COMMENTS: 46
The Ugly Truth Behind Organic Food
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
Is it time for a strawberry to make a political statement, again?
I'm standing on a farm south of San Francisco that is unremarkable in that it, like all of the other farms in the area, is a golden canvas of brilliant yellow flowers with the occasional patchwork of verdant greens, early signs of this year's season sprouting up.
It's a slice of California's multibillion-dollar agricultural region that spreads east through the state's Central Valley, down the coast toward Salinas -- America's salad bowl -- all the way to the Mexican border and north toward Oregon. While still a small minority, a growing number of these farms are now organic.
Plenty of people, including me, prefer organic produce because it is healthier and safer. But this certification does nothing to ensure that it was produced with sustainable agricultural practices.
The little strawberry I'm munching is part of a bigger story that begins in the fields and ends on your plate. It's the story of a lucrative industry that offers consumers a commodity at a low-cost but with high consequences.
Forming the backbone of this industry are the oft-forgotten armies of farmworkers who travel California's freeway arteries to plant and harvest crops in every corner of this region. The policies that oppress the 2 million people who grow our food betray its true costs.
Food writer and activist Eric Schlosser, speaking at the Slow Food Nation conference in San Francisco last fall, said that he would rather eat a conventional tomato picked by well-treated workers than a local heirloom variety harvested by oppressed workers.
The strawberry I've just plucked from a neatly lined row of plants was grown at Swanton Berry Farm, the first organic berry farm in California and the first organic unionized farm in the nation.
The Golden State has nearly 1,800 organic growers, according to 2005 agricultural records -- 30 percent of all of the state's farms. And Swanton Berry is in a class by itself, a renegade operation that is bucking the corporate trends of many of its counterparts.
It's a small farm operating on 200 leased acres with 50 staff during peak season. Its products are sold on farm stands, at regional farmers markets stands and some Whole Foods Markets. At first glance, it looks like all of the other picturesque farms in the area, with weathered handmade signs that invite passers-by to pick their own or buy fresh produce, pies and jams from the farm stand.
But inside the farm's store and visitor lounge, the scene is markedly different from neighboring operations. Delicate glass shelves, lined with fresh berry pies, strawberry chocolate truffles, homemade jams and T-shirts (all for sale through an honor-system cash register), also include photos of United Farm Workers Founder Cesar Chavez. Memorialized near the door is the story of the farm's unionization process in 1998. Farm Manager Forrest Cook sits at his computer in a corner below an enormous photograph of Chavez.
And it struck me, why is this place such an anomaly in the organic movement?
The pioneers of organic farming in the 1960s were as eclectic as a bag of mixed greens. For some hippie farmers, embracing organic farming was part of their broader vision and commitment to sustainable agriculture. And, that meant not just treating the land well, but also the workers and animals on that land.
The social-movement component of organic farming, however, has been largely discarded. What's left, to a large degree, is quaint packaging that's strategically conceived and mass marketed to lure consumers into thinking big organic agriculture is really a sustainable mom-and-pop deal. The demand for organics continues to skyrocket, even under dismal economic conditions.
Many organic growers have responded by continuing to expand their operations and behaving similarly to their conventional counterparts. Market forces have also encouraged conventional growers to join the profitable organics movement (e.g. Driscoll's Berries and Tanimura and Antle). Many organic growers are promulgating the status quo in an industry that has kept its costs low by oppressing its workers.
"There's a real clear effort to have a stable underclass by making sure food is cheap," says Cook of Swanton Berry.
The connection between environmental conservation through organic-farming practices and labor rights, has been largely lost in much of today's organics movement.
"Environmental degradation is most often human degradation," notes Josh Viertel, president of Slow Food USA.
"Because farms are organic, people assume that it's an enlightened labor standard," says Michael Meuter, an attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance. "But that's not accurate. There are definitely labor violations on organic farms."
