Tag archive

organic integrity

Op-ed: Towards a National Agricultural Labour Strategy That Works for Farmers and Farm Workers

in 2023/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Winter 2023

By the National Farmers Union

For decades, Canada’s farm numbers have been going down, farm size has been increasing, and more farms have come to rely on hired workers as a consequence. The ongoing loss of farms and the current shortage of farm labour have the same root cause: a cost-price squeeze that results in inadequate returns to the work of farming, whether done by the farm operators or farm workers. Paying high prices for inputs and receiving low prices for commodities results in farmers subsidizing their farms with off-farm jobs, pressure to keep wages to farm workers low, the exit of skilled people from the sector to pursue more remunerative and less precarious sources of income, and a lack of new entrants to replace retiring farmers.
Yet, there are many young people who would like to make farming their life’s work. They are interested in having good jobs on farms and/or operating their own farms. Canada is a wealthy country and has the ability to ensure they have rewarding careers—if we have an Agricultural Labour Strategy that is designed to ensure farm labour is properly compensated, safe, and dignified.

We reject a view that seeks to reduce labour costs by maximizing the use of technology (robots, automation, self-driving tractors, etc.) and adopting a “just-in-time” approach to the employment of Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs). Canada’s National Agricultural Labour Strategy must recognize the full humanity of farmers and farm workers, the role and meaning of work in