A Brief Overview of The History of Organic Farming

A Brief Overview of the
History and Philosophy

of Organic Agriculture
George Kuepper
Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture
2010
Copyright 2010
Editing:
Maura McDermott and Wylie Harris
Layout and Design:
Tracy Clark, Argus DesignWorks
For more information, contact:

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 Humus Farming Becomes Organic Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Genetic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
the United States has the fifth largest amount
Introduction
of acreage in organic production, following
For most of its history, organic agriculture

has been given short shrift. If they paid attention
at all, conventional agricultural institutions
treated it as an antiquated, unscientific way to
farm suitable, perhaps, for gardeners, but not a
Australia, Argentina, China, and Italy.[5]

To better understand todays org a n i c
phenomenon, it helps to know the origins of
organic agriculture and its evolution to the present.
serious means of commercial food production.

Anyone who advocated for organic farming was
derided; it was professional suicide for an agronomist or soil scientist to do so.
The Origins of Organic

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 organic movement were
organic acreage is growing. An organic industry
motivated by a desire to reverse the perennial
is developing that not only commands respect,
problems of agriculture erosion, soil depletion,
but now demands a growing share of research
decline of crop varieties, low quality food and live-
and educational services from USDA, land-grant
stock feed, and rural poverty. 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
agriculture is dependent on the long-term vitality
grown to a whopping $24.6 billion industry.[1]
of its soil. The soils 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
organic soil fraction called humus.
organic sector has been growing at roughly 20%

a year since 1994.
A soil management strategy called humus
Even during the recession
farming emerged, which employed traditional
year of 2008, growth was a respectable 17%.[3]
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 crop
than a decade.
residues, applying animal manures, composting,
[2]
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
certified production in all 50 states.[4] Worldwide,
other natural rock dusts to manage pH and
ensure adequate minerals.[7]

Since the strategy revolved around
soil building to nourish crops, feed the
soil became the humus farming
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 hworms, 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
(then emerging) strategy of using
FIGURE 1
soluble fertilizers, 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 nitrogen 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 pesticides were used to cut corners on
farmers felt that soluble fertilizers led to imbal-
biodiversity 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

believed that many synthetic fertilizers actually
harmed the soil biology either killing organisms
or upsetting the natural balance. They also saw
this danger in the use of pesticides, and chose to
use few, if any, of those.
Humus farming, then, was a conscious, wellfounded approach to farming and soil management. It embodied a commitment to sustainability
through soil regeneration; it sought to avoid wasteful
exploitation of natural resources. This was in
stark contrast to many of the worlds 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 crop rotation eliminating many of
resources.[8] It puts a lie to the commonly held
the soil building and pest control benefits that
notion that organic agriculture is simply farming
good rotations confer. The use of synthetic
as it was practiced before the advent of synthetic
nitrogen fertilizer, especially, would reduce the
chemicals.
inclusion of perennial legume forages and green
How Humus Farming Becomes

Organic Farming
The term humus farming went out of
vogue in the 1940s as the term organic became
than conventional fare is a foundational belief of

o rganic farming that continues to drive the
market today. Surveys continue to show that
healthfulness
is
the
main
reason
that
consumers buy organic food.[9,10,11,12]
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
ture was in the book Look to the Land, by Lord
healthy people were the basis for a healthy society.
Northbourne, published in 1940.
Northbourne
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 nutrients and energy in
farming method. They believed that soils thus
biological organisms a balanced, yet
managed would yield more nutritious food.
[42,43]
dynamic, living whole.[44] Therefore, the word

organic was intended and used to describe
process and function within a farming system
not the chemical nature of the fertilizer materials
used, and not adherence to a discredited notion
of plant nutrition.[45]
Is the organic community justified in its

belief? The answer depends on who gives it. In
the recently published article Nutritional Quality
of Organic Foods: A Systematic Review[13], the
British authors conclude that there is no difference in nutrient quality between organic and
conventional foods. This has been challenged by
Two Enduring Ideas about

Organic Agriculture
People believe many things about organic
farming. Some of them are true and some are
not. Some originated with humus farming and
persist in contemporary organic thinking. Two of
these are the beliefs that organically grown food
is healthier or otherwise better for you, and
that organic crops are naturally resistant to pests.
Both hypotheses are very controversial.
Is organic food healthier?