In 1998, Swanton Berry's owner, Jim Cochran, deviated from the status quo and approached the United Farm Workers to negotiate a contract. Cochran was committed to a farm that was sustainable, not just organic. He particularly wanted to offer his workers a health plan, but couldn't afford it.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI on May 14, 2009 2:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is why they're here. They are America's 21st century slaves. If the farms paid living wages, Americans would be doing those jobs. Since BHO is just another corporate whore, he will not be emancipating the US's slaves anytime soon.
How many Americans do you think will get upset because a migrant worker is making less then 10k per year? I don't care. At the end of the day people are just as selfish as me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdlepthien on May 14, 2009 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wrinklemomma on May 14, 2009 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: schahczenski on May 14, 2009 6:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How do you propose we “increase the pay for farm work”?
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» RE: How do you propose we “increase the pay for farm work”?
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: I think the author addressed why she
Posted by: cdlepthien
» I would agree...
Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: I would agree...
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on May 14, 2009 6:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, we need affordable weak certification, especially for small farmers, and rigorous certification for the big potential cheats. The bigger, the more rigorous. Mall-Wart may want to come out with an "organic" line, but boy are they tempted to cheat the consumer and the producer every single chance they get! Label switching? Not testing what they buy? Not inspecting their suppliers? Spraying for bugs in the store?
Next, we need third party certification on worker exploitation. We need fair trade in our own country. Is the store locking illegal humans into the store at night, contrary to fire codes, never mind the fourteenth amendment banning slavery? What is the farm doing?
I want energy certification. Does the farmer at least try to conserve a bit of oil? Is the product shipped 2000 miles to a warehouse, then back 2000 miles, and still called "local"?
I want stale date certification. Is the product re-stamped with a second stale date after the first one expires?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Organic standards do not ban antibiotics
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Life was wonderful without antibiotics!!!!
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Life was wonderful without antibiotics!!!!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Also
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: We need third party verification for...
Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: on giving cows antibiotics
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: While field raised cows
Posted by: cdlepthien
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dimityrose on May 14, 2009 7:40 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mrxls on May 14, 2009 8:10 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organic describes a system of agricluture that is an attempt to farm in closer harmony with the earth. To overlay a set of social criterion and then slam the whole concept is simply axe grinding. Why else pair "ugly truth" with organic?
I am sure a survey of workers and conditions on organic farms would show better treatment and better labor relations than a similar group of conventional farms. Why - commitment to organics is often part of a greater commitment of the farmer to a whole constellation of changes for the better.
If you did the survey 10 years ago you'd peobably see a wider range fo difference than today. Reason for this is the increased conversion of the economically motivated farmer who is less likely to deviate for the better from standard agricultural practices.
Should organic include social criterion as well? Not if organic is the means of weaning agriculture from its most ecologically harmful practices. Big ag is inching towards organic and it is in all our interests ecologically to put as few barriers as possible in the way of this change. Adding social requirements means more chemicals in the environment.
But lets be clear - the author of this article is equating unionization with better. This ignores the many organic farms that have long term excellent relations with their staff wothout the third party of a union interveening. The question of determining whether your organic food is also socially correct might well come down to doing some arcane measurement of gross farm happiness, a mechanical standard is simply not going to match the varied good practices of the rich ecology of organic farms.
If you want organic plus fair trade then just shop for food that carries both types of certification. Of course, on average, that will raise the price. I'm sure that's just fine with you as you can then write about how organic is just for the elite. Actually I think I already saw that article on alter net.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another self justifying farm owner?
Posted by: Heath
» RE: Just another self justifying farm owner?
Posted by: mrxls
» Lots of rhetoric, no facts
Posted by: Heath
» Kind of Like How the Original Article Has No Facts, But Drops a Broad Brush Attack On Organic Farms
Posted by: femmyv
» Lots of rhetoric, no facts, part 2
Posted by: Heath
» Some facts to consider
Posted by: Heath
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janetex on May 14, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, on our small farm, are more interested in being sustainable than being organic.
