Organics in Crisis: Can Confidence be Restored?
By Chrys Ostrander
©2006
Is it, or isn’t it? How can you be sure?
Today, you can walk into most Safeway stores and purchase many products labeled with a big blue “O.” This ‘O” stands for Omni Brands of Pleasanton, California and can be found on a wide selection of foods from bread and cheese to frozen lasagna dinners and salad dressing. It denotes that the food product so labeled is certified organic. And the price? Usually only a few cents more than the regular, non-organic Safeway fare. Recently, Wal-Mart announced it will vastly expand its offerings of organic foods and organic clothing (through its Sam’s Club division). Costco and several other regional grocery chains are also now carrying organic products.
So, isn’t this all great: Affordable organic foods for the masses? I mean, hasn’t price been the one big beef folks have had with organic foods all along with accusations of elitism flying around? Haven’t we in the roots organic movement been advocating for large-scale adoption of organic farming for decades? Not so fast. Something smells funny and it isn’t your home cooking.
In April, the Organic Consumers Association, the same group that led consumers to write the most comments to a government agency ever in US history when the USDA initially proposed unacceptable national standards for organic foods, launched a boycott of two leading dairy brands and distributors of dairy products labeled “organic.” The targets of the boycott are Horizon (a division of Dean Foods) and Aurora, a dairy formed in-part by some former Dean Foods people. The reason for the boycott is for allegedly mislabeling their products as "USDA Organic." All of Aurora's and much of Horizon's "organic" milk is produced on factory farm feedlots where the cows have been brought in from conventional farms and have little or no access to pasture”, says OCA, “after three months, thousands of consumers and a number of co-ops and natural food stores have joined the boycott.” Included in this list of co-ops is Seattle’s 40,000 member-strong PCC Co-op that recently bowed to pressure from its membership and dropped Horizon products from all of its eight stores in the Puget Sound area. In late July, OCA expanded its boycott to include the following national and regional grocery brands of “organic” milk and dairy products: Costco's "Kirkland Signature", Publix’s “High Meadows", Safeway's "O" Organics brand, Wild Oats' organic milk and Giant's "Nature's Promise. These have been singled out because the milk for these brands is sourced from either Horizon or Aurora.
On August 10, an organization based in the dairy state of Wisconsin, the Cornucopia institute, filed a formal complaint with the USDA’s Office of Compliance against Horizon, now the nation’s leading organic brand based on sales. Cornucopia advocates for strict adherence to existing organic standards as well as in favor of higher organic standards to be adopted by the USDA National Organic Program (for instance, a requirement that organic dairies pasture their cows for a greater percentage of their lives). The group alleges that Horizon operates some industrial-scale dairies, managing 2000-10,000 cows, which are allegedly producing milk in feedlot conditions without adequately grazing their cattle as required by the organic law. There are only a handful of these large-scale farms. They account for about 20 percent of the organic milk market.
And it’s not just dairy products that are potentially suspect as large corporate players enter the once mom-and-pop realm of organic food production. Just days before the filing of the complaint by Cornucopia, the Dallas Morning News ran a story detailing its own investigation that “found that the United States Department of Agriculture does not know how often organic rules are broken and has not consistently taken action when potential violations were pointed out.” The newspaper reviewed 216 internal USDA audits and found several examples of violations at organic farms and production plants. However, reports about problems that are supposed to filter up to the agency from on-the-ground monitors were found to be incomplete. The newspaper also reported the following facts:
That is, until two days after the Dallas Morning News article appeared when the USDA actually initiated the revocation of USDA accreditation of the American Food Safety Institute, International (AFSII) of Chippewa Falls, WI, a USDA accredited organic certification agency that has about 30 producer clients. According to the USDA there are seven areas of noncompliance that led to the July 28 notice of proposed revocation for AFSII –
1. AFSII officials refused to provide access to official certification records
requested by the Department.
2. AFSII provided organic certification to an operation whose owner is
responsibly connected to the certifying agent.
3. AFSII provided certification services for seven AFSII certified operations to
which Karl Kolb, founder of the High Sierra Group, parent company to AFSII,
currently provides consulting services.
4. AFSII did not provide a full disclosure of conflicts of interest in its
application for accreditation.