The belief that organic food is healthier
scientists from the Organic Center (TOC) a

nonprofit organization whose stated mission is
to generate credible, peer reviewed scientific
information and communicate the verifiable
benefits of organic farming and products to
society.[14] The TOC reviews support the British
findings on some classes of nutrients, but disagree
on others. Specifically, TOC cites considerable
research that shows organic foods are higher in
total antioxidants.[15] The British review generally
ignored this body of re s e a rch. TOC further cites a
failure to recognize the higher non-protein
nitrogen levels in conventional foods for the
hazard they present through formation of
nitrosamines in the human digestive tract.[16]
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 pesticide
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 chlorpyrifos
over time.
(trade names include Dursban and Lorsban)
That there would be less pesticide residue on

o rganic produce seems to be a given. It was re confirmed by a 2002 study of residue data from
and
long-lasting birth defects
in
female
offspring.[22] Again, the damage appears at

extremely low dose levels.
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 fruits
became another issue in the organic food quality
and vegetables and half the level found on produce
debate. The National Organic Standard prohibits
grown using integrated pest management.[17]
the use of genetic engineering in organic agricul-
The compelling question is whether pesticide residues actually have significant negative
effects on human health. This is not clearly
a n s w e red. The scientific community is most
concerned about the possible impacts on
children.[18] Whatever those impacts, several
studies do demonstrate marked reductions in
pesticide metabolites in children switched to a
diet of organic food.[19,20]
ture as per 205.105(e), where its various permutations are referred to as excluded methods.
The concern over so-called frankenfoods and
their possible effects on human health were
certainly a major factor in the organic communitys
insistence that genetic engineering be banned
from organic food production.
Do organic crops resist pests?

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, Albert Howard, writes that health is the
environmental 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
There is growing evidence that hormone-
in the soil. He goes on to state that vegetable
mimicking pollutants from pesticides and plasti-
(and animal) pests and diseasesare 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
the soil and its management. In other words, pests
susceptible.[29] If, as research shows, organic
and diseases may be considered agricologenic
crops produce more phytochemical 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 phytochemicals.
sustaining soil health, thereby reducing and even

eliminating most pest problems.[23]
Another theory about how predisposition

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.
forms 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
Therefore, they thrive on stressed plants.[30,31]
through the mid-1970s.[24,25] Subsequent inquiry

became increasingly bound to research on
organic systems. A prime example is P. L.
Phelans work with European corn borer that
found reduced pest damage under organic
management.[26]
A further theory links total dissolved plantsap solids to susceptibility and resistance. Higher
levels of sugars, minerals and other components
of plant sap are treated as indicators of plant
health and, therefore, improved resistance.[32]
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 natures 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 great
mechanisms of predisposition. One revolves
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]

S t ressed plants, it is argued, produce fewer
protective phytochemicals, making them more
6
If organic crops are more resistant to pests

and diseases, the root cause is most likely the soil
food web. A healthy food web leads to good tilth
are 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 nutritional benefit. Though organic agriculture recognizes that plants absorb soil nutrients in soluble
(inorganic) form, it places great importance on
the organic compounds chelated nutrients,
Earning Credibility:
Groundbreaking Research
amino acids, natural antibiotics, vitamins, growth
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-
phytamins contribute much more to plant health
al community. Few researchers would consider
and growth than is generally recognized.[35]
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
tions in particular.[36] 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-
Organic Farming.[46] 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
pathogens.[37] High-humus, biodiverse, organically
of farms across the country, toured European
managed soil certainly favors the survival and
operations, and produced a positive report that
proliferation of mycorrhizae.[38]
pointed to the environmental benefits of organic
As early organic farmers embraced predispo-
farming, its wise use of resources, innovations in
sition theory, it led to a plant-positive 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 problems,
better to the needs of these growers.
organic growers sought to change and improve
At roughly the same time, a large study of
their systems and reduce plant stress by improving
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 Washington
food web.[39] This is in contrast to a conventional
University in St. Louis, Missouri.[47] CBNS had
pest-negative paradigm that assumes outbreaks
acquired a multi-year National Science Foundation
In four out of five years, the lower organic
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
The CBNS study took a snapshot of organic

farming at a time before the organic marketplace
developed in the Midwest. Therefore market
most apparent when one realizes that all sales from

these organic farms were made into the conventional market at conventional market prices.[53]
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 growers
farm organically. Among its many findings:
in these studies cited livestock health, soil problems,
Though conventional wisdom dictated