The only way to truly ensure you are eating and buying quality produce is to know your farmer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ranjit Kumar on May 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It has happened here in the USA and it's happening around the world, the rising deaths of
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: It has happened here in the USA and it's happening around the world, the rising deaths of
Posted by: Ranjit Kumar
» Given that "Organic"...
Posted by: buffeliscious
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 14, 2009 10:57 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't wait to find out how Britney Spears Brand Electricity makes you feel younger and is more wholesome.
Catchy labels are great things for targetting consumptorbots for cash harvesting.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Same organic/industrial food.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» *
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: iris89 on May 14, 2009 10:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, People buy organic because they do NOT want toxic pesticide residue and toxic fertilizer residue in their food – they want safer food!
Second, Labor conditions on organic and non-organic farms are basically the same with but one exception, the workers on organic farms are NOT exposed to toxic pesticides and toxic fertilizers.
Third, Middle men are making food prices too high.
Fourth, I hate tasteless tomatoes and other chemically grown food from California.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 14, 2009 11:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Productivity has been rising for years.
Companies can afford to pay workers more but would rather just pay off the execs.
People would buy organic if they had the money. People would also pay more for food if they had the money and understood that a farm workers living wage contributes to their higher wages.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Birdland on May 14, 2009 11:37 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're making me hungry!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: I gotta agree
Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: Organic Or Not
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on May 14, 2009 12:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyway, I want to know exactly what I really do have to pay for produce to ensure health & safety and fair/sustainable labor. My gut tells me I'd never be able to afford to eat anything I didn't grow myself--I pretty much can barely afford what I can get at farmer's markets and TJ's as it is. But then I thought that way about living wages until the local living wage coalition showed me in nice little charts how I actually could still afford things (services mostly--I can't afford "things" these days anyhow) from folks who paid their people a living wage. Those simple little charts changed a lot of minds. Course, I can't afford to eat in restaurants, let alone living wage paying ones so it's irrelevant to me personally. And this is where the problem falls far too often.
When you're a middling serf or owning class prick, a matter of a few cents or a dollar or two is nothing. You got extra money anyway and you can pay it. But when you're poor, even a five cent increase means you eat less or go without. When we're talking food prices, going without is often the norm. If it doesn't come from the farmer's market we don't have it in our house mostly. Just because when all you got is $20, all you got is $20. Period. At the FM you can get x amount of produce for $20. At the store you get substantially less (or "y") produce for that same $20. As food prices have gone up (we don't buy fruit juice no more, can't afford it.. water and once a week you can have milk. That's it.), we lower classers have simply been forced to eat less and it's to the point were we really don't have much to eat--some days parents trade off "fasting" so the kids stay fed. You middlings don't get that. How could you, you don't know what it's like to not have enough to buy what you need. But that's where we live every damned day.
So,when my survival is at stake, sorry, I'm going to eat, honky mofo, and you can kiss my flat butt with all that noble social-justice stuff. Frankly, Swanton Berries cost too much for my meager budget (I also don't get a living wage, hell, I don't even get minimum wage).
My point is, people need to be paid enough to live and it ain't happening. When people get into the complexities of WHY they're not paid enough (because then everything's too expensive) we start finding out it's the god damned rich people soaking us and that we could actually BOTH afford to be paid decently AND we can still afford to eat. But without a visual aid, a lot of us 'Merkaan idiots don't comprehend how that works exactly.
[note to Alternet Eds. give us some charts, you know, fancy sidebars 'n stuff]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The farmworkers could make
Posted by: cdlepthien
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tw0rkman on May 14, 2009 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Defenestrator on May 14, 2009 1:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increasingly, organic food (which fetches better prices from upscale American stores and consumers) is taken from where it is grown (frequently Mexico) and shipped (with diesel trucks) into the US. Mexicans end up shipping away their organic food. That's "the rational free-market" at work, I guess. One of the biggest problems is that organic food tend to be shipped greater distances, and therefore ends up having a greater negative environmental impact than "conventional" food that is not shipped from another country or continent. This phenomenon is something people are calling Food-Miles.