5. AFSII retained [a client previously identified as in noncompliance] as a
certified operation and did not issue a notice of noncompliance with regards to
multiple prohibited substance violations upon notification of such violations by
the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
6. AFSII issued organic certification to an operation that had applied a
prohibited substance to certified ground through the use of seeds treated with
Captan and Thiriam, both prohibited substances under the NOP regulation and
allowed the use of seed treated with prohibited substances for organic
production.
7. AFSII violated its Statement of Agreement with AMS as an accredited
certification agent through its failure to issue notices of noncompliance and
proposed revocation or suspension to [company name redacted] upon notification
of violations of NOP regulations by AMS.
The Dallas Morning News reported that AFSII “also allowed a bottled-water company to use the USDA Organic label despite federal rules against designating water as organic.” The newspaper further reported that “American Food Safety is a four-person company overseeing about 30 organic operations in seven states and Mexico, according to USDA records. It is part of the High Sierra Group, which also owns companies that make specialty chemicals for the food industry.”
It remains to be seen if the USDA simply initiated this revocation as a reaction to the scathing criticism of its oversight of the NOP in the newspaper article (given the timing) or if it is a bellwether for continued stepped up vigilance.
Are Corporations Weakening Organic Standards?
There are also well founded fears that as large corporations enter into organic food production, they will use their considerable political might to weaken certain National Organic Standards that they find it burdensome financially to comply with. We have already seen this happen once. A March 2006 report in Business Week gives a short synopsis of how this happened:
…Large companies have tried to use their muscle in Washington to their advantage. Last fall, the Organic Trade Assn., which represents corporations like Kraft, Dole, and Dean Foods, lobbied to attach a rider to the 2006 Agricultural Appropriations Bill that would weaken the nation's organic food standards by allowing certain synthetic food substances in the preparation, processing, and packaging of organic foods. That sparked outrage from organic activists. Nevertheless, the bill passed into law in November, and the new standards will go into effect later this year.
Another example of large companies influencing organic policy was seen when Aurora and Horizon dairy companies feverishly resisted proposed tougher pasturing requirements now being decided upon by the USDA National Organic Program after years of debate. Other farmers and advocates sought to close the "access to pasture" loophole by demanding the USDA clearly define what it meant by this phrase. They backed a proposed regulation that would require all organic dairy and meat producers to meet a clearly-defined grazing standard. They believe this would reduce the advantage enjoyed by large-scale corporate farms, improve the prospects for smaller, family-scale farmers to transition to organic production, support the natural habits of cows and let organic consumers know that they are buying milk from cows that eat fresh grass. Comment on the proposed new pasture standard closed this past June, but to be sure, much back-room lobbying is still going on to try and influence the final USDA outcome. The proposed new standard, which, incidentally, is now in the last minute supported (publicly, at least) by Horizon, would replace existing vague wording requiring “access to pasture” for organic dairy and meat cattle with this:
Ruminant livestock must graze pasture for the growing season but not less than 120 days per year. The grazed pasture must provide a significant portion of the total feed requirements but not less than 30% of the dry matter intake during the growing season.
The USDA was supposed to have relweased the final rule before the end of September, but as of this writing (Oct. 10) no final rule has been published indicating there is still diseention in the back rooms of the USDA building in Washington DC.
Truly organic farmers and educated organic customers insist that pasture is integral to organic dairy farming, the purpose of which is not to pump up output regardless of method but to produce milk by avoiding prohibited substances and ensuring the ruminants can graze. Scientific studies show that cows raised on grass produce higher quality milk and live healthier, longer lives.