otherwise, commercial organic farming of agronomic crops was a fact in the Corn Belt.
Organic crop farms growing corn, soybeans,
small grains and hay crops consumed 40% of the
energy used by conventional farms to produce a
dollars worth of crop. The key factor in the
accounting was the high use of energy-intensive
nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms.[48]
These same farms had 33% less soil erosion
than conventional farms, based on crop mix
alone. Though not quantified, almost all organic
farms had converted to mulch- and ridge tillage
to conserve soil. These practices were seldom in
evidence on neighboring conventional farms.[49]
and the cost of chemicals as their top three

reasons for converting.[54]
It is right to question how relevant the
Washington University findings might be to other
p a rts of the country, including the Mid-south and
the Southeast. Higher temperatures and rainfall
patterns that deplete the soil, resist the buildup of
humus, and increase pest and disease pre s s u re
hint at challenges for humus farming in the
South. They tend to buttress the conventional
wisdom that insists it doesnt work here.
However, prior to the Washington University
study, conventional wisdom also denied the viability and existence of organic farming in that region,
where it has ultimately proven workable and
competitive. No doubt, successful organic
Organic farming sequestered more carbon
farming systems in the South will look diff e rent
in the soil. There was no evidence of phosphate
from their northern counterparts, but to deny that
or potash depletion.[50]
such systems can be developed is premature.
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]
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
organic by neglect. Organic by neglect was
cant say that the 60s counterculture invented
precisely 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 environmental movement. Rachel

Carsons Silent Spring, 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 Omnivores 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 organically.
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-
quality, 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
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 supermarkets. 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 chemicals whatsoever, and those who were more
The Slow March towards

Federal Regulation
The growing demand for organic food in the
1960s and 1970s produced a more sophisticated
marketplace. Supply chains lengthened as organic
flexible using small amounts of agricultural

chemicals in limited circumstances.[58] Such
circumstances might have included spot spraying
of problem weeds, using an insecticide to rescue
an infested crop, or using starter fertilizer in cold
spring weather.
products traveled longer distances to reach
The emerging organic standards did not
customers. Third party certification emerged as a
allow these. All fertility and pest management
means of assuring those consumers that the
would be accomplished without these inputs.[59]
p roducts they purchased were truly org a n i c .
F rom this time onwards, unfortunately, organic
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 fertilizers)
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.

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)
Certification begins with the establishment
established the first organic certification program
of a standard that defines what organic means.
in 1973. Many more followed. By the late 1980s,
The standard details which practices, inputs,
there 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 residue testing.[60]
the certification agent. Those that measure up to

the standard become certified and can sell their
products as certified organic.
10
These differences led to complications,

especially for processors making multi-ingredient
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 Program
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.
Organic Regulations, which are the National
That issue was settled in the late 1980s

when an unrelated matter brought things to a
head. That matter centered on a popular agricul-
Organic Standard. The NOP is part of the USDA

and is administered under the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS).
tural chemical called Alar. Alar is one of several
The NOSB is a 15-member advisory panel,
trade names for daminozide, a plant growth
comprised of individuals from the organic
regulator used to regulate fruit growth, make
community appointed by the Secretary of
h a rvest 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
carcinogen 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) products
program 60 Minutes broadcast a story highlight-
prohibited, in organic production and processing.
ing the concerns about Alar.[61] As a consequence, market demand for organic apples, and
organic products in general, soared. While this was
a brief boon for organic growers, the longer term
consequences were grim as unscrupulous
marketers slapped organic labels on just about
everything. The credibility of organic was in peril.
The Alar Scare, as it was called, finally
drove representatives of the organic community
to Washington to seek regulation for the
industry. The result was the passage of the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.[62]
The process of drafting the National

S t a n d a rd was slow, but very public. NOSB
meetings were held three to four times a year in
various parts of the country in an attempt to
gather input. From that input, the NOSB developed a number of recommendations to the NOP.
According to many close to the process, the
NOP chose to ignore many of those recommendations in the first draft, which was published in
late 1997. The draft which the organic community had waited seven years to see was greeted
with outrage. The problems were many, but thre e
issues drew the most fire. These were the allowance
of food irradiation, sewage sludge as fertilizer, and
11
the use of genetically engineered crops and other

genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
An astounding 275,000 public comments
flowed into the USDA from the organic community. Since the estimated number of certified
U.S. organic farms at that time was only about
5,000, it was clearly the voice of organic
consumers speaking.[63] The NOP was sent a
clear message that this was a community not to
Organic Agriculture and

