Farmer concerns over changes for organic meat

This is part 2 of a 2 parter on rule changes for organic meat and direct selling. Here is part one.

Significant concerns have been raised by farmers over changes in the procedures for butchering certified organic meat.

Primarily, this concerns farmers who use local butchers and direct sell their own meat.

Up until now, farmers maintained a record book with all relevant details of the animal and slaughter. This was inspected as part of his own inspection.

Now the onus is being transferred over to the butcher.

It was always technically possible for these butchers to be inspected, but in practice the inspection has sufficed.

Farmers will now have to use butchers' registered with an Organic Certification Body (OCB). Alternatively, their own butcher will have to open himself up to organic inspection and eventual registration. The farmer will pay the cost of this inspection.

Some farmers are concerned. While some methods to possibly reduce this increased cost burden have been cited, for many farmers they will simply be paying more for the same procedure.

This, coupled with a fee increase from IOFGA, the largest OCB, means a significant cost increase for many organic livestock farmers. (The fee increase, as it is proposed, specifically mitigates against farmers with larger holdings and poorer land, as it is incrementally area-based)

Noticeably, the record book these organic farmers have been using makes much of the fact that unnecessary additional bureaucracy is avoided.

While it is claimed that the butcher will not have any extra paperwork, rather an examination of his existing paperwork, there are concerns here too.

It is a rare creature who goes out of his way to add a layer of inspection onto his business. With few organic farmers on their books, some farmers are concerned that butchers will see this as an unnecessary additional imposition not worth the hassle.

Some organic farmers, both those converting and full symbol, are worried that they will also have fewer butchers to choose from. This in turn could lead to a change in the relationship between butcher and farmer. If the farmer has paid for the butcher's organic inspection costs, the farmer is less likely to engage in the healthy competition of shopping around for butchers, as each additional butcher carries an additional inspection cost.

This places the farmer in a negative relationship, as the butcher could be perceived as having an economic 'hold' over the farmer in this context.

At present there are few registered organic butchers, and not all other butchers will want to sign up to organic inspection and eventual organic registration. This, some farmers worry, will mean that they are not choosing from the widest possible range of butchers in the region. Rather, they will be choosing from a far smaller pool of technically available butchers. This reduces the likelihood of finding the most skilled.

Crucially, some organic farmers have very specific cutting and mincing requirements (especially for non-Continental beef animals) and long standing positive working relationships with their preferred local butchers: not all organic burgers are the same. Why jeopardize this relationship?

Others are concerned with an unnecessary increase in travel, with both economic costs and stress on the animal. If the farmer has to find a new butcher willing to adhere to these stipulations, this butcher may or may not be nearby. With fewer to choose from, the chances are that he will not be nearby.

The system until now was also an excellent entrypoint, for conventional farmers who direct sell, into organic: they could retain their working relationship with their preferred local butcher, rather than finding another one.

EU rules and regulations are being blamed. And yet, according to the EU regulation: "It might in some cases appear disproportionate to apply notification and control requirements to certain types of retail operators, such as those who sell products directly to the final consumer or user. It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to exempt such operators from these requirements."

The rules also suggest both the �organic integrity and vital qualities of the product are maintained through all stages of the production chain�.

Isn't that expertly cut meat by the best available butcher, with the direct-selling farmer carrying more of the burden of inspection?

Changes afoot for organic meat direct sellers

A two parter - for the next part, see today's Examiner.

Significant changes for certified organic livestock farmers are coming into effect in 2011.

Butcher shops or large scale processors will no longer be allowed use producer specific abattoirs, due to the volume of stock going through them.

Producer specific abattoirs/butchers are abattoirs/butchers that organic operators (businesses or farmers) use but which are not registered with an organic certification body.

However, organic farmers who use local 'unregistered' butchers and direct sell their meat will also be effected.

These local producer specific abattoirs/butchers will now have to be inspected by the organic certification body. The cost for this will be borne by the licencee, i.e. the farmer.

According to organic certification body IOFGA's Mary Lynch �it was always the case that the producer specific abattoirs/butchers could be inspected by IOFGA inspectors and that cost must be borne by the producers using the facility�.

However, IOFGA still felt it necessary to send a notification to farmers about the need for inspections of unregistered butchers.

Thus far, as well as adhering to the rules and procedures for livestock and processing in the Standards, these farmers maintained a record keeping book which was assessed as part of their inspection. They also informed the certification body of all necessary details of the animal and its processing. There were also procedures in place such as as the slaughter of certified organic animals first thing in the morning before any other animals. However there was no standardised regime of inspection of butchers not registered with an organic certification body.

According to Angela Clarke, certification manager of IOFGA:

�This should have been carried out over the past number of year(s) however it was not implemented by IOFGA. This is to ensure the integrity of the organic product. The whole process from the farmer to the end consumer must be inspected to ensure this integrity.�

She also pointed out that �DAFF (The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) are adamant that this must take place.... this issue was discussed in great detail at the Forum meetings with all certification bodies so this is not just an IOFGA decision.�

Direct selling farmers who currently work with their preferred local but unregistered butcher will have some decisions to make. They will have to either convince their butcher to accept this new regime, or they will have to change to a butcher registered with an organic certification body.

The literature recently sent to IOFGA members states that the farmer will have to carry the cost of the inspection. However according to Mary Lynch, there may be ways to minimise the costs to the farmer: �If both IOFGA and Organic Trust members are using the facility, then the premises would be inspected every second year by each OCB (organic certification body). Therefore, the cost to the producer can be reduced if they use a facility that another organic producer is also using.�

She also points out that the paperwork requirements are not onerous: �butchers/abattoirs are well used to the paper work that is involved with slaughtering livestock and the inspector will be checking existing paperwork and not asking for any new paperwork to (be) generated�.

She continues: �They are mainly checking that the animals from the producer was killed at the premises and the weight of meat processed for the organic producer, so that can be checked against the sales details of the producer�.