However, the new proposed rules ignore recommendations endorsed by the USDA’s own expert advisory panel, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). In 2002
and 2003, the NOSB unanimously passed recommendations that all animals being brought onto an existing organic dairy farm had to be under organic management starting no later than the last three that months those animals were in the womb of their mothers. Instead, rules governing conversion and management of dairy herds that were put in place after a lawsuit (the Harvey decision) successfully challenged some of USDA’s weakening of organic standards actually allow 1 year-old cows raised conventionally to be introduced into organic dairy herds as “replacement” animals. According to the Cornucopia Institute, “Dean [Foods] has admitted to shareholder groups that in order to maximize profits, they sell all of the calves born on their 4000-head [organic]farm, allowing them to save on providing expensive organic feed to animals for the first year of their life. They then purchase one-year-old animals that have been administered drugs and been fed non-organic feed to replenish their herd.” Ronnie Cummins of OCA is quoted as saying “It is unconscionable that this $11 billion company, the nation's largest conventional and organic milk processor, is deceiving consumers by suggesting that their animals are not raised using antibiotics, hormones, and other banned substances… We are particularly concerned that their calves may have very well ingested BSE (mad cow) risk materials that are allowed in conventional farming but have been banned in organics as a safeguard and firewall against the spread of the disease." Due to industry pressure from the powerful players, no rules changing the loophole-ridden existing language that allows such abuses under the current organic standard have been proposed by USDA. Organic meat, it must be noted, requires that the meat animals be under organic management beginning at no later than the 3rd trimester while they are in the womb of their mothers.
The same article in Business Week cited above also addresses the issue of large companies sourcing “organic” ingredients from overseas where the quality of organic certification or enforcement of organic standards might be highly questionable:
[Ronnie Cummins, Director of OCA] estimates that already 10% of organic foods like meat and citrus are imported into the U.S. Silk soy milk, for instance, is made from organic soybeans that are bought in China and Brazil, where prices tend to be substantially lower than in the U. S. Cascadian Farms [owned by General Mills] buys its organic fruits and vegetables from China and Mexico, among other countries.
Also a potential issue for organic farmers is the ability of large-scale buyers like Wal-Mart to drive prices down and force small producers out of business so only large-scale operations that operate by paying low wages to farm workers and externalizing the costs of doing business can survive. When “O” brand organic products began to show up in Safeway stores, they sometimes shared shelf space with leftover inventory from long-established organic brands like Muir Glen tomato sauce. The established brand price was always a dollar or more higher than the “O” brand product. This raises the question: How is Omni Brands structured differently from Muir Glen so that it is able to offer products at such significantly lower prices? Usually, businesses cut corners to compete in this manner with their rivals. Whenever cutting corners and organic production appear in the same sentence, it’s time to break out the B.S. detectors. Cutting corners should not be part of an organic business mindset when it comes to compliance with organic standards.
Are Cheap Foods Really a Bargain?
As stated earlier, the issue of organic foods being high priced when compared to non-organic foods has been a source of criticism for the organic movement with some saying it makes organic foods elitist. Is this a valid criticism? First, one should ask the question, why are non-organic foods so cheap (and they are cheap in the US compared to food costs in other parts of the world)? A strong argument can be made that US food prices are artificially low as a result of paying workers in the food sector (many of whom are undocumented immigrant workers) crimminally low wages in some cases, poverty wages in others. Also, the buying power of large food conglomerates allows them to dictate low prices to be paid to farmers which in turn gives incentives to farmers to hire illegals and other exploitable members of the workforce and pay them sub-standard wages. This can force smaller farms to sell out to larger ones resulting in concentration of the food industry and immeasurable pain and suffering as farm families lose their financial independence and way of life. Large companies structure themselves often to take advantage of “externalized costs” such as when taxpayers are billed for the clean-up of waterways polluted by agricultural run-off or clogged with sediment from topsoil erosion and economic costs such as when whole fisheries are destroyed by agricultural runoff, damming and water diversion. Government-funded healthcare for farm workers sickened by pesticide exposure or reproductive difficulties are some more externalized cost examples.