Genetic Engineering
he 1997 draft of the National Organic
Standard flooded the USDA with
275,000 public comments. The tidal wave

included a clear and resounding message
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

organic food. As a result, the National
A chastened NOP returned to the drawing

board and, in the spring of 2000, produced a
revised draft that was much less controversial
and largely welcomed by the organic community.
Standard contains a broad 86-word definition of genetic engineering, which it refers

to as Excluded Methods (205.2). These
After reviewing the second round of comments,
Excluded
Methods
are
specifically
a Final Rule for the National Organic Standard
prohibited 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.
(205.105(e)).
The clear and thorough prohibition
against genetic engineering surprised many in
the biotechnology world. They believed crop
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 Bacillus
thuringiensis, 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
in the field and had no compunctions about
control and manipulate nature.[65,66],
it.
Still, genetically engineered crops,
Furthermore, 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
It would be a simple matter to write off
that has been in our midst for less than two
the prohibition based simply on consumer
decades. Concerns have certainly been
fear of frankenfoods, not that this
raised, and environmental research is only
wouldnt 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 suggesting
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!
Precautionary Principle, which reads: When
However, the rationale for prohibiting

genetic engineering in organic agriculture
runs both broader and deeper than food
quality
concerns
consumer choice.
or
preservation
of
Genetic engineering
an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary

measures should be taken even if some cause
and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. [68] The impacts of
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
community, enough concern has been raised
solutions to complex problems; it seeks to
to prohibit their use for the foreseeable future.
13
Keys to the Standard
organic it must have distinct boundaries and be

buff 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 circumstances,
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-
C e rtification Require m e n t . All org a n i c

producers and handlers must be certified through
sprayed. However, much wider buffers are

usually required where aerial application is used.
accredited certifying agents. Certification is
Biodiversity & Natural Resource Protection.
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
Organic System Plans. Every operation

must submit an Organic System Plan (OSP) as
part of the application for certification. The OSP
details how the operation will comply with the
National Organic Standard. A complete OSP
includes all inputs to be used, production practices, strategies to prevent contamination and
commingling, monitoring
procedures, and
records to be kept.
rotation is one of the main supportive practices;

it is specifically required by the National Organic
Standard under 205.205. Since crop rotation is
a practice associated with annual crops, it would
appear to leave perennial systems without a
requirement or a strategy. However, the definition of crop rotation under 205.2 includes the
statement: Perennial cropping systems employ
means such as alley cropping, intercropping, and
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
Standard requires 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

compliance, and provide critical information in
the event of product recall.
For crop production, additional key elements
As for resource protection, there are several

provisions within the National Standard similar
to 205.203(c), which reads: The pro d u c e r
mustnot contribute to contamination of crops,
soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic
include:
organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibitLand Integrity. For land to become certified
14
ed substances. As in the case of land integrity,
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

the strategy.
Multi-ingredient pest control products may

contain only EPA List 4 and a few select List 3
Food Safety. Here, the National Standard

becomes quite prescriptive, requiring that livestock manure either be composted or applied a
minimum number of days prior to harvest; it
prohibits sewage sludge completely. The compost-
inert ingredients.
The definitions of synthetic and nonsynthetic
lack clarity. This has been discussed by the NOSB
for several years, but resolution is slow in coming.
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.
substitution the strategy of simply replacing
[69]
Seed & Planting Stock. The NOP made it

clear at the outset that it sought to create more
sources for organic seed and planting stock to
bolster organic agriculture. As a result, organic
production requires organic seed and planting
stock. Only if a needed variety is not commercially available, may the grower use untreated,
non-GMO, non-organic seed and stock. Annual
transplants must be grown organically, though
variances may be granted in cases where a farms
organic transplants are accidentally destroyed.
Prohibited Substances. The rule of thumb is
conventional inputs with organically acceptable

ones. Still, at the farm level, the issue of what can
and cannot be used in organic agriculture has
become the most compelling. The reason is clear.
A single misapplication of a prohibited substance
to a crop not only decertifies that crop; the entire
field becomes decertified for three years.
For those producers dependent on a market
premium, such mistakes can be catastrophic.
For livestock production, The National
Organic Standard contains additional key
elements. These include:
that nonsynthetic (natural) materials may be
Origin of Livestock. Essentially, 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,
are automatically prohibited unless specifically
be transitioned to organic milk production in 12
allowed on the National List under 205.601.
months. Poultry can be transitioned if under
While this appears straightforward, 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
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
Producers may not withhold treatment
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,
restore 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 required
at 205.603(a) may also be used, but they are
pasture 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
Temporary confinement is allowed only as

