Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
certification would allow organic foods to move freely within nations and among nations, to
accommodate the needs of the increasingly global industrial food system.
Ironically, organic farmers may have sown the seeds of their own destruction. The food
system that organic farmers were seeking to accommodate is driven by the industrial principles
of productivity, not the organic principles of permanence. The industrial food system is charac-
terised by uncontrolled specialisation, standardisation and consolidation, not by maintenance
of balance and harmony. National organic standardisation simply opened the door to corporate
consolidation of control of organic production and distribution (Kirschenmann 2000).
International harmonisation also forces organic farmers worldwide to conform to a single
set of organic standards, with little regard for their specific ecological, social, economic or
cultural conditions. Harmonisation of standards pressures organic farmers to harmonise costs
of production among nations, forcing returns to organic farmers and farm labourers every-
where toward the minimum achievable by the organic industry anywhere, in a proverbial 'race
to the bottom'. This homogenisation of organics removes many of its historic ecological, social
and cultural restraints to the exploitation of people and extraction of natural resources globally,
in the pursuit of maximum profits and growth.
Not surprisingly, many of the most economically successful of early organic producers
eventually came to share the industrial philosophy of production. Their small organic enter-
prises grew into large industrial organisations (Guthman 2000). Some sold their successful
operations to large food corporations, which typically retained their once-respected organic
labels. Today, the largest food corporations in the world own most of the organic industry's
leading labels, which are distributed by the world's largest food retailers (Cienfuegos 2004).
If the current trend continues, certified organic production might soon be the exclusive
domain of industrial-minded producers. The organic producer groups advising governments
on organic standards and certification will soon be dominated by producers guided by the
principles of productivity rather than of permanence. Organic standards will eventually be
changed as needed to accommodate industrial production methods. Other organic producers
will be forced by competition to meet minimum standards at minimum costs, forcing them to
adopt industrial methods to survive. The industrialisation of certified organic production will
then be complete.
Fortunately, industrial organics is not the only viable alternative for organic farmers. Lady
Balfour (Balfour 1977) said:
I am sure that the techniques of organic farming cannot be imprisoned in a rigid
set of rules. They depend essentially on the outlook of the farmer.
Her statement of 1977 is still true. The fundamental f laws of industrial organics will
become more readily apparent to more people as the concept becomes more commonplace.
The widely recognised negative ecological and social consequences of mining, manufacturing
and even conventional agriculture are all the natural consequences of the industrial approach
to resource management, which inevitably conf licts with the ecological and social health of
living systems. As the consequences of these conf licts of principles become more obvious,
however, those organic farmers who have remained committed to the historical principles of
living systems will find new opportunities.
This principle-based approach to organic farming has been given various labels, including
sustainable organic, philosophical organic and deep organic (Balfour 1977, Ikerd 2001,
Coleman 2004). All three terms accurately ref lect the historical roots of organic farming in
ecological, social, cultural and spiritual concepts of permanence. Of the three, deep organic
seems the most simple, direct, and thus, compelling.
