Organic certification is totally a marketing decision. Paying the fees, doing the paperwork, being inspected... is not what makes one's orchard "organic" or "holistic" or what have you. I have problems with USDA involvement in certification as some of the rules bypass (in my opinion) what makes for healthy fruit growing. This comment from Emily Brown-Rosen seems like a good spark to start some conversation:

My NJ grower claims in his discussion at the international dwarf fruit tree meetings, that organic growers in WA and CA are: fumigating with prohibited materials, fertilizing heavily with synthetic fertilizers, then planting organic blocks and installing treated posts, before getting certified. Then waiting 3 years for first organic crop. And in cases where replanting is needed, blocks are pulled out of organic production, then fumigated and fertilized again before replanting, with another 3 year wait. This seems pretty contrary to organic principles, but I guess the NOP standards do not forbid it. Have others heard this too? Is this common in the east too?

I have been shopping for organic trellis posts and have been told straight out (by manufacturers) to use CCA posts and partake in the three-year dodge. The hear-say is that everybody does it in conventional organic - "you'd be a fool not to". I am not surprised about the fumigation and fertilization although I suspect the word fertilizing in this context means general soil amendment. Needless to say we here ended up deciding on Best Angle metal posts for this year's trellis. The three-year dodge is organic in the US of A. One day I would like to fly to Chile and find out what organic means to them, in practice, since a lot of organic supermarket apples seem to have that country of origin.

I'm hoping not to hang myself here, since I work for the Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association (MOFGA), but I'll give my thoughts. I know of a few farmers who were certified organic prior to the USDA's implementation of its National Organic Production (NOP) rule in 2002, but no longer are due to disputes with parts of the rule or in objection to the USDA's involvement. They still farm "organically" and within the rules, but don't want the USDA's name associated with their products. Unfortunately, I have met a couple farmers who are certified organic solely for a share of the market, in my opinion, and don't seem to care about the bigger picture of sustainability or ecology or environmental impact. Fortunately, the vast majority of farmers I've met while working for MOFGA are very concerned about these issues and farm "organically" primarily based on personal ethics and beliefs, rather than price per pound at market. As for the NOP rule, 36 months since the last use of a prohibited material is the waiting period for certification. So the above comment about growers in the northwest is within the rule, though it doesn't seem right. At least not to me. Maybe the rule for land should be more similar to the organic rule for livestock. If you have a cow that is part of a certified herd and take it out of organic production for some reason, that cow can never regain its certified organic status. This may be a bit more drastic for certified land, especially if it changes hands over time, but maybe it should apply to land owned by the same person, which would eliminate the northwest scenario. I don't seem to have any answers, just more questions. Also, I think pressure-treated posts would have to be removed.

It seems that we face many of the same issues here in Tasmania. Some organic farmers are simply in it for the $$$ and not really concerned with the holistic approach, some are what I call organic by default, i.e., they do minimal, or in some cases and crops, no inputs and simply farm in a different part of the land each year (not orchards). Having said that some, like yourselves, are really putting in the effort and working in a holistic way because of their beliefs - many of which, like ourselves, do not go for certification. I have similar concerns with the ethics of some that are "organic" here and finding loopholes in the system.

How sad for them! I suspect that after several years of using organic methods they will start to come around. I have seen dairy farmers switch to organic for purely financial reasons. Two years later they are the hardest of the hard core organic! It's mostly because they see such an improvement in their herd health. Since the conversion to organic orcharding tends to be much more of a "substitution" kind, it may take the apple growers longer. Maybe in a few more years they'll drop the treated posts altogether and start growing some bigger trees....

I was having a laugh the other day thinking that a label on my boxes, "UnCertified Organic", would mean more than the inverse because it shows the grower cares and is personally standing behind the product.