protection from inclement weather, if required
for a specific stage of production, to protect soil
means such as traps, botanicals, biologicals, and

mineral-based materials like diatomaceous earth.
Livestock
treated
with
prohibited
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
Waste Management. Manure must be managed
produced.
in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients,
heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms, and
which optimizes recycling of nutrients. Under
ideal circumstances, manure is returned to the
land from which feed is harvested, preferably on
the same farm.[70]
USDA/NOP Organic Meets

Humus Farming
Humus farming is, almost by definition, a
soil-based system of agriculture. As it evolved
directly from humus farming, organic agriculture
Health Care. Organic livestock health care
16
has also been understood as soil-based.
However,
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
interesting is NOP recognition of
soilless hydroponic production, which
it indicates can also be considered for
certification.
USDA/NOP Organic Meets

the Counterculture Vision
FIGURE 3
The National Organic Standard captures
ture vision built solely on whole food, fresh food,
only part of the 60s70s vision that Michael Pollan
and no synthetic ingredients. While non-agricul-
described. The National Organic Standard effectively
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
prohibited, 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
As for an alternative food distribution

system the second leg of the counterculture
might well earn that label, though there is no

organic twinkieas yet.
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-
[71]
s t ream, big box stores.
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
As for the third leg, processing and
lost its soul in the wake of the NOP.
handling are part of the National Standard, but

the Regulation falls well short of the countercul-
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
strong vision and values acquired in recent
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 prac-
definition. This struggle, too, is about the soul of
tices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological
organic agriculture.
balance, and conserve biodiversity.
18
millions of Americans are buying organic foods.
Notes
Organic Consumers Association. www.organic-
1. Organic Trade Association. 2009. Organic Trade

Association 2009 Organic Industry Survey. Organic
Trade Association, Greenfield, MA.
2. Organic Trade Association. 2007. Organic Trade
Association 2007 Manufacturer Survey. Organic
Trade Association, Greenfield, MA.
3. Organic Trade Association. 2009. Op. cit.
consumers.org/organic/millions033004.cfm.
11. Hartman Group, The. Organic 2006: Consumer
Attitudes & Behavior, Five Years Later & Into the
Future. As cited by: Organic Trade Association.
2008. Consumer Profile Facts.
www.ota.com/organic/mt/consumer.html
12. Anon. 2009. Despite economy, consumers still
are choosing organic. Whats 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,

Frick, Switzerland. p. 28.
14. Excerpt from The Organic Centers Web site.

www.organiccenter.org/about.mission.html
6. Information on the origins of humus and organic

farming was taken primarily from: Conford, Philip,
2001. The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris
Books, Edinburgh, UK. 287 p., and Heckman,
Joseph. 2007. A History of Organic Farming
Transitions from Sir Albert Howards War in the Soil to
the USDA National Organic Program. The Weston A.
Price Foundation, Washington, D.C. 17 p.
7. The necessity for adding or returning organic matter to
cropped field became known as the law of return.
8. Lowdermilk, W.C. 1975. Conquest of the Land
Through Seven Thousand Years. Bulletin No. 99. USDA
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 30 p.
9. Dimitri, Carolyn, and Nessa J. Richman. 2000.
Organic Food Markets in Transition. Henry A.
Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental
Policy. Policy Studies Report No. 14.
10. Howie, Michael. 2004. Industry study on why
15. Benbrook, C. et al. 2009. Organic Center

response to the FSA study. The Organic Center.
www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=
view&report_id=157
16. Ibid.
17. Baker, B. P., et al. 2002. Pesticide residues in
conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)grown and organic foods: insights from three US
data sets. Food Additives and Contaminants 19(5):
427446.
18. Benbrook, C., et al. 2006. Joint statement on
pesticides, infants and children. American Association
for the Advancement of Science symposium.
St Louis, MO. February 19. As cited in: Scientists
call for more decisive action in lowering childrens
exposures to pesticides. The Organic Center.
www.organiccenter.org/reportfiles/1581_Pesticide_Sy
m_Joint_Statement.pdf
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): 197198. 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: 377382.
4): 2534.
As cited in: Anon. 2005. A predominantly organic

diet virtually eliminates childrens 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
&report_id=26
28. McLeod, Murdick J. 1992. First-Generation

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.
fat. Newsweek 154(12): 5662.
www.abs.sdstate.edu/PlantSci/ext/ent/entpubs/
ex8079.htm
22. Bowman, Greg. 2009. Tiny pesticide exposure

during pregnancy can have long-term impact on
female offspring. Rodale Institute, Kutztown,
Pennsylvania.
www.rodaleinstitute.org/20091110/porter_chlorpyrifos_tiny_dose_pregnancy_impact_daughters
29. Willis. Op. cit., p. 17.