Best case scenario would be to grow your own food or buy locally-grown organic food. Thanks for the article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chance garden on May 14, 2009 9:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rest of us in the cities will have staved to death, or will have been rounded up by the international community police forces and placed in security compounds, or will find ourselves hoarding and eating "Organic" compounds and grass out in the wilderness. No problem here!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on May 16, 2009 8:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nearly forty years later, we still have the same problem, with the same people, Antle and Tanimura, among others?? Thank you, AlterNet, for keeping us informed. Our local organic family-owned farm does not even sell in our town--they ship it all to Atlanta, and the same worst-case scenario is no doubt multiplied across America.
As usual, we're trapped--if we boycott without a union movement, poor folks lose their jobs. If we eat, we're empowering corporate greedheads.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HonestMeat on May 19, 2009 10:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, to say that organic growers are "hostile" to labor issues is incorrect. The CIRS report stated that they "preferred" not to include social standards. Have you talked to other organic growers to find out why they don't want to include social standards? Could it be perhaps that they want to see federal and state regulations level the playing field or that they want to see the government provide either free or subsidized health care to all? For many organic growers, the majority of whom are small-scale, they don't even have health insurance themselves. If they do it is because they work off the farm or their spouses do so they can have basic benefits. Your article is lumping small and medium scale organic growers together with the industrial ones. That is not fair. Their values, issues, and needs are very different. Swanton Berry Farm could unionize because of it's size. Most organic farms are not that size, nor do they live near one of the most affluent markets in the country. And then off course you fail to mention that increasing labor costs will increase the price of food, making organic food even less accessible to the poor. Do we want a system that forces poor folks to eat chemical-laden, antibiotic-filled food? You have to either subsidize the farmers to improve their labor and environmental standards so that they can keep food prices affordable, or you have to raise wages in this country so that the working poor have the money to eat good food. You conveniently leave that whole issue out of your argument.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI on May 14, 2009 2:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is why they're here. They are America's 21st century slaves. If the farms paid living wages, Americans would be doing those jobs. Since BHO is just another corporate whore, he will not be emancipating the US's slaves anytime soon.
How many Americans do you think will get upset because a migrant worker is making less then 10k per year? I don't care. At the end of the day people are just as selfish as me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdlepthien on May 14, 2009 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wrinklemomma on May 14, 2009 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: schahczenski on May 14, 2009 6:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How do you propose we “increase the pay for farm work”?
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» RE: How do you propose we “increase the pay for farm work”?
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: I think the author addressed why she
Posted by: cdlepthien
» I would agree...
Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: I would agree...
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on May 14, 2009 6:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, we need affordable weak certification, especially for small farmers, and rigorous certification for the big potential cheats. The bigger, the more rigorous. Mall-Wart may want to come out with an "organic" line, but boy are they tempted to cheat the consumer and the producer every single chance they get! Label switching? Not testing what they buy? Not inspecting their suppliers? Spraying for bugs in the store?
Next, we need third party certification on worker exploitation. We need fair trade in our own country. Is the store locking illegal humans into the store at night, contrary to fire codes, never mind the fourteenth amendment banning slavery? What is the farm doing?
I want energy certification. Does the farmer at least try to conserve a bit of oil? Is the product shipped 2000 miles to a warehouse, then back 2000 miles, and still called "local"?
I want stale date certification. Is the product re-stamped with a second stale date after the first one expires?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Organic standards do not ban antibiotics
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Life was wonderful without antibiotics!!!!
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Life was wonderful without antibiotics!!!!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Also
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: We need third party verification for...
Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: on giving cows antibiotics
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: While field raised cows
Posted by: cdlepthien
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dimityrose on May 14, 2009 7:40 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mrxls on May 14, 2009 8:10 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organic describes a system of agricluture that is an attempt to farm in closer harmony with the earth. To overlay a set of social criterion and then slam the whole concept is simply axe grinding. Why else pair "ugly truth" with organic?