Cheap food prices are not a friend to farmers nor a sign of a sustainable food system. The USDA has been measuring the percent of “disposable income spent on food since 1929. Hmmm. I don't know about you, but I don't really consider money spent on food as "disposable" income. I mean, that's like saying buying food is a luxurious option and as far as I know, only the State of Idaho considers food a luxury (as that state levies a sales tax on food), but disposable income seems to be the standard measure for this type of thing. USDA measures the percentage of "disposable" income spent on food eaten at home and the percentage of "disposable" income spent on food eaten away from home. A July, 2006 article by the Oregon Department of Agriculture titled “Food Remains a Bargain for Oregon and U.S. Consumers” talks about these USDA statistics. Sadly, the authors think it's great that we in America get such a "bargain" on food (this is reminiscent of the official mantra we always hear about how we in America have the "safest" food supply on Earth. Ugh.). The article makes the point that the percentage of disposable income spent on food both at home and away from home combined actually fell below 10% in 2000. Most shocking are the figures for American spending on food eaten at home in 2005– that’s dropped to only 6.1%! No wonder we’re losing farms at such an alarming rate. We’re just not paying enough back to them. The article concludes: ""There are few other places in the world where you can get the diversity and the amount of food for the dollar you spend than the United States," says [OR Dept. of Ag analyst and special assistant to the director Brent] Searle. “U.S. consumers can thank American farmers and ranchers, in large part, for that great bargain." If I was one of the tens of thousands of farmers who have gone out of business in the past 30 years due to low prices, it'd be a little hard to respond with "you're welcome"
Where do we go from here?
People need to eat to live. Doesn't it make sense that food should be a bigger chunk of everyone's household expense budget? Or might low food prices just be a well-conceived conspiracy to make sure there's enough "disposable" income left after food to finance the US stock market's dependence on consumerism.
What I'd like to see in the next 20 years, to improve public health, revitalize local economies, sustain the farming sector, improve quality of life and improve family life and culture in general, is for food eaten at home as a percentage of income to rise again to 1940's - 1950's levels between 15% and 20% (and that should be corrected to account for increases as a result of rising energy costs that we're starting to see anyway). Yes, this correctly implies that Americans' habit of conspicuous consumption spending would be curtailed by the respective amount. Of course, concomitant with this MUST also be about a 60% plus food import substitution. This is where foods imported into your county or region are substituted with foods grown and processed locally. And, as well, we need to improve our ability to make sure high quality, nutritious foods are available to everyone in the required abundance regardless of income level despite food’s higher cost. It’s time to rework things so that farmers get the prices they need to stay in business, make a living wage for themselves and their workers. Farmers need to be able to continue farming organically or transition to organic methods and have their own and their workers’ health-care and retirement needs met without selling the farm to developers for housing tracts.
The question remains: In the face of these events and disturbing trends, how can organic food customers be confident that the food they’re buying now is truly organic? Before venturing an answer, a fact should be noted that often is not clearly understood by the organic food customer: Organic certification is based largely on the honor system. Despite hundreds of pages of regulations and reams of paperwork requirements that seem to keep increasing and each year cause many smaller growers to abandon the certification process (although most continue to practice organic methods), farms are required to be inspected only once per year. In almost every case, inspectors are over-worked and inspections are over-booked. Most organic farmers would agree that if a producer wanted to cheat, cheating would be easy. Once the inspector is gone, it could be back to “business as usual” for any unscrupulous grower or processor. Also, there are no requirements for routine testing of soil, water or plant tissue for residues of prohibited substances. These tests need only be performed if the certifying agency has reason to believe violations may have occurred and the costs of such testing must be borne by the certifying agency, not by the grower or by the consumer. So what certifying agency is going to institute regular testing if it has to carry the cost? Compliance with organic standards is only as good as the ethics of the farmers doing the growing. What’s a shopper to do? And with more and more organic foods being imported from far, far away, how reliable are the assurances we get that the food was actually grown in compliance to the organic standard; that the “organic” farm isn’t one that was just last year carved out of the Amazon rainforest; that it’s not next door to a Chinese smelter spewing mercury over the countryside?
Back to the Roots!