Beyond inspections, discussions are currently underway between the Organic Certification Bodies and the Department to establish �at what stage a producer specific abattoir/butcher should become registered in their own right. This will probably depend on the number of animals being processed by the facility or the number of producers using any one facility,� according to Mary Lynch.

�If a large number of animals are being processed by a facility, records for the organic producers should be kept and made available to the inspector and then the cost should be borne by the owners of the facility not the producer.�

Sheep and beef farmers I have spoken to, both in conversion and fully certified, have voiced concerns about this new situation. Next week, these concerns will be outlined.

Organic Farming Scheme to remain suspended until 1st January

revor Sargent TD, Minister for Food and Horticulture at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today announced the outcome of the review of the Organic Farming Scheme, under which support is paid to farmers in the sector.

"It is my intention, subject to the outcome of the estimates process, to re-open the Organic Farming Scheme from 1 January, 2010 with revised scheme conditions. The amount of funding available for the Organic Farming Scheme will be determined later in the year when the Government are preparing the estimates for 2010", said Minister Sargent.

for more, including the new terms and conditions for farmers and growers considering converting to organic, see here

UK FSA report on organic vs conventional food's nutrition: part 2

As revealed last posting on this, the recent UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report, comparing the nutritional levels of organic and conventional foods from 1958 to February 2008, actually left out every publication from before 1990.

In total, 2/3 of all the relevant peer reviewed research was rejected.

The logic given in the report is that in the 66% of rejected work, various failings in the peer review process were uncovered. The biggest single fault found was that no certification body was listed or inferred for the organic produce analysed (p 15).

In many cases this was because certification was in its infancy.

This is a very big and very important decision to make. Many state bodies, such as our own Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF), does not actually have a certification body.

DAFF is what is called the competent authority: it delegates to private inspection and certification bodies. However, it does not have private certification bodies inspect its own research centres.

Thus, any research done by DAFF would not have been included in this report, irrespective of which scientific journal it appeared in.

It is reasonable to assume that the same could also hold for at least some other state institutions across the world, who inevitably delegate authority to private certification bodies.

Often, the state does not see the need or value in inspections on its own research by these private bodies: after all, it delegates power to these bodies.

This certification issue is especially significant because in this rejected 66%, the findings are far more positive for organic than in the 34% considered at the quality level.

Interestingly, the report itself does actually list nutritional findings taken from an analysis of all 162 publications.

It is just that the official findings and conclusions, which suggest that there are no significant differences between organic and conventional in nutritional terms, come from their analysis of just 55 publications: i.e. the smaller 1/3 or 34%. For example, they claim:

�Organically produced crops were found to have significantly higher levels of sugars, magnesium, zinc, dry matter, phenolic compounds and flavonoids than conventionally crops� (p 17).

These significant differences were found when taking all 162 peer reviewed published papers into account.

When taking the narrower quality criteria, and considering just a maximum of 55, or 1/3, only three differences were found: Conventional crops were found to have more nitrogen, and organic crops more phosphorus and titratable acidity.

Based on the latter three findings from the smaller set of publications, the authors claim that no significant differences were to be found between organic and conventional nutritionally.

The same holds for livestock products: 3 out of ten significant differences were found between organic and conventional. However with the narrower selection criteria, which leaves out 2/3 of all published research, just one was found. The other two were rejected due to insufficient data.

Out of a possible 162, just 25 in total dealt with all livestock products: i.e. all meat and dairy products.

Incredibly, within these 25, it seems that hardly any were considered to actually have met the quality criteria: according to appendix 13, p.3, no more than 6 publications were at the required level for the authors.

To say that more research is needed sometimes just sounds like an appeal for funding: in this case, it seems fairly clear that this handful of livestock product papers, supposedly spanning five decades, is fairly paltry.

Professor Carlo Leifert co-ordinated the major EU Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) initiative, which involved 31 research and university institutes.

Leifert's own research, suggesting organic milk's nutritional superiority, appeared in April 2008 - technically 2 months too late for inclusion in the study.

He said: "I'm worried about the conclusions. The ballpark figures they have come up with are similar to ours. I don't understand why the FSA are not going away and saying, 'Right, there's something you can do on a farm to improve food.' But they are so blocked by not wanting to say positive things about organic farming."

organic tillage in Ireland part 2: brian o regan

Organic tillage in Ireland has a lot of potential but few practitioners, despite supportive rule changes and a strong market.

One man who took the plunge recently is Brian O' Regan of Kinsale. Brian farms 100 acres of tillage. Depending upon the year and rotation, he grows oats, triticale, beans and wheat.

�I was conventional in 2005, but, after the sprays and fertilizers, there was noting out of it� he tells me. �I was always interested in organic. I'd look at the market and it seemed like there was a market for it. An issue at the time was that there was no organic cereal for sale. It was mostly for home use.�

Brian mentioned the importance of visiting other tillage farmers who were already organic. He cites Ben Colchester's farm near Urlingford in Kilkenny as being especially influential for him.

1st November 2006 was Brian's starting date, so on 1st November 2008 he was fully certified organic.

A bonus for those considering converting is the fact that after one year, in-conversion to organic tillage fetches almost the same price as fully certified organic, as it is usable by fully certified organic farmers.

�I was lucky in that in the 1st year of my conversion, conventional prices were high anyway, at 200e a tonne.�

Presently, Brian is achieving more than twice the conventional price. However the yield is half the conventional yield, so input costs, or the lack of them, really matter.

And as is with so many other organic farmers, both economics and other factors were motivators:

�Handling so many chemicals and fertilizers can't be too good for you, but it�s also about the bottom line. I was spending a lot of chemicals. If the year was good, you'd survive, but in a poor year you'd be left with a big bill� he points out.

