good food system will produce food that is free from poor farming practices that foul soil, water, air and living tissues of plants, livestock and humans. Although some do not agree, organic farming is generally seen as clean, but there is too little available and it’s expensive. Four innovators who promote clean farming explore tough questions: Is clean farming really possible? How do we measure clean? What farming systems produce clean food at a price that all income levels and public institutions can afford? Who shall judge what is clean enough?

Notes by Casey Walsh Cady, Roots of Change Fellow, 2007.

From left to right: Moderator: Michael Dimock, Roots of Change - Panelists: Linda Brown, Scientific Certification Systems; Scott Exo, Food Alliance; Karen Ross, California Association of Winegrape Growers; Jonathan Kaplan, Sustainable Agriculture Project, NRDC

_{Photos © 2008 Mike Kahn/Green Stock Media. All rights reserved.}

Michael Dimock, introduced the session, with a goal of answering some important questions, including: Is organic the only clean? In what other ways do we define clean? What is clean enough and who should be the arbiter of clean? How do we ensure that low-income people can also afford food that is clean?

Michael Dimock introduced the panelists and then framed the discussion. Here are his opening remarks. Slow Food has declared the goal of creating a good, clean and fair food system. Good means food has a welcome taste as defined by ones own culture and gives pleasure to the eater. Fair means that those who harvest and work the land or in food manufacturing plants are treated with dignity and respect and are fairly compensated for their endeavors. Despite what many of us may think, clean may actually be the toughest of these three characteristics to define.

On the surface it means food results from farming practices that do not foul soil, water, air and living tissues of plants, livestock and humans. But how do we measure this? Science and experience tells us that in certain cases long time frames are required to know the true costs and impacts of a farming practice. The world is full of battles between farmers and environmentalists each claiming their science supports their position on a given pesticide or chemical input. Although some will not agree, organic farming is generally seen as the cleanest, but there is still too little available and it is perceived as too expensive for many people. So if we all agree that today not enough farming is clean enough, what options do we have to move forward? How do engage producer resistance to wider and faster adoption of clean farming in order to lower their risks and enhance the rewards? The panel is aware of many options, many ways of thinking about this issue.

Question 1 – How would you define the meaning of clean? Is it possible to achieve over the long term?

Karen Ross admitted that she did not know and that for her, its best to examine the entire system – and that it should be looked at as a continuum. An important element is transparency – and defining the characteristics – which then allow people to make informed decisions. From her perspective – organic farming is too prescriptive – and does not include ethics, energy and sourcing/purchasing. She acknowledged that we need many choices to address diverse populations. But the fundamental element is the willingness for a grower to document his or her practices and make them available.

Jonathan Kaplan stated that he agreed with Karen – and that he is reluctant to define “clean” – he thinks it might be better approach to focus on “cleaner” – with recognition of cleanest - where there are less inputs such as water, fertilizer and pesticides.

He acknowledged that we need measurements of how clean food is. We need to create a system where there is an incentive to be cleaner – which is a moving target. In terms of scale – it can be done but currently organic production is not a significant number of acres. We need to transform the majority of acres. We also need to work at different scales - in California, greater than 70% of farms are 500 acres or larger.

_{© Mike Kahn/Green Stock Media}

Question 2 - Are certification systems helping to provide access to clean food?

Linda Brown replied that the term clean is imprecise – and lacks technical definitions. Need to define terms – especially when they come into the marketplace. SCS developed the “Nutriclean” systems which detects pesticide residues – this is widely used in the industry and has brought cleaner food to a broad population of consumers.

Scott Exo said Food Alliance has developed certifications system that is being embraced by growers and buyers at greater scales. Institutional purchasers of their certified products currently include Kaiser Permanente, Bon Appetit, Burgerville, and Sodexho. So more and more consumers are able to access sustainably certified products. That said, Scott questioned whether ensuring access to lower income consumers is their obligation.
Scott feels that is not fair or reasonable to ask us to compete on price – the problem of income distribution should not be solved on the backs of farmers and farmworkers.

Question 3 – Who is the judge? Who decides whether something is clean enough?
The panelists varied in their responses to this question. Mr. Kaplan suggested that a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed – while Ms. Ross felt that an agreement on the definition was needed first. If prescriptive remedies are instituted – then it will stifle creativity and innovation – and an effort towards continuous improvement. Mr. Exo argued that the market would be the ultimate arbiter in this discussion and sustainability should not be perceived as an endpoint. Transparency, traceability, accountability were all critical elements. He believes “we are all tilting at windmills if we think there will be a single definition of sustainability in agriculture”.

Question 4 – How will this transition occur?
Sustainability is about making decisions based on good economic sense – and the essence of farming is constant innovation.

Mr. Kaplan said that some gains are more easily made then others – i.e. the idea of low-hanging fruit – and sometimes those result in saving money for farmers. However, we will need to be creative about how we reward those farmers who choose sustainability pathways.

Mr. Exo agreed that farmers are often the key innovators – the key to the past success in agriculture has generally been about increasing yields. We will need to extend the need to innovate based on saving water and energy – and building soil organic matter. For example – Country Natural Beef has built solid markets based on sustainability and now we see younger ranchers retuning to the business – they see opportunity where they did not before.

Audience Question – What do we do about differing definitions?
Ms. Brown argued that when the consumer encounters confusion in the marketplace - it results in chaos. The National Organic Program was able to create a common reference – we will need a common framework.

Audience Question – Presidia project related to Gravenstein apples – they are an endangered food in Sonoma County – but farmers have difficulty growing then without chemical inputs – yet some consumers (co-producers) say they won’t purchase any item that is not organic. What to do?

Audience Question – Is organic the “cleanest”?
Mr. Kaplan said that from the perspective of wildlife habitat, worker safety and protection and soil conservation and erosion – then he would agree that organic is the cleanest.

Paul Dolan, session attendee, commented that from his perspective - you need to shift to systems thinking – and stand inside the paradigm we are in – we are in a biological system – and need to enhance the overall quality of life.

Cliff Ohmart, session attendee, took issues with the prescriptive nature of organics, arguing that there are currently on the market safe materials that are very effective – yet that are prohibited under organic rules.

Mark Rentz with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation stated that in discussing the meaning of clean – noone brings up the acceptable level of risk. This is the science-based approach DPR uses when establishing regulations. He asked the audience to consider whether risk matters.

Michael Dimock noted that where do we go from here? Organic agriculture as it is set up now, does not touch climate or water – two huge challenges.

Notes by Karen Schmidt, Roots of Change Fellow 2008

Consumers need transparency – give them information about the continuum of choices (i.e., labeling)
Focus on “cleaner”, recognize the “cleanest” – but don’t box in what “clean” means. Defining the ideal leaves most of the industry behind, defining it as what most farmers are doing now sets the bar too low.
Redefining food access – the issue is not that clean food is too expensive, but that people are too poor. It’s an income issue.
What is “clean enough”? It’s not just an environmental question, it’s an economic issue. Need to raise the bar rationally over time so industry can keep up.·
There are “clean” practices that save money, others that are a steeper hill to climb.
Organic certification doesn’t tell us how we’re doing on water and climate, or on social justice issues.
Paul Dolan: “organic” is an extension of reductionist thinking; we need to shift to biological systems thinking.