I am sure a survey of workers and conditions on organic farms would show better treatment and better labor relations than a similar group of conventional farms. Why - commitment to organics is often part of a greater commitment of the farmer to a whole constellation of changes for the better.
If you did the survey 10 years ago you'd peobably see a wider range fo difference than today. Reason for this is the increased conversion of the economically motivated farmer who is less likely to deviate for the better from standard agricultural practices.
Should organic include social criterion as well? Not if organic is the means of weaning agriculture from its most ecologically harmful practices. Big ag is inching towards organic and it is in all our interests ecologically to put as few barriers as possible in the way of this change. Adding social requirements means more chemicals in the environment.
But lets be clear - the author of this article is equating unionization with better. This ignores the many organic farms that have long term excellent relations with their staff wothout the third party of a union interveening. The question of determining whether your organic food is also socially correct might well come down to doing some arcane measurement of gross farm happiness, a mechanical standard is simply not going to match the varied good practices of the rich ecology of organic farms.
If you want organic plus fair trade then just shop for food that carries both types of certification. Of course, on average, that will raise the price. I'm sure that's just fine with you as you can then write about how organic is just for the elite. Actually I think I already saw that article on alter net.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another self justifying farm owner?
Posted by: Heath
» RE: Just another self justifying farm owner?
Posted by: mrxls
» Lots of rhetoric, no facts
Posted by: Heath
» Kind of Like How the Original Article Has No Facts, But Drops a Broad Brush Attack On Organic Farms
Posted by: femmyv
» Lots of rhetoric, no facts, part 2
Posted by: Heath
» Some facts to consider
Posted by: Heath
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janetex on May 14, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, on our small farm, are more interested in being sustainable than being organic.
The only way to truly ensure you are eating and buying quality produce is to know your farmer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ranjit Kumar on May 14, 2009 9:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It has happened here in the USA and it's happening around the world, the rising deaths of
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: It has happened here in the USA and it's happening around the world, the rising deaths of
Posted by: Ranjit Kumar
» Given that "Organic"...
Posted by: buffeliscious
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 14, 2009 10:57 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't wait to find out how Britney Spears Brand Electricity makes you feel younger and is more wholesome.
Catchy labels are great things for targetting consumptorbots for cash harvesting.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Same organic/industrial food.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» *
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: iris89 on May 14, 2009 10:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, People buy organic because they do NOT want toxic pesticide residue and toxic fertilizer residue in their food – they want safer food!
Second, Labor conditions on organic and non-organic farms are basically the same with but one exception, the workers on organic farms are NOT exposed to toxic pesticides and toxic fertilizers.
Third, Middle men are making food prices too high.
Fourth, I hate tasteless tomatoes and other chemically grown food from California.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 14, 2009 11:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Productivity has been rising for years.
Companies can afford to pay workers more but would rather just pay off the execs.
People would buy organic if they had the money. People would also pay more for food if they had the money and understood that a farm workers living wage contributes to their higher wages.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Birdland on May 14, 2009 11:37 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're making me hungry!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: I gotta agree
Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: Organic Or Not
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on May 14, 2009 12:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyway, I want to know exactly what I really do have to pay for produce to ensure health & safety and fair/sustainable labor. My gut tells me I'd never be able to afford to eat anything I didn't grow myself--I pretty much can barely afford what I can get at farmer's markets and TJ's as it is. But then I thought that way about living wages until the local living wage coalition showed me in nice little charts how I actually could still afford things (services mostly--I can't afford "things" these days anyhow) from folks who paid their people a living wage. Those simple little charts changed a lot of minds. Course, I can't afford to eat in restaurants, let alone living wage paying ones so it's irrelevant to me personally. And this is where the problem falls far too often.