Although he only stopped spraying and using synthetic fertilizers in late 2006, already, Brian has noticed a difference in the land:

�It�s only now that you'd start to notice the changes. There are more worms on the ground and the ditches are different now too. You don't have as many weeds growing out of them without the fertilizer. The normal herbage does grow, but none of the clumps of nettles you'd see elsewhere are growing there now�

I asked Brian about a hot topic amongst organic tillage growers - the feed holiday story that is doing the rounds in the UK.

This story suggests that because feed prices are so high and the UK market retracting, the UK�s biggest organic certifier, the Soil Association, are asking the competent authorities to weaken the rules on what can be fed to organic animals.

In the not too distant past, sheep and cattle could be fed a non-organic component.

It is worth pointing out that the Soil Association denies even making this request: they instead point to the need for a debate on how best to keep people farming organically, or as close to organically as possible in the current economic situation.

Understandably, Brian is against any watering down of the feed rules: �you are either organic or you�re not. If they started to let in a 10-15% bovine ration, it would kill organic cereal growing in Ireland - that's all they'd be fed, outside of grass. The feed mills would run it to the max - business is business, so they'd push it�.

He also points out that it would be bad for the consumer, �as they'd be unsure of what they're getting�.

Considering all the effort that's gone into getting tillage farmers to convert to organic, Brian claims that increasing the conventional component would slow down the rate of conversions to organic.

Another issue is the fact that in the event of a product recall, as happened with pig meat recently, organic farmers with a conventional component are exposed.

Every farmer in every sector has issues: the price they get, the money they spend, as well as non-economic considerations. Organic tillage, all told, may offer more opportunities than most.

IOFGA and the Soil Association: Lilliput and Brobdingnag sing in harmony

(pictured are Patrick Holden of the Soil Association and Minister for Food Trevor Sargent, at the IOFGA AGM in 2008: picture copyright Oliver Moore)

The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) has formally established a co-operative link with the UK's Soil Association.

This means that the largest certification bodies in Ireland and the UK have agreed to work together.

This arrangement will allow IOFGA access to the extensive research and development programme of the Soil Association.

According to IOFGA chair Kate Carmody, accessing Soil Association market information will be especially useful for IOFGA and its membership: �They have a huge up-to-date database of information on marketing which they have allowed us to access.�

The arrangement will also give IOFGA access more information on organic farming and growing, certification and the promotion of organic food.

According to the organisation �this is of growing importance given the increasing complexity of EU regulations governing the organic sector and it will be especially relevant when dealing with the complex requirements of the food processing and manufacturing industry.�

According to Carmody, the arrangement � has come about because of a long standing relationship with the Soil Association. We have essentially the same standards and we always work together. People prefer equivalence, so its logical to have a reciprocal relationship. A lot of companies want the process to be done to the Soil Association standard.�

This new arrangement could mean that product certified in Ireland will be considered equivalent to Soil Association product in the UK. This could eliminate duplication in the inspection and certification process.

�Both organisations will retain their autonomy under the agreement whilst working together in areas of mutual interest� Carmody points out.

From IOFGA's perspective, this will surely be important. The Soil Association are a far larger and better resourced organisation that IOFGA, with a presence in Northern Ireland already.

They are the largest certifier in the UK � their logo appears on 70% of British organic produce. They employ over 180 staff based in their Bristol headquarters, in regional centres and working as certification inspectors across the UK.

Along with certification, the Soil Association also carry out campaign work in a number of areas: they list these as genetic engineering in food; animal welfare; pesticides; threats to wildlife from intensive agriculture; antibiotics; the closure of small abattoirs; the harmful effects of intensive farming on food quality and safety; and finally setting standards to ensure the integrity of organic food and other products.

Genetic engineering/modification (GM) seems to be a particular bugbear of theirs: Helen Taylor, director of marketing and corporate relations with the Soil Association, spoke at the the National Organic conference in November 2006, held in Carrick on Shannon. She suggested that one third of their campaigning budget goes on fighting GM.

As an organisation, they have placed a particular emphasis on the consumer. Two recent high profile issues they have focused on include air freight and what they call one planet agriculture.
A variety of agri-food, consumer, environmental and business/trade interests were involved in the consultation the organisation carried out on air freight. Their decision to couple air freight and fair trade showed their environmental and social justice credentials to many. To others, especially those involved in importing and exporting products, the Soil Association had stepped way beyond their remit

The One Planet Agriculture is a broad sustainability in food campaign, part of their 'beyond organic' focus.

For the organic operator, they are a veritable one stop shop. Along with the full certification service and the marketing, research and development work already mentioned, they also: run 90 demonstration farms; represent and work for various sub sectors within organic from growers to processors; produce the quarterly magazine Organic Farming; and provide numerous specialist resources for business development.

Whilst IOFGA do have a development officer, the magazine Organic Matters and do as much campaigning as they can, in reality certification takes up the vast majority of their time.

However both IOFGA and the Soil Association do have the bigger picture as well as the small individual operator within their self defined remit. So there are sister organisations in essence. Irish organic farmers will surely benefit from the extra resources they now have access to.

IOFGA are here
SA are here

New organic certifier announced for Ireland: IMO

Earlier this month, the Institute of Marketecology (IMO) were approved to operate in Ireland as a new organic certification body.

IMO are a large globally recognised certification body, for whom organic is just one area.

This again brings to three the number of organic certification bodies in Ireland: until quite recently, the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) and Organic Trust were accompanied by Demeter Standards, the certification branch of the Biodynamic Association of Ireland.

IMO has been active in the field of organic certification for more than 20 years. Their world-wide activities are accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Service (SAS).

Thus far, IMO have had a presence in Ireland through certification of aquaculture products as organic to the private German-based Naturland standard. Irish Companies such as Atlantic Fare list Naturland amongst their certification bodies.

According to Minister for Food Trevor Sargent TD, who announced the arrival of IMO as a certification body, �With the inclusion of aquaculture within the scope of the new Organic Regulation from 1 January 2009, there should be opportunities to expand the organic aquaculture sector and IMO�s approval is therefore timely.�

The issues facing the seafood sector have been outlined elsewhere in this edition, and indeed in last weeks. This boost for the organic aquaculture industry in Ireland is noteworthy, especially as this particular sector does indeed seem poised for action.