30. Eliot Coleman, as quoted by Stoner, Kim, and
Tracy LaProvidenza. 1998. A history of the idea
that healthy plants are resistant to pests. p. 4. In:
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 67.
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. Ward in 1898
May. p. 34.
(according to Eliot Coleman, as quoted by Stoner,

Kim, and Tracy LaProvidenza. 1998. A history of the
32. Willis. Op. cit., p. 1828.
idea that healthy plants are resistant to pests. p. 4. In:
33. Mayse, Mark. A., et al. 1997. Field investigation
Stoner, K. 1998. Alternatives to Insecticides for
of grapeleaf sap brix levels and leafhopper populations
Managing Vegetable Insects: Proceedings of a
in San Joaquin Valley vineyards. Viticulture and
Farmer/Scientist Conference (NRAES 138).
Enology Research Center. California Agricultural
NRAES, Ithaca, New York. December 67).
20
Technology Institute, Fresno, California.

cati.csufresno.edu/VERC/rese/97/971101/index.html
44. Scofield. Op. cit.

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

originated among soil scientists in the 1930s. While
We rner L. Nelson. 1966. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers,

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 do 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.
37. Rai, M.K. (ed.) 2006. Microbial Biofertilizers.

CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton,
Florida. p. 252256.
USDA. July. 94 p.
www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/USDAOrgFarmRpt.pdf
47. CBNS was directed by the noted scientist, Dr.
38. Howard. Op. cit., p. 12. Howard understood

that some crops, especially crucifers, do not form
Barry Commoner. It was located at Washington

University in St. Louis, Missouri, during the years cited.
mycorrhizal associations. He argued that non-symbiotic
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 larger
Science 211(4482): 540547.
molecules of nitrogen-bearing compounds (p. 2425).

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
Horticulture 4: 15.
52. Ibid.
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 education 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.
Horticultural Congress, Indianapolis, Indiana.
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): 2024.
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, 19771979.

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 Omnivores 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. Toxins in trans-
sulfuric acid, and insecticidal soap, which was
genic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream
considered relatively benign. Most of these synthet-
ecosystems. 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): 5574.
Cymru Web site.

www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/battlefield.html
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
70. The latter creates a serious challenge for organic

operations without an adequate land base. A number
of confined feeding operations are certified organic.
The author is not aware of how the manure is dealt
with, in these cases, to conform to the regulations.
71. Anon. 2006. Nutrition Business Journal. March.
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
Appropriate Technology and the ATTRA Project,
George Kuepper
specializing in issues related to organic certification,

compliance, and transition.
23

A Brief Overview of The History of Organic Farming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Brief Overview of The History of Organic Farming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Brief Overview of The History of Organic Farming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Brief Overview of the

History and Philosophy

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture

For more information, contact:

A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture

the United States has the fifth largest amount

of acreage in organic production, following

For most of its history, organic agriculture

Australia, Argentina, China, and Italy.[5]

serious means of commercial food production.

The Origins of Organic

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 organic movement were

organic acreage is growing. An organic industry

motivated by a desire to reverse the perennial

is developing that not only commands respect,

problems of agriculture erosion, soil depletion,

but now demands a growing share of research

decline of crop varieties, low quality food and live-

and educational services from USDA, land-grant

stock feed, and rural poverty. 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

agriculture is dependent on the long-term vitality

grown to a whopping $24.6 billion industry.[1]

of its soil. The soils 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

organic soil fraction called humus.

organic sector has been growing at roughly 20%

A soil management strategy called humus

Even during the recession

farming emerged, which employed traditional

year of 2008, growth was a respectable 17%.[3]

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 crop

residues, applying animal manures, 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

certified production in all 50 states.[4] Worldwide,

other natural rock dusts to manage pH and

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture

ensure adequate minerals.[7]

soluble fertilizers, which bypass the soil