When you're a middling serf or owning class prick, a matter of a few cents or a dollar or two is nothing. You got extra money anyway and you can pay it. But when you're poor, even a five cent increase means you eat less or go without. When we're talking food prices, going without is often the norm. If it doesn't come from the farmer's market we don't have it in our house mostly. Just because when all you got is $20, all you got is $20. Period. At the FM you can get x amount of produce for $20. At the store you get substantially less (or "y") produce for that same $20. As food prices have gone up (we don't buy fruit juice no more, can't afford it.. water and once a week you can have milk. That's it.), we lower classers have simply been forced to eat less and it's to the point were we really don't have much to eat--some days parents trade off "fasting" so the kids stay fed. You middlings don't get that. How could you, you don't know what it's like to not have enough to buy what you need. But that's where we live every damned day.
So,when my survival is at stake, sorry, I'm going to eat, honky mofo, and you can kiss my flat butt with all that noble social-justice stuff. Frankly, Swanton Berries cost too much for my meager budget (I also don't get a living wage, hell, I don't even get minimum wage).
My point is, people need to be paid enough to live and it ain't happening. When people get into the complexities of WHY they're not paid enough (because then everything's too expensive) we start finding out it's the god damned rich people soaking us and that we could actually BOTH afford to be paid decently AND we can still afford to eat. But without a visual aid, a lot of us 'Merkaan idiots don't comprehend how that works exactly.
[note to Alternet Eds. give us some charts, you know, fancy sidebars 'n stuff]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The farmworkers could make
Posted by: cdlepthien
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tw0rkman on May 14, 2009 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Defenestrator on May 14, 2009 1:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increasingly, organic food (which fetches better prices from upscale American stores and consumers) is taken from where it is grown (frequently Mexico) and shipped (with diesel trucks) into the US. Mexicans end up shipping away their organic food. That's "the rational free-market" at work, I guess. One of the biggest problems is that organic food tend to be shipped greater distances, and therefore ends up having a greater negative environmental impact than "conventional" food that is not shipped from another country or continent. This phenomenon is something people are calling Food-Miles.
Best case scenario would be to grow your own food or buy locally-grown organic food. Thanks for the article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chance garden on May 14, 2009 9:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rest of us in the cities will have staved to death, or will have been rounded up by the international community police forces and placed in security compounds, or will find ourselves hoarding and eating "Organic" compounds and grass out in the wilderness. No problem here!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on May 16, 2009 8:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nearly forty years later, we still have the same problem, with the same people, Antle and Tanimura, among others?? Thank you, AlterNet, for keeping us informed. Our local organic family-owned farm does not even sell in our town--they ship it all to Atlanta, and the same worst-case scenario is no doubt multiplied across America.
As usual, we're trapped--if we boycott without a union movement, poor folks lose their jobs. If we eat, we're empowering corporate greedheads.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HonestMeat on May 19, 2009 10:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, to say that organic growers are "hostile" to labor issues is incorrect. The CIRS report stated that they "preferred" not to include social standards. Have you talked to other organic growers to find out why they don't want to include social standards? Could it be perhaps that they want to see federal and state regulations level the playing field or that they want to see the government provide either free or subsidized health care to all? For many organic growers, the majority of whom are small-scale, they don't even have health insurance themselves. If they do it is because they work off the farm or their spouses do so they can have basic benefits. Your article is lumping small and medium scale organic growers together with the industrial ones. That is not fair. Their values, issues, and needs are very different. Swanton Berry Farm could unionize because of it's size. Most organic farms are not that size, nor do they live near one of the most affluent markets in the country. And then off course you fail to mention that increasing labor costs will increase the price of food, making organic food even less accessible to the poor. Do we want a system that forces poor folks to eat chemical-laden, antibiotic-filled food? You have to either subsidize the farmers to improve their labor and environmental standards so that they can keep food prices affordable, or you have to raise wages in this country so that the working poor have the money to eat good food. You conveniently leave that whole issue out of your argument.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