Take for example the attendees at the upcoming BioFach event, Europe�s largest organic trade show. Each year, over 2500 exhibitors and 45,000 visitors attend the show in Germany.

Historically, Ireland�s representation at BioFach has been very poor. While the exception has actually been the seafood sector, this year, their presence has increased.

At the upcoming exhibition in February, the vast majority of the 20�odd Irish attendees registered thus far are seafood related, from seafood companies such as Irish Seaspray to suppliers of feed to the sector.

While they have a strong base in seafood, IMO�s potential expansion beyond aquaculture would make for interesting times for the other certification bodies in Ireland. IMO claims to have representatives in over 30 countries and activities in over 90 countries.

Their global clients include US-based Whole Foods and Dr. Bonner. Their relationship with Wholefoods led to the Whole Trade Guarantee program, which includes both social justice and environmental dimensions.

This reflects trends at the global organic movement level, through the activities and statements of organisations like IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, who are the umbrella group for organic organisations across the world.

On the ground, however, organic certification bodies are constrained by their resources and remit.

Many in indigenous organic organisations feel frustrated that they are essentially doing the state�s work - certification � rather than any of the other myriad areas for which they have little time. These include educational, promotional, representational, supportive, advocatory or advisory.

It is also unclear what the consumer will make of another certification body. At present in Ireland, recognition of the two Irish-based certification logos is very low � lower than that of the UK�s Soil Association logo in fact.

According to the research, for the Irish consumer, the word organic is �the logo�. Soon, the consumer will have yet another logo to decipher, the mandatory EU logo, which is currently being redrawn.

It is also of course the case that arrival of another certification body will be hailed as welcome competition. This may be so.

However, there has been competition between IOFGA and the Organic Trust for many years. All the while, this competition was accompanied by calls for one organic organisation, as well as calls for the organisations to work more closely together.

Just how a pan-global organisation will adapt to the nuances and peculiarities of the Irish situation remains to be seen. They can of course point to expertise in this area, having representatives in so many countries.

And with the UK�s Soil Association possibly sounding out its own arrival into the Irish organic certification scene, those considering the organic option may soon have a veritable a la carte menu to choose from.

That infamous organic feed story and the soil association: beyond the hype

Ahhh. That was a nice break. It's good to be back in the blogosphere after taking some time away. My first posting of 09 deals with the claims that the UK's Soil Association have asked for the organic feed rules to be relaxed.

This is interesting on a number of levels. Firstly, the story seems to be just plain wrong. See here. Then there is the level of vitriol directed at organics in the many comments that have followed this story around the place. One sloppy piece of journalism in Christmas week and a: the whole media world jumped on it as absolute fact b: many anti-organic ranters and ravers seemed only too happy to fully and completely believe the story and use it as an excuse for a bit of organo-bashing. For a splendid example, see the comments after the overcooked Times article itself.

Its also interesting to see an organic organisation engage in what seems to be kite flying. Are they seeing the levels of public opposition to such a change? Are they scaring cereal producers into lowering their prices? Are they moving away from organic certification and towards food security?

Another issue highlighted by the price of feed is The UKs over exposure to grain for their cattle farming - dairy and beef. Ireland is at a distinct advantage here.

Finally, the fact that non bovines actually have a non-organic feed component is surely an issue. I can't see the consumer ever imagining this to be the case.

Article begins:
It was recently widely reported that the UK�s largest organic certification body, the Soil Association, was asking for the rules regarding organic feed to be relaxed.

This claim was first mooted in the (UK) Times on December 22nd, and widely reported after this. According to Valerie Elliot, the Soil Association has asked Hilary Benn, the Rural Affairs Secretary �for approval to relax the rules for an indefinite period. They want their members to be able to use conventional animal feed instead of organic food concentrate, which costs double�.

High feed prices combined with a retracting market were blamed for causing this request for a rules� relaxation. In this context, it was claimed in the Times that some organic farmers wanted a �holiday� from the standards on feed. They would, however, maintain their other organic practices, could not sell their produce as organic, and could later rejoin the organic sector, according to the report.

In response however, the Soil Association have claimed that the Times� reporter got her facts wrong on the issue.

They find it �disappointing that the Times chose to run an article which suggests that the Soil Association is backing organic farmers by asking for standards to be relaxed. This is not the case at all�

Rather, they claim to be conducting a consultation on the issue: �the proposal being referred to is simply one stage of a consultation process which gives a rationale of why we have an issue that needs attention� they suggest.

While the Times� report seems to have overstated the case, the situation for organic farmers in the UK remains tough at present.

While Irish cattle, sheep and dairy farmers are also under pressure, those I spoke to were not too enamoured with the idea of allowing conventional feed in.

Richard Auler, who runs a mixed enterprise in Tipperary, which includes cattle, felt that a relaxation of the feed rules would be �a very dangerous road to go down�. He claimed that there would be �no advantage to it� and that it would �only confuse customers�.

I also spoke to Fintan Rice, an organic dairy farmer who supplies Glenisk, about the issue.

Fintan suggested that the situation is indeed tough for organic farmers at present, and that he understands why some farmers would ask for a relaxation of the rules.

�The cost of organic cereals is an issue. Our price of milk has dropped. Feed costs up to 600e per tonne, while the price we�re getting looks like being a heck of a lot less than last year� he tells me.

�Margins are very tight at 46c a litre� he continues. Whatever the route, it seems difficult to avoid spending up to 500e per tonne - even when using a partially in-conversion feed.

�When Barley costs 340e per tonne, it then has to be rolled and mixed in the bin. When it�s mixed with soya ends up costing up 500e a tonne�.

Fintan�s cattle consume 5kg of bought-in feed per day, of which 3-4 kg is in-conversion feed.