I couldn't agree more with the frustration vented above. I'd like to add a few points I feel might be helpful, and hopeful. First off, I felt some aggravation last year when I received a bulletin from NOFA Vermont (I am a certified organic grower) which stated the following: ... Vermont Organic Farmers' (received) recent authorization to issue export certificates to Taiwan and Japan. What does this mean for your business? If you are interested in exporting organic products to Taiwan and/or Japan, VOF is now able to authorize this process for you. Bla Bla Bla....(bla bla's mine). Counter this with Britian's Soil Association (organic certifying agency) fight to disallow organic labeling on organically grown foods air freighted into the country on the grounds that it didn't make any damn sense in terms of sustainability. It did allow it in the end, but only after a consideration of the survival and health of those growers in hardship countries like Africa. (60 million people in Africa are poisoned with conventional pesticides each year). Importers have to show standards meet Ethical Trade or Fairtrade Foundation standards. So, obvious inconsistencies abound, but under some of the rocks we find folks trying to make improvements to their world. Here's another one to consider: Organically allowable and potentially dangerous substances like copper, sulfur, maybe even e-coli laden manure get people up in arms, but what about the things that current organic standards do not allow. The following are USDA figures, not normally the champion of safe eating by a long shot : USDA study found 36 different chemical residues on ONE apple Children 5 and under are have 2900 pesticide exposures a year Over 130,000 children consume pesticides exceeding FDA safe levels each day Over 13,500 children consume 10 TIMES the FDA safe level of pesticides each day 610,000 children consume an amount of neurotoxic organophosphates regarded as unsafe by the FDA My point, we have a flawed system, but we also have one organized entity that seeks to do some improving in the way we eat. I have BIG problems with those who see the organics movement as a way to make a buck, like thousand acre organic farms, Wallmart organics, and multizillion dollar organic yogurt concerns. I see hypocracy in organic plastic mulch on strawberries, huge organic diesel tractors, and cute little bags of organic ammendments. HOWEVER, as I have said before it is the low bar, this organic label. It gives a big pile of people (who don't know much about the food system) at least some assurance via a group of basic guidelines. Yes I know plenty of people who would try a trick mentioned above, and I know downright cheaters. There will always be these guys and gals in every facet of our lives. Regarding the standards, well, it reminds me of the political environment, or school budget meetings, or club criteria. When you get more than exactly one human together, you get different points of view..like in this forum. I will bet if just we nic folks in this forum decided to come up with our own standards, like what Michael's beginnings with holistics is, I bet dollars to organic donuts there would be contention. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea, or that it wouldn't be meaningful, just that every point would not be embraced by all. We have a LOOOONG way to go to purity, so I think it would be healthy to look ahead at what we can do to make things better and let those institutions that are making things only a tiny bit better go about their business. The current public, if convinced that Organic is meaningless, do you really think they are going to start buying things with a fringe label instead? Unlikely. I am not sure about the rest of the world, but I feel I know Americans. They are going to throw up their hands, feel duped and go back to buying the cheapest apple in the bin.

The "Organic" food movement, like much of the "Green" movement has been completely co-opted at this point by those looking to make money from them. The reality is that the future of either of them will have little to do with human and environmental health as they are both cheapened and diluted by those who now own the rights to these terms (big ag,USDA) and are positioned to make piles of money from them. Conventional wisdom says that once we have organic everything, we are all done and the environment is saved. As we know (for we here are smart...and pretty) organic is not the Holy Grail the marketers would like people to think it is, it is really only one of the first waypoints on a long journey towards true sustainability. There are many pro organic farming groups out there now, who, I feel have been putting too much of their weight behind the certification process and are getting themselves into a position where they could end up losing what clout they have. What they fought for will slowly end up being controlled by those with the big ag money, versus idealistic local growers who brought it into being. I feel as though the local part of the organic food movement sits precariously on our laurels and could be knocked off by mega-organic farms. It is a hard shift, but these regional grower groups as well as the individual farmer/growers need to move beyond organic and not let "us" get labeled by "them" as not doing or offering anything different then they have. Organic was a nice pitstop, lets keep going.

There is a lot about certification that isn't too good but that is the same with any certification scheme. My own personal gripe is that energy is not in there as part of the equation. What certification does however, is provide a discipline. It helps stop use of non authorised inputs "only this once". With regards to CCA posts I have been steadily pulling out a conventional boysenberry garden and have a stack of old posts. I would argue that it is much better for me to reuse these posts in my organic orchard that to sell them on to someone else and use new, high embodied energy metal posts. Disposal of the posts would be an even worse option. In such cases I feel the rules are a ass.

Organic certification I'm sure must be good for something but after looking over the 30 plus pages of forms I would have to fill out I decided that spending those hours studying was time better spent. My own opinion is that the organic label has already lost its luster and I will bet my marketing strategy on Local holistic fruit production. The Organic label has become nothing more then a marketing ploy and when I talk to people at the farmers market the sense I get is that it no longer really means anything to the consumer. When you go to Whole Foods or Walmart or Safeway and see organic food from Chile or Mexico or China. What does that mean? to what standard is that grown? I am a very small producer that will never have enough produce to sell to a chain store so I planned my marketing around the local label. I'm sure every grower will have there own strategy for their local and situation but food that taste good seems to always work.