The roots organic movement is made up of those folks whose philosophical, spiritual and ecological concerns for the planet and its inhabitants moved them decades ago (and continue to inspire the movement’s newcomers) to struggle for a shift to organic agriculture as one big way to help set the world back on a course for survival (as opposed to those who entered into organic production not from a heart felt desire to make the world better but solely because of the higher price organic products bring in the market or have abandoned their original roots philosophy as a casualty of becoming rich). Roots organic movement members often can be heard to lament these days: “Be careful what you wish for” as they observe their beloved organic agriculture fall victim to cooptation, degradation and “greenwashing” at the hands of heartless mega-corporations. To many, it was a grave and irreconcilable mistake to hand the certification of organic foods over to the government after years of farmers successfully certifying each other. And that may be so. Regardless, to many of these folks, the solution is clear: Organics is dead. The word has become meaningless. You’re left with growing your own food, buying local, bartering and exchanging with your neighbors, shopping at farmers markets, getting to know the farmers of your region and developing trust, one to one, as to whether they are growing and producing truly organic foods. Some say you must turn your back on corporate organic food production and pity those poor ignorant souls who shop in corporate grocery stores under the false impression that they’re buying organic when there’s a good chance it’s not– not roots organic anyway. Okay, those are, save for the last one, good solutions and by all means are ways we can all make positive change happen. But that last one, pitying the hapless consumer, is cold, selfish and defeatist. One of the main reasons why folks in the roots organic movement demand that chickens be free range and cows graze on pasture is not simply so the food is healthier to eat. It’s because the organic standards also take into account the well-being and humane treatment of the animals including “access to shade, shelter, fresh air, and daylight suitable to the species” (NOSB Recommendation, 1994). That’s based on compassion. So must not that sense of compassion also be extended towards fellow humans as well? We’re not advocates for organic foods just because we want to make sure the food that goes down our family’s gullet isn’t going to kill us prematurely. We’re advocates for a transition to an organic future so that our neighbors and our neighbors’ children and folks on the other side of the world aren’t poisoned by the food they eat or by the methods used to grow the food; so that they and we have clean water to drink and abundant wildlife to enjoy sharing the planet with. In this light, the light of empathy, it’s important to realize we live in a burgeoning society and we have the need to feed many, many mouths. We need to make sure that truly organic foods are available (and available in a big way) to all walks of life, yes, even to those folks who choose to (or by their social/financial reality are forced to) shop at Wal-Mart.
Freedom is a constant struggle. Freedom from pesticides, antibiotics, GMOs, recombinant bovine growth hormones, artificial colors, preservatives, pharmaceuticals in our food supply, topsoil loss, animal cruelty, dead zones in our oceans, labor exploitation– all of that– is also a constant struggle. The answer to the question “what’s a shopper to do?” is GET INVOLVED! It’s time to fight back against the attack on organic foods so that the word retains its meaning– so that the word is owned again by the people, not governments, not corporations. It is universally recognized that organics came into existence in response to customer demand and The Customer is always right!
We can do it! Si, se puede!
The organic food movement has always been a peoples’ movement. The people demanded the ability to purchase organics and partnered with like minded farmers to make that availability a reality. Maybe it was a mistake to hand organic certification over to the USDA, but the arguments made back then for why that was the wisest move came from many in the roots organic movement and were compelling enough that it’s the system we have now. This is the United States of America and despite the constant efforts of powerful elites to the contrary, We the People own the system. We need to make sure USDA understands this in no uncertain terms and upholds the core values embodied in the National Organic Standards. But if we sit on our hands we get the system we deserve.
The most effective way to influence government is to join together. So, join up and get involved! Below are six ways to go about this:
1) Join The Organic Consumers Association. Get on their mailing list and sign up for their email alerts. Respond to action alerts when they come your way (your voice does count) and give them money to fund their work. Go to the OCA website to join, donate and find out how diverse and holistic their agenda really is.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The OCA deals with crucial issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability and other key topics. OCA is the only organization in the US focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million organic and socially responsible consumers.
The OCA represents over 850,000 members, subscribers and volunteers, including several thousand businesses in the natural foods and organic marketplace. Its US and international policy board is broadly representative of the organic, family farm, environmental, and public interest community.
The Organic Consumers Association was formed in 1998 in the wake of the mass backlash by organic consumers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's controversial proposed national regulations for organic food. Through the OCA's SOS (Safeguard Organic Standards) Campaign, as well as the work of OCA’s allies in other organizations, the organic community over the last eight years has been able to mobilize hundreds of thousands of consumers to pressure the USDA and organic companies to preserve strict organic standards. In its public education, network building, and mobilization activities such as its Breaking the Chains campaign, OCA works with a broad range of public interest organizations to challenge industrial agriculture, corporate globalization, and the Wal-Martization of the economy, and inspire consumers to "Buy Local, Organic, and Fair Made."