However, Fintan would not be in favour of a change in the feed rules. Like many Irish organic cattle farmers, �the main feed is grass or silage�. This reduces his exposure to high prices for bought-in feed.

He also points out that the rules were only recently changed to encourage cereal growers to convert part of their holdings to organic. This was done to counteract the shortage of organic feeds available. Changing the feed rules would �weaken the organic cereal sector, and a lot of work was put into getting them over�.

Neither renting suitable land nor growing his own cereals are options for Fintan, though this differs from farmer to farmer.

He remains hopeful that the market will sort itself out: �If the price of milk falls the price of cereal has to fall too. Something will have to give.�

Fintan also points out that �22-23c a litre for conventional milk � that�s not attractive either�.

Farmers' Markets: to Regulate or Incentivise?

For a variety of reasons, organic farmers and growers have always been interested in farmers� markets. While they may be of no substantial interest to the biggest of commercial producers, many of the smaller food producers like them for a variety of reasons.

Organics has always been about the consumer getting to know more about the product, and farmers� markets are a good vehicle to do this.

Along with the rise in farmers� markets, the rise in cynicism about these markets has occurred. Dublin-based, or perhaps Dublin obsessed commentators seem fixated with the price of food at farmers� markets, as if they are all held in Brooklodge, or south county Dublin.

In reality, many farmers� markets are better value for what you get than many of the alternatives. I know this because I shop at a few rural ones regularly, and I�ve studied them as an academic for five or so years. This involved visiting dozens all over Ireland.

But people are funny about the price of food. Especially people who don�t often frequent places like farmers� markets.

Here�s a few lines from the excellent Omnivore�s Dilemma book by Michael Pollan, in which the now iconic Joel Salatin talks about the price and the value of the food in his farm shop:

�When someone drives up to the farm in a BMW and asks me why our eggs cost more, well, first I try not to get mad. Frankly, any city person who doesn�t think I deserve a white-collar salary as a farmer doesn�t deserve my special food. Let them eat E Coli. But I don�t say that. Instead, I take him outside and point at his car: �Sir, you clearly understand quality and are willing to pay for it. Well, food is no different: you get what you pay for��.

This is not to say that there aren�t issues facing local food. These issues can boil down to distance and disconnection.

Consumers come looking for local, naturally produced food. And often they get it. However this level of personal attention can be time consuming for producers: there are issues of scale for producers to stand at every stall their produce is on. This balance between integrity and viability, between actually providing local food and having a range of varied products people might want to buy, is key.

Of course, there are buffers against the stallholders and the produce itself coming from further and further a field - many farmers� markets manage to avoid an excess of distance and disconnection.

Nonetheless, there are sometimes frustrations at the difference between the wording, and the impression of local food and the reality people sometimes experience, particularly in or near Dublin.

With this in mind, some promising steps have been taken by Junior Minister Trevor Sargent to address the standards to which farmers� markets operate.

While there is a consultation process underway, involving a number of Departments and stakeholders, its clear what the Minister himself prefers: �I�m very focused on providing incentives first and foremost. I recognise that there is a need for regulations, for example from a health and safety point of view, but some of those are already in place. I�m hoping to encourage an accreditation system which would be an incentive for farmers� markets to, as it were, �tick the boxes��not unlike the systems in place on beaches or for the green flag schools.�

And while the specifics are to be hammered out through the consultation process, it is clear that the Minister wants �to encourage rather than to regulate.�

This must chime pleasantly with those wary of over-regulation, or wary of too strict an interpretation of the dictates on locale stifling the markets� growth potential.

Organic cosmetics to be certified by Organic Trust in Ireland

In a market leading move, the Organic Trust recently announced that it will soon be in a position to certify cosmetics and beauty products as organic.

This would make the Organic Trust, along with the UK�s Soil Association, the only certification body in Britain or Ireland with cosmetics and beauty products on their books.

The area of certifying organic cosmetics is perhaps the most contentious of all the possible areas. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, and simply, you can�t or at least shouldn�t, eat cosmetics.

But assuming that people want similar standards for cosmetics they put onto their body as for the foods they put into them, the area is still fraught with controversy.

Lovelula.com specialises in on line retailing of natural and certified organic cosmetics and body care products. Lula herself firstly pointed out that that the general labelling rules are weaker for cosmetics than for other products:

�It is currently legal for a product to be labelled organic if this word is part of its brand name even if it contains no organic ingredients whatsoever. Additionally these products can contain any number of chemical ingredients commonly used in conventional cosmetic products�.

Cosmetics often claim to have organic ingredients in them, or to have other, similar standards.

Lula�s company adheres to the BDIH industry standard as a baseline, while also carrying Soil Association approved products. BDIH is a high standard, but it is an internal industry standard with no third party external validation. For this reason, the Soil Association�s certification is considered stronger. It offers both the ingredients list limitations and the external, independent validation of products.

The Soil Association themselves point to some technical limitations in the area:

�Organic beauty products that contain oils and oil-based ingredients such as balms and body butters can be made using 100% organic ingredients and do not require the addition of preservatives. Sometimes they may use a mild antioxidant such as tocopherol or ascorbic acid which are permitted under organic food standards (both the EU regulation and Soil Association standards) and naturally derived.

However, products that contain water, and water and oil based ingredients such as creams, lotions and shampoos need to have some kind of preservative system so that they are safe to use. In addition they may need an emulsifier which mixes together the oil and water ingredients and stops them separating.�

They go on to suggest that organic preservatives are used, and, if none are suitable, then �a preservative that meets strict toxicological and biodegradibility requirements can be used�. The same holds for the emulsifiers.

The main problem, however, is scale and range: very few products are certified as of yet. Companies like Balm Balm, Spiezia and Pai are certified by the Soil Association, but they are conspicuous in their isolation.

In this context, the move by the Organic Trust is very much a leading edge development, putting them to the forefront of the organic certification sector globally.

