What's in a Name?I got a request this week from a subscriber and drop-site host to explain the difference between "Organic" and "Sustainable". A good question, but a complicated one with a multi-part answer.
1)
"Organic" is now a regulated term governed by federal law as laid out in the National Organic Program. It is not fixed in stone, and the powers that govern it are constantly tweaking the numerous details involved. However, in order to grow organic crops and/or produce organic foods, the farm and/or processor must be certified by a body audited by the USDA. There are criminal penalties for violating the laws.
2)
There is no widely accepted definition of "sustainable", much less a legal one. In fact, there is an intense debate going on among environmentalists, farmers, chemical companies like Monsanto and others to create a definition for the term. For the time being, a label that claims a product is "sustainable" is worth about as much as the paper it is printed on. Buyer beware: in order to trust a "sustainable" product, you need to do some research on the agency or group that is making the claim. Products claiming sustainability with no third-party auditing body at all should be viewed with suspicion.
3) When organic farmers and consumers started a grassroots movement forty years ago to define "organic" and quantify it, they focused narrowly on food and how it is grown. The rules they created tended to prohibit specific materials and practices, specifically those involving synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. They created a methodology for certification that focused on quantifiables and delivered a simple pass/fail grade: you are either Certified Organic, or you are not.
4) The concept of sustainability is both broader and more abstract. As I mentioned above, it is also currently undefined. However,
it commonly addresses issues such as energy use/carbon footprint, treatment and compensation of employees, water conservation, and protection of wildlife and habitat. Some people would include a rule about "locally grown" in the definition; others scoff at the idea.
The "sustainable" label is being applied on a much broader scope than that of organic, to such as natural resources like wild fisheries, forestry and mining. Some of these labels seem useful, especially ones backed by reputable bodies like the one the Monterey Aquarium uses for fish. Sustainable is also occasionally being used in reference to manufactured goods, like Subaru's claim of "zero landfill factories". I'm not going to focus on that.
4)
Many organic farmers incorporate some or many tenets of sustainability into their operations. For them, these follow logically from the same ecological mindset that drew them to organic agriculture in the first place. Some organic certifying agencies, including ours (CCOF) are exploring ways to officially document such practices. However, for the information to be useful to consumers, it has to be clear and simple.
The Monterey Aquarium has a well-respected "green/yellow/red" color system for judging the sustainability of fish species for consumption. This would never work for agriculture. A point system? Who would decide how many points a farmer would get for, say, making their own biodiesel? How many points would that same farm get dinged for using plastic mulch to speed the growth of their tomato fields (like we do in the picture above)? Details like this are what will probably keep "Certified Sustainable" agriculture from becoming a reality for a long time.
4)
Not all organic agriculture is sustainable, even in the loosest sense. That's because our food system -- heck, our economy in general -- is completely unsustainable. General Mills wants organic corn syrup for their organic Oreos and Walmart wants tomatoes year round from wherever in the world. Consumers are buying these products, so they must want them. In our free market economy, the market is always right. But it's not always sustainable.
"Certified Sustainable" food faces the same problem. Farmers who are using Monsanto's genetically modified crops to reduce their fuel consumption and improve soil conservation may deserve some credit. But the crops they are growing -- field corn and soybeans -- are part of a profoundly unsustainable production system. They're not feeding the world, as they would like you to believe. They are producing cheap meat and corn syrup for unhealthy fast food. And they are being subsidized with tax dollars.
For more on this topic,
check out a diagram that breaks down the energy usage connected with food: it's all about the processing.
5) In closing, I will say this: organic farmers and consumers were the first group to prove that ethically minded people would spend more for food produced in a more environmentally friendly way. The Fair Trade label and others have expanded on the idea of marketing to ethical consumers. Simply put, doing the right thing isn't cheap. In a world economy where those racing to the bottom the fastest usually win, consumers need to pay more for ethical products -- whatever the ethics may be. Until someone comes up with a system to quantify "sustainability" that consumers can trust, "
Certified Organic" remains the only verifiable official assurance of a quantified legal standard for environmentally friendly farming practices.
A few subscribers have asked for a progress report on the peaches. I mentioned several weeks back that the trees were blooming and that the stormy weather was a concern. Well, most of the varieties are still in bloom, so it's still hard to tell whether or not we've got a good crop. Even though we've had regular rain, we've also had some sunny days in between that bring the bees out to pollinate.