Perhaps we are all talking about something different when approaching organics. For someone seeing an organic label as the answer to all our food system woes, clearly it is lacking. No one sees the pinnacle on which organics rests as a farce more than I. However, a great majority of the public has a very different level of acceptability. It may very well be that an apple devoid of toxic residues is all they want, basing organics on personal health. There is another sect that feels the land on which it is grown should be done in a more natural manner, without chemical fertilizers. Yet another group wants a low carbon footprint. Yet another, grown within 100 miles of destination. And on and on and on. My whole point here is that the rules are largely arbitrary. The aggrivation I feel, and that many of you likely feel is when things don't compare to what any one of us agrees with. Well that's the nature of groups, and memberships and little stickers. Certified organic comes nowhere near where we need to be as food producers and stewards of the land. I am certified to show the average buyer that I met a very basic measure as decided by one particular and well know body, that's all. It is not the end all be all, it is just one itty bitty threshold, and one that is pretty darn easy to meet in my opinion. Consumers don't have a clue how to sift through all the particulars, so they want a basic guarantee based on their views, not ours. I just filled out my paperwork, less than 10 pages, and it took less than an hour. Most of what they require is record keeping, which as a good farmer I do anyway. The cost is laughable, since the feds return 75% of the fee to all farmers. The increased sales, higher price, and connection with the members greatly outways the few bucks they take. When we are all tilling with oxen, tossing away all our sprays with our laptops, and reading our Albert Howard by candlelight the world will be a healthier and more beautiful place to be. Until then, we have to work within the confines of an existing sytem filled with folks that have a different opinion about their food. Try to convince them to demand better, of course, but with the realization that they may not hold your same views. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is how I see the current backlash against organic, because there is nothing to replace it yet, and replacing a set of criteria with cynicism, of no criteria at all isn't gonna do much to help anyone in the short term.

What a marvelous discussion! Myself, I am currently a happy member of the "uncertified organic" camp. Or maybe it is the "self-certified organic" camp .... For a couple of reasons. First, fear and loathing of the paperwork and bureaucracy. In a parallel life (other day job), I drown in it. In my orchard refuge, I have the luxury to choose not to. Second, an aspect of our (small) business that I really enjoy is the elemental nature of the transactions I have with my customers at our farmers' market and farm gate. I produce the healthiest fruit I can figure out how to grow for my family, using organic-tending-to-holistic methods. Customers that are looking for that in their fruit and farmer and who trust me, buy it. I will happily (excitedly at times) explain what the methods are at the least provocation and welcome folks to our farm to see for themselves. If someone doesn't trust me, well, I'm frankly less interested in selling them the good stuff we worked so hard to produce. Now, I admit that this non-system would break down if volume and shipping distance were to increase to such an extent that a personal producer-consumer relationship was not possible. Certification in those cases provides (at least in theory, but see the exceptions/contortions noted in earlier posts) the assurances that consumers want when direct community linkages and personal reputation are taken out of the equation. However, with just 50 some trees and only gradual expansion plans, this is not a risk for us any time soon.

I agree with Todd. Organic certification shows that we meet minimum standards. I strive to go beyond those standards--and I think we should strive to improve them. The NOP law, unfortunately, makes it harder for organic standards to evolve. But I think we can still try. The overall supermarket-based food distribution system is the big culprit in the feeling that organic has been taken over by big farms--changing that by community orcharding, CSA's, and other direct/local sales is profound!

As a small grower I decided to go with the uncertified organic camp, but I sometimes find it hard when the products listed for organic use (e.g. Entrust vs Spinosad) is so much more expensive. I have so far always chosen the certified for organic use, but I sometimes wonder what are the differences and why is their such a price difference. In Montana, their is also a group that has chosen to create their own sustainabilty marketing group. The group visits each others farms and works to create an organization/certification (by affiliation) that promotes not only organic, but biodynamically grown foods. I think it is a good approach because it also provides local networking of farmers. FYI the web site is http://www.homegrownmontana.org

I do not necessarily agree that meeting minimum standards of Organic certification is of value. It is certainly troubling when I hear of the practices of big organic out west and some stories about very unsustainable organic practices that trickle up from Chile. Some certified Organic practices can be very devastating to the future of the land. And the marketing aspect is based on consumer ignorance in that it gives the consumer a lazy way out of actually concentrating to educate themselves. Big Organic Apple in the pacific northwest seems to have struck some kind of deal with their certifiers that apparently would not play here in New England. Not sure how I will market my apples but my experience in life has shown me that I should not empower other's bad habits for my own short term gain. If I certify my apple blocks the implication is that I am ratifying those dicey practices in the broader world. For me, sustainability - not harming the land for posterity - trumps local, which in turn trumps big O Organic.