I asked Colin Keogh, processing inspector with the Organic Trust, about �organic� cosmetics� bad name globally, compared to organic food:

�The Organic Trust places the credibility of the organic sector above all other considerations. In the rush to fill this vacuum for organically certified health and beauty products, we believe that some undeveloped standards have emerged in the world arena. The Organic Trust were adamant that we would not follow suit. Our Standard has emerged from a painstaking examination of many of the comparable organic and natural standards available in the worldwide market, canvassing the opinion of current producers and where necessary commissioning the appropriate experts in the field to ensure we have the most relevant and workable standards that still hold the credibility of being considered �Organic� in the real sense of the word�.

This includes carrying out individual ingredient and process analyses to assess their suitability for inclusion in the Standard.

Colin also suggested that they were still �at the crossing the T�s and dotting the i�s� stage: their stakeholder panel meets in July. Shortly after this, the list of approved ingredients will be made available.

And after this, we should start to see some trustworthy organic cosmetics, produced and certified in Ireland, on our shelves.

ecologic: a healthy food store, not a health food store

�We�re a healthy food shop, not a health food shop�. So says John Dunne, founder of Eco Logic in Dundrum. On the face of it, Eco logic looks a lot like one type of health food store: the more food-focused health food store. This type is certainly in the minority, as they tend to foreground food and background the more convenient and profitable pills, potions and body building powers.

There are distinct differences between Eco Logic and these more earthy health food stores, however. For one thing there are no pills, potions or powers here at all � none. For another, this shop is certified organic.

�We went for organic certification so our customers would be in no doubt about the products we stock. I know myself, I found it annoying to have to be constantly reading those tiny labels�.

He had to go to a lot of effort, with plenty of visits from IOFGA and the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps these two groups were wary, after the well publicised and long running case involving Marc O� Mahony and the shop that called itself the Organic Shop in the English Market in Cork city. O� Mahony was prosecuted for labelling a non-organic turkey as organic under the European Communities (Organic Farming) Regulations 2004. O'Mahony pleaded guilty in Cork District Court, where Judge David Riordan fined O'Mahony �2,500 and awarded costs of �2,000 to the Department.

Back to Eco Logic. Citing climate change as a major motivator, John moved from a career in media and IT into selling home composters at farmers markets. Some of the customers he had at the markets followed him to the Dundrum shop he established with Linda McDonnell two years ago.

The shop itself is an A-Z of organic, with fruit and veg, meat, dairy products, seeds, pulses, non-alcoholic drinks, dried goods, sauces, along with some chilled, frozen and convenience products such as cereals, ice-creams, sweets and so on. There are also some non-food items, all of which maintain an environmental theme, such as Lilly�s cleaning products, Klee paper�s stationary and various personal care products.

But food dominates. Many of the newer, smaller Irish organic companies have their products stocked here, including Rossinver porridge, sauces and relish; Tipperary ice-cream; Wilde�s chocolates, and Blazing Salad�s breads.

�It breaks my heart to have to sell imported organic cheddar cheese and butter� John tells me. And herein lies a conundrum: whether to stock Irish artisan or imported organic. In John�s case, however, he can�t choose � he has to go with the certified organic.

I spent an hour or so in the shop, talking to John while taking breaks to let him deal with his customers. He seemed to know all of them by name, which is never a bad sign. They also spanned an age range that seemed to go from 20 to over 70.

I asked John about his customers: �they break down into three categories: there�s the healthy environmental ones, the parents with young kids and a group I wasn�t necessarily expecting, people with health problems�.

John�s customer base isn�t necessarily massive, but they are very loyal: he suggests that they come from a fairly wide geographical area, and tend to do a large amount of their shopping with him.

My own initial experience of the shop backs this point up: I was staying with a friend in Rathgar, who recommended Eco Logic to me. She does a weekly shop there. And I know from cycling from her house to the shop in the rain that it isn�t exactly around the corner.

Despite the south Dublin location, John hasn�t been overrun with extremely wealthy shoppers: �generally speaking, they do seem to be reasonably well off, but I�d say that they are more intelligent than rich�.

There is much research to back this latter point up, along with varying interpretations as to what it might mean. For John, in practical terms it means that he gets plenty of banter, feedback and recommendations from his steadfast shoppers.

For more: go here or 01 2962632

organic certification, fair trade and air miles

Here's my take on the debate that's raging at the moment, on air freight and organic, which I've also briefly covered previously (Soil Association and Financial Times links available there). My own opinion of their move only really comes on in the last 2 paragraphs, where I deal with the protectionism or otherwise of the Soil Association's move. In the 2nd week of January, I'll have an article in the Examiner on the topic which gives it a specifically Irish slant: it will feature the opinion of IOFGA and an Irish organic importer and wholesaler.

The UK�s largest organic certification body, the Soil Association, has come up with an innovative but also controversial way to deal with the environmental impact of air-freighted organic food.

In a move being implemented over the next few years, air freighted organic food imported by the Soil Association will have to meet the organisations own ethical trade standards or the Fairtrade Foundation�s standards.

According to the Soil Association, �these standards apply to the whole supply chain, and require fair trading arrangements, ethical employment relationships including fair pay, and concrete social and cultural contributions to the local community or society more widely�.

This policy position comes after a large consultative process on the issues around air-freight and organic food, involving numerous participants: 100 representatives from industry, NGOs, and government were directly consulted; respectively, these organisations made 28 (industry) 24 (NGOs), and 5 (government and international agencies) submissions.

In addition, the International Trade Centre, a joint agency of the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations, commissioned research to look at the social and economic implications of the Soil Association implementing an air freight ban.