OCA's overall political program is the Organic Agenda 2005-15, a six-point platform calling for:
OCA’s website, publications, research, and campaign staff
provide an important service for hundreds of thousands of consumers and
community activists every month. OCA’s media team provides background
information, interviews, and story ideas to television and radio producers and
journalists on a daily basis - from national television networks to the
alternative press.
www.organicconsumers.org
2) Join and support the Cornucopia Institute. The Cornucopia Institute is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development our goal is to empower farmers both politically and through marketplace initiatives. Its Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit. The Institute actively resists regulatory rollbacks and the weakening of organic standards to protect and maintain consumer confidence in the organic food label.
http://cornucopia.org/
3) If you’re a farmer, you should join the Organic Farmers Action Network, a project of the Organic Farming Research Foundation. Members of the free Network receive information about policy issues directly affecting organic producers, and timely alerts for taking action.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org) is helping organic growers make their voices heard in the policy arena with the new Organic Farmers Action
Network (OFAN). Members of the free Farmers Action Network receive information about policy issues directly affecting organic producers, and timely alerts for taking
action.
Brise Tencer is OFRF's Legislative Coordinator and spearheads the OFAN
project. "Legislators tell us that hearing directly from producers has a
huge impact on farm policies," according to Tencer. "The voices of organic
growers have not been heard very clearly in Congress. The Farmers Action Network is
designed to give organic growers some tools for participating in the
policy-making process, and alert them when it is time to weigh in."
More than 500 growers in 226 Congressional districts across 48 states have
joined the OFAN Network since its inception in February. The action alert
system demonstrated its effectiveness in May after Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
introduced an amendment to the 2007 USDA budget bill (at the request of the
NOFA-New Jersey growers' group) to increase USDA funding for organic farming
research. OFAN alerts generated phone calls to House Members from growers
across the country, helping the amendment to pass by a voice vote on the
House floor. The Senate has yet to finalize its version of the 2007 budget
bill, so the OFAN Network will be alerted this Fall as that moves forward.
Farmers Action Network members are also growing the Organic Caucus in the House of
Representatives. The bipartisan Caucus was formed in 2003 and now counts
nearly 50 House Members. By making phone calls and inviting legislators to
tour organic farms, OFAN members are encouraging their Congressional
Representatives to join the group. Getting House Members to join the Organic
Caucus is a very simple but powerful way to educate policy makers and
amplify the voice of organic growers.
Organic producers and others are invited to join OFAN through the OFRF web
site at www.ofrf.org. For questions & suggestions, contact Brise Tencer and OFAN via email: action@ofrf.org, or phone:
831-426-6606.
Organic Farming Research Foundation; 303 Potrero #29-203; Santa Cruz, CA
95060; 831-426-6606; action@ofrf.org; www.ofrf.org.
4) Get familiar and active with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, part of the 1990 Farm Bill, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to appoint a 15-member National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The advises the National Organic Program (NOP) in developing standards for substances and methods to be used in organic production. The NOSB is the body to whom We the People can go to insist on the preservation of integrity in organics. The NOSB has a history of defending integrity in organics despite tension, disputes and defeats in battles with the higher ups in the NOP.
The current NOSB is comprised of four farmers/growers, two handlers/processors, one retailer, one scientist, three consumer/public interest advocates, three environmentalists, and one certifying agent who sit on various committees. Members come from all four U.S. regions.
We in Washington State are honored to have a consumer/public interest advocate on the NOSB in the person of Jennifer Hall who is also the Executive Director of the Chefs Collaborative. You can contact her with your concerns, communicate your desire that she defend organics in this time of crisis and change and offer her words of support in her difficult job. Her email address is jennifer@chefscollaborative.org.
Brief biographies of the other NOSB members are available at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/memberinfo.html.
5) Statewide, join (if you aren’t a member already) the Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network that advocates for a sustainable food system regionally, at the statewide level and federal also.
www.wsffn.org
6) Of course, locally, get and keep current with your membership to your local Washington Tilth Association chapter (http://www.tilthproducers.org/wta.htm) and your local Slow Food Convivium (http://www.slowfoodusa.org/). These organizations grew right out of the roots organic movement and are dedicated to defending the purity of the movement and now guide its future in these treacherous times. Buy Local. Make it a habit to shop at your local farmers market. Learn how to find local farmers and buy direct from them at their farms. Grow your own and share with your neighbors.