Engaging the Organic Conventionalization Debate - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 160

were 17,281 USDA-certified organic farms and processing facilities in the US, a
240 % increase from 2002 (Agricultural Marketing Service 2012 ).
The critical factor limiting organic growth changed from a lack of consumer
demand during the 1990s to a lack of sufficient inputs and organic products in the
2000s (Organic Farming Research Foundation 1993 , 1996 ; Dimitri and Richman
2000 ; Dimitri and Oberholtzer 2009 ; Greene et al. 2009 ). The lack of other forms
of government support for organics beyond the market label - such as economic
support for transition or research - hindered the entry of new organic farmers and
conversion by conventional farmers, resulting in an increase in organic imports
to match rising domestic consumer demand (Food and Agriculture Service 2005 ;
Thilmany 2006 ; Greene 2007 ). The mainstream food companies entering the market
were constrained by the lack of reliable supplies of organic raw materials (Organic
Trade Association 2006 ; Heller 2007 ; Greene et al. 2009 ).
The NOP certified-organic standard allows organic farmers and handlers any-
where in the world to export to the US, as long as the products meet the NOP
standards. Of the 27,000 producers and handlers certified in 2007 by USDA-
accredited certifiers, 11,000 were from over 100 foreign countries, mostly from
Canada, Italy, Turkey, China and Mexico (Greene et al. 2009 ). In 2011 there
were 28,386 certified producers and handlers from 133 countries (Agricultural
Marketing Service 2012 ). Organic foods, and especially the organic components for
processed organic foods, sold in the US are increasing sourced globally (Dimitri
and Oberholtzer 2009 ). At the national level, (Howard 2009a , b ) found rapid
consolidation through mergers, acquisitions and internal development and growing
economic concentration in the organics industry.
Whereas Europe and other countries provided subsidies for organic conversion,
the US focused instead on market-mechanisms to support the growth of the organic
sector. The organic standards and USDA label were designed to facilitate market
signals between producers and consumers, but there was no direct subsidy for the
3-year conversion (Lohr and Salomonsson 2000 ; Greene et al. 2009 ). Again, unlike
Europe, the NOP included no official government position stating that organic foods
were superior to conventional foods. This lack of direct support for conversion
represents a major barrier to organic adoption in the US (Lipson 1997 ; Padel 2001 ;
Duram 2006 ; Greene et al. 2009 ).
The hostile political environment and bias against organics dampened adoption
(Padel 2001 ; Klintman and Boström 2004 ; Duram 2006 ; Volpe III 2006 ; Constance
and Choi 2010 ). The first national study that demonstrated organic feasibility and
profitability of organics included several recommendations regarding research, edu-
cation, and public policy support for existing organic farmers and for conventional
farmers interesting in conversion (United States Department of Agriculture 1980 ).
However, the incoming Reagan Administration rejected the report and abolished
the Organic Resources Coordinator position in USDA. The Land Grant University
system openly criticized organics. Conventional agricultural interests opposed the
organics program, specifically lobbying to ensure that the Final Rule focused only
on market-based incentives and no claims for organics as a preferred or superior
approach to agriculture (Guthman 2004a ).