The organisation claims that they are �also looking at how we can reliably and fairly assess the full carbon footprint of all organic products and are working closely with the Carbon Trust. We want all organic products to have a minimal or even mitigating contribution to climate change. Aside from air freight, we are reviewing our standards for heated glasshouse production and actively encourage people to eat less meat.�

Air freighting organic food implicates a range of environmental and social justice issues. According to the Soil Association, �Less than 1% of organic imports come by air freight, the vast majority coming by sea, but air freight has the highest global warming potential of any form of transport. Although less than 1% of the total UK food miles, air freight is responsible for 11% of the CO2 emissions from UK food transport.

�Air freight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gas than shipping�, they suggest.

They also point out that the oil supply may have peaked, and is thus too scarce to use importing food in such a wasteful way. Also, the negative effects of climate change are likely to be felt in the poorest countries first and hardest.

Others are not convinced. Some, such as the International Institute for Environment Development (IIED) think that focusing on such a minute cause of carbon emissions is wrong-headed.

It estimates that in the UK, passenger flights account for 90 per cent of emissions from air transport, and international freight for five per cent.

It also claims that air-freighting from sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 0.1 per cent of the UK's total carbon emissions, while around 65 per cent of emissions relating to food are caused by transportation within Britain. Production methods in Africa also involve lower emissions; in the UK, the use of production techniques such as heated glasshouses increases carbon emissions.

Others again have accused the Soil Association of an ugly type of protectionism. Under the amusing title �organic movement hijacked by Greens�, the Financial Times recently suggested that �attempts to impose such conditions on international trade is dressed up as a way of helping subsistence farmers in developing countries. In practice, it will penalise some of the poorest people on earth because they cannot adopt the same employment practices as their wealthy western competitors.�

To be fair to them, the Soil Association do seem to have many of their angles covered: they claim that this step is part of a broader process of investigating the entire carbon footprint of organic food; likewise, the synergy with fair trade isn�t so much a ban of air freight as a reward for air-freight that also carries some socio-environmental benefits. So what could be called protectionism could also be called value-adding through partnership, depending on your perspective.

It is also the case that, while they are the largest UK organic certifier, they are not the only one. This limits economistic fears of a protectionist monopoly: there will still be organic air-freighted food available that involves no guarantees of improved conditions for workers, the environment or the locale from which the food is flown, if that�s what you as a consumer really want.

mentoring or the school teacher approach: organic inspections and certifications

How can organic farmers, growers and the processors who deal with organic food improve and develop their skills in a climate of learning rather than fear?

One approach that seems to be gathering momentum is mentoring. At present we have certification, inspections and occasional spot checks. But many feel unhappy with this limited method.

One organic farmer waxing lyrical about the mentored approach is Joe Condon. Joe has a Galloway beef herd at the foot of the Knockmealdown mountains, and is prominent in the certification body, IOFGA. He produces and sells highly acclaimed beef and beef burgers direct, through both local farmers� markets and through a nationwide delivery scheme.

Joe�s overall approach is very low impact and extensive; he also avoids the big industrial abattoirs and instead uses a local artisan butcher.

Indeed it was the skills of small scale local butchers, as much as the organic inspection process, that prompted Joe to start talking to me about mentoring at the recent All-Ireland farmers� market conference in Athlone:

�These small scale guys, they are highly skilled, and there aren�t many of them out there. But they live in fear of inspections. Surely there is a way to help them along, to train and improve them, to preserve their skills, rather that this school teacher approach we have at the moment�

�Mentoring could be a parallel process to inspection�you could take the top guys in their field, in each category: they could form a group in their area, and mentor those fellas coming in. It would make life easier for inspectors. If you are properly trained and mentored, you�re better at your job. In the inspection process, confusion can occur over small stuff.�

The benefit of this approach is that the best in a particular field would get to give practical help: �An inspector might not be a skilled farmer, and might not know the issues.�

Nevertheless, it seems ludicrous that inspectors, during the inspection process, are not allowed give advice to farmers on how they can improve their work.

Joe feels that there are gaps that need to be filled, but the language used and the approaches taken need to be subtle and well thought out. I also put it to Joe that there are some organic regional and sector-specific producer groups already, doing this skills-sharing to some extent:

�Even in these specialist and regional producer groups, people don�t admit that they are short of certain skills. People don�t want to admit that they are lax in certain areas.�

I know this to be the case myself, in my own non-organic related work, where I organise training for the Greenbox, the ecotourism project in the north-west. Various product providers once got �training�- now they get �capacity building�. This latter phrase suggests that already skilled people get to improve and develop in their area of expertise.

But it�s not just semantics: capacity building also involves doing different things, including for example one-to-one mentoring in various business skills and learning about examples of best practice and innovation from other product and service providers in comparable regions.

There does seem to be a genuine appetite for this sort of service. Often at the Teagasc organic farm walks, you actually get other organic farmers and growers attending to brush up their skills and get a few tips. These walks essentially involve farmer-to-farmer skills sharing. Likewise, organisations such as the Western Organic Network offer farm-based training.

In other jurisdictions, the mentoring approach has become a ground-up alterative to state-related organic certification. The�Certified Naturally Grown� (CNG) scheme in the US has emerged as an alternative to the cost, paperwork and perception of watered down rules in �USDA organic�.

Farmers inspect, advise and mentor each other in the CNG system, a system with minimal bureaucracy. In Ireland, between farming and organic certification, Joe reckons he could be inspected up to 22 times a year � and then there�s the farming to be done. As they say in the States, go figure.

For more on CNG: www.naturallygrown.org

Here's an article I wrote on the recent farmers' market conference in Athlone

The recent farmers� market conference was an exceptionally positive event. It was so for a number of reasons.

First, it was packed. The event sold out two weeks before the 30th, which is never a bad sign. 370 delegates turned up, which leads to the next point: The range and calibre of the delegates. Those working in development (rural, agri-food, business and specific farmers� market development workers), producers and vendors, farmers� market organisers, some local authorities and politicians (including both Ministers O� Cuiv and Sargent) but also others less expected. At least, less expected until now: Insurance companies, environmental health officers, equipment sellers (from canopies to tilling), seed savers and sellers, researchers, journalists; the range itself was impressive. The stalls outside the conference area presented both great products and networking opportunities.

