This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Organic food was once seen as a niche category for health lovers and hippies, but today it’s a routine choice for millions of Americans. For years after the passage of the Organic Food Production Act of 1990, which established national organic standards, consumers had to seek out organic produce at food co-ops and farmers’ markets. Today, more than half of organic sales are made in conventional supermarket chains, club stores and supercenters; Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Target and Safeway are the top five organic retailers.
Surveys show that 82 percent of Americans buy organic food, and availability has improved. So why do organic sales overall make up only six percent of all food sold in the US? And since organic farming has many benefits, including soil and water conservation and reduced use of synthetic chemicals, can you increase your share?
One problem is the price. On average, organic food costs 20 percent more than conventionally produced food. Even hardcore organic shoppers like me sometimes overlook it because of the cost.
Some shoppers on a budget may restrict their organic purchases to foods of particular concern, such as fruits and vegetables. Organic produce contains much less pesticide residue than conventionally grown versions.
Price matters, but let’s dig deeper. Increasing the market share of organic food will require producing larger quantities and more diverse organic products. This will require more organic farmers than the US currently has.
There are about two million farms in the United States. Of those, only 16,585 are organic, less than one percent. They occupy 5.5 million acres, which is a small fraction of the total US farmland. Approximately two-thirds of US farmland is dedicated to growing animal feed and biofuel feedstocks such as corn and soybeans, instead of food for people.
In my opinion, converting more agricultural land to organic food production should be a national goal. Organic farmers produce healthy food, promote healthy soil, and protect watersheds. Ruminant animals like dairy cows, when raised organically, must graze on pasture for at least 120 days a year, which reduces their methane emissions.
The list of environmental and climate benefits associated with organic is long. Organic farming consumes 45 percent less energy than conventional production, mainly because it does not use nitrogenous fertilizers. And it emits 40 percent fewer greenhouse gases because organic farmers practice crop rotation, use cover crops and compost, and eliminate fossil fuel-based inputs.
The vast majority of organic farms are small or medium-sized, both in terms of gross sales and acreage. Organic farmers are on average younger than conventional farmers.
Starting small makes sense for beginning farmers, and organic price premiums allow them to survive on smaller plots of land. But first they have to go through a harsh three-year transition period to clear the land.
During this time, they are not eligible to label products as organic, but must follow organic standards, which includes giving up the use of harmful chemicals and learning to manage ecosystem processes. This usually results in short-term performance declines. Many farmers fail along the way.
The transition period is just one of many challenges for organic farmers. More support from the federal government could help. In a recent report, the Arizona State University Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, which I direct, identified actions the Biden administration can take within existing budgets and laws to make organic agriculture’s untapped promise a reality.
Current USDA assistance to organic producers is paltry, especially given the billions of dollars the agency spends annually in support of agriculture. Two-thirds of farm subsidy dollars go to the richest 10 percent of farms.
Our report recommends dedicating six percent of USDA spending to support the organic sector, a figure that reflects its market share. As an example, in 2020, the agency spent about $55 million on research directly related to organic agriculture within its $3.6 billion Research, Education and Economics mission area. A six percent portion of that budget would be $218 million to develop things like better ways to control pests by using natural predators instead of chemical pesticides.
The higher price of organic food includes costs associated with practices such as forgoing the use of harmful pesticides and improving animal welfare. A growing number of food systems academics and practitioners are calling for the use of a methodology called True Cost Accounting, which they believe reveals the full costs and benefits of food production.
According to an analysis by the Rockefeller Foundation, American consumers spend $1.1 trillion a year on food, but the true cost of that food is $3.2 trillion when all impacts, such as water pollution and pollution, are taken into account. health of agricultural workers. Viewed through a true cost accounting lens, I see organic as good business.
Kathleen Merrigan directs the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, which receives funding from the Organic Trade Association. She is co-director of a project on inadvertent chemical contamination of organic crops funded by the United States Department of Agriculture.