Organic Checkoff Program Advances
Can industry funds help the organic industry strengthen and clarify its brand for confused consumers?
BY SARAH SHEMKUS | Agroecology, Food Policy
01.17.17
01.17.17
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) today released a proposal intended to get more organic food
onto shopping lists and dinner plates across the country by pooling money from
organic farmers, handlers, and processors to promote the sector, educate
consumers, and conduct research on organic production methods. Once up and
running, the program could invest more than $30 million annually, according to
estimates by the Organic Trade
Association (OTA).
“We’re really pleased the USDA is moving forward
this well vetted proposal,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and executive director of
the OTA. “It is an industry self-investment that makes a lot of sense now and
will make a lot of sense in the new administration as well.”
The proposal appeared on the Federal
Register today, and it’s a big step in a process that has already taken over two years of
collaboration by multiple stakeholders. It also arrives at a critical
moment for the organic industry. Though organic food is increasingly
popular—sales were up 11 percent to $43.5 billion in 2015—U.S.-grown supply
isn’t keeping up with demand. Despite the growing market, the complicated and
costly process of becoming a certified organic grower keeps many farmers from
attempting the transition. At the same time, labels like “natural” and
“non-GMO” are sowing confusion with
consumers about the true meaning and value of the organic designation.
The proposed program is designed to address
these challenges.
Similar plans—called “checkoff” programs—have
long existed for commodities such as milk, beef, and eggs. Producers are
required to pay into a central fund, and the money goes to education, research,
and promotions—think “Got Milk?” or “Pork: The Other White Meat.”
In 2014, a new Farm Bill was signed into law.
The legislation allowed organic producers to opt out of conventional commodity
checkoffs and called for the
creation of an organic program if there was sufficient
interest. For the first time, a checkoff program could be defined by how a food
is produced rather than by what it is. OTA then submitted an application
in May 2015 to the USDA to get the process started.
Here’s how it would work, according to the
current proposal: The program, called GRO Organic (Generic Research and Promotion Order
for Organic), would be run by a 17-member board of directors,
independent of the OTA. Any larger business with an organic certification—from
the farmer who grows the organic cucumbers to the processor who turns them into
organic pickles—would contribute, unless it already belongs to another checkoff
program and chooses to stay with that group. Small businesses—those with less
than $250,000 in revenue—are not required to join but can opt in. The board
will be made up of a split between farmers and handlers.
“The entire value chain is inextricably linked,”
Batcha said. “Acknowledging that, the program is built so that everybody
participates.”
Supporters of the proposal include leaders of
Organic Valley’s dairy cooperative, Stonyfield Farm, Pete and Gerry’s Organic
Eggs, and Late July Snacks.
The board would run educational initiatives and
promotional campaigns intended to boost demand by helping consumers understand
the benefits of organic foods. Growing demand, in turn, should help lure more
farmers into making the leap from conventional agriculture.
According to the checkoff’s supporters, farmers
and processors wouldn’t be the only ones to benefit, however. Together, greater
supply and more efficient farming should make organic a more affordable option,
said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.
“Over time, real prices should fall,” said Cook.
“That’s a positive thing for consumers.”
At the same time, the program would conduct
research into areas such as farming technology and more effective pest control
techniques, making production more efficient. At least 25 percent of the GRO
Organic funds would go to local and regional research. These funds would also
support technical assistance, helping organic farmers improve their growing
practices.
Support for the proposal, however, is far from
universal.
“The concern we have is checkoffs have not done
what they are designed to do,” said John Bobbe, executive director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing,
which opposes the proposed program.
Checkoff organizations have a long history of mismanagement
and abuse, he said, pointing for example to recent
allegations that the American Egg Board illegally used funds to
conspire against the vegan mayonnaise company Hampton Creek. Furthermore, he
worries that the needs of processors and handlers could override the interests
of farmers—who have traditionally received a small portion of the profit from
the $40 billion-and-growing organic market.
Batcha stresses that the proposal is designed to
avoid the pitfalls that have plagued some conventional commodity checkoffs.
Board members are limited to two three-year terms to prevent any one person
from accumulating too much influence. In addition, members of the program would
have to vote on whether to continue the checkoff every seven years, to hold the
organization accountable to those it represents, Batcha said.
“Stakeholders paying in have the comfort that
they get to evaluate every seven years whether it’s working,” she said.
Still, some are skeptical of any program
overseen by the government. Checkoffs overseen by the USDA are not allowed to
disparage other products; some wonder whether it makes sense to promote organic
foods without claiming that they are healthier or safer than their less-pricey
conventional alternatives.
“You can be more flexible with your messaging
and even more efficient with the dollars if you’re not tied to the government,”
said Harriet Behar, senior organic specialist with the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES).
And there are alternatives to going through the
USDA, she noted. Pistachio
growers, for example, have formed a voluntary, independent checkoff
that is not subject to the same governmental restrictions.
The proposal released today will be open for
public comment for 60 days. Supporters are hoping the incoming administration
won’t do anything to interfere with the program.
“This is an industry that came to Washington and
said, ‘We want regulation so we can grow,’” Cook said. “That kind of
entrepreneurial zeal should not be discouraged.”
Once the proposal has been finalized, organic
farmers and processors will get to vote on whether to make the program a
reality.
“A yes vote in this referendum would begin this
grand seven-year experiment, to see whether industry coordination can make a
difference,” Batcha said.
No comments:
Post a Comment