The first spontaneous round of applause came when Darina Allen asked the IFA to become more involved. After she said this, a representative of the IFA�s horticultural section stood up and pointed out that he was in fact present, had worked with minister Sargent previously, and himself and the organisation were interested in the farmers� market phenomenon in a way they were not until very recently.

The need for consistency from local authorities also reappeared as a theme again and again. According to some of the research done and presented at the event, the most successful single act of promotion you can do for your farmers� market is to have road signage. It beats word of mouth and all other adverts. Yet there is severe inconsistency in local authority attitudes to signage, ranging from fines for having them to funding to make them. This certainly emerged as a topic that needs resolution to encourage growth in the sector.

That there were some local authority representatives from a town without a farmers� market, pleading with producers to come and set up a market in their town was a welcome development, and a sign of how attitudes to farmers� markets have improved.

But there are still some belligerent and short sighted local authorities who don�t see the long term benefits of the farmers� market to the local cultural life and economy. One presentation compared the two northern towns of Ballymoney and Coleraine. The difference was staggering: Coleraine town council invested �32,000 and have people to liaise with the farmers� market. They now have 24 successful stalls. Ballymoney has had the opposite treatment, and struggles.

In general, the need for more support people to help develop the sector emerged clearly. Whether this involves managers who run and represent clusters of farmers� markets, or specific people employed by local authorities, a more organised and thorough system would be welcome.

The need for consistency in the farmers� market itself was also an issue. Having labelling (products details, prices, name tags) promoting the farmers� market in both creative and traditional ways (from putting one stall outside the entrance to entice people in, to sending press releases to the local papers when there�s news) and the importance of key products such as fruits and vegetables, fish, cheese, meat and breads all emerged as important.

The importance of training, from Teagasc to agricultural colleges and departments in academic institutions, also emerged. Training in sustainable farming, outside of the organic collages and training centres is thin on the ground, according to one speaker. That this speaker works in rural development and has some training in this area, which he travelled over to Scotland to receive, speaks volumes.

Certification of the farmers� market also emerged as a discussion point. Should farmers� markets be demarked as having a particular standard related to provenance? Should their support (as regards funding) be tied to this? There was both support and resistance to the idea. The UK certification model was presented, but some speakers felt that something like this certification would be easier in a place the size of the UK. It was also pointed out that you don�t need funding to set up a farmers� market - you need belief, initiative and a flask of boiling water, it was suggested.

Others felt that language was being misused, to the point that some consumers in some markets were being mislead about the provenance of the produce: Farmers� markets should be for farmers and farmed produce, not for wholesaling, otherwise surely rate paying shops would complain. This issue is likely to rumble on.

Rumble it will, but farmers� markets are one of the success story in agriculture, and one with a bright future.

This is the follow-on interview with Trevor Sargent, the new minister of state in the Department of Agriculture and Food. In the previous post, he outlined his remit and vision for food in Ireland. The only relevant aspect not covered in detail was organic farming. Here's the organic bit...

Oliver Moore:
We�ve had targets for increasing organic production before, and failed. All across Europe, despite some growth in the sector, increased organic production targets have not been met. This has also been the case in countries where the Greens have been in government, such as Germany. In this context, how realistic is the aim for 5% organic by 2012?

Trevor Sargent:
The target is high but hopefully not too high. Austria is leading the way in Europe, with over 11%. I would hope our 5% is seen as prudent and practical. It�s especially realisable in the sheep and drystock area. This would have been acknowledged in the Dail by the previous minister, Joe Walsh, in debates we�ve had. He was saying that much of the production is almost organic, and I was saying let�s make it official then, by helping the farmers in question to be certified organic. Then they would have the additional benefits and premiums in being certified organic.

OM: What are the barriers you see to the development of the sheep and drystock aspects of the organic sector?

TS: Getting animals slaughtered in a way that ensures they could maintain their organic status�that has been a problem for a number of organic growers that I�m aware of. They produced animals to the organic standard, but when it came to slaughtering, they weren�t able to maintain their organic standard beyond slaughtering� that�s why I�m working to insure that local abattoirs are available, so that organic farmers can comply with the requirements for slaughter. I�ll also be talking to the other factories, to make sure that there�s room for organic slaughtering as well. It�s a case of filling the gaps in the system that are there already.


OM: I suppose it fits in with the traditional green approach to not liking live exports, while at the same time dealing with the economic realities of Irish farming.

TS: It�s positive. I mean, this is what I hope my ministry is all about - looking at the positive, and capitalising on the natural advantages we have, while being pragmatic in supporting farmers.

OM: What else does the organic sector need to develop:

TS: We also need to insure that the training is there too, and an independent organic agency. These are oft called for from the organic bodies. Also, a public procurement programme for organic food in canteens and restaurants. These are all part of (the overall) strategy. I�ll be working to put that strategy in place quickly, to insure that it gets the targeted funding it needs. I�ve no doubt it�s (5%) a realisable figure, there�s a great public appetite, no pun intended, for the target, as it represents import substitution. According to figures I�ve read, up to 75% of organic produce is imported. Aside from the export potential which is huge, and needs to be developed further, there is a huge potential for import substitution. It�s a sad reflection that so many people associate organic with imported produce.

OM: What about the role of the organic certification bodies?

TS: I recognise the huge work they are doing, but I think too much is being put on their shoulders. It�s not about taking away from the certification bodies, but about augmenting the work by having a national strategy. I know the organic development committee is working hard to implement a national strategy: I look forward to meeting Mr Duggan and the committee to do everything I can to help in that. I�m involved myself with all three certification bodies, Demeter, the Orgnaic Trust and IOFGA.

OM: Are you certified organic yourself?

TS: I�m sorry to say I have all the documentation at home, but I haven�t had time to deal with all the paperwork! Which I�m sure is a problem that most farmers can relate to, the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that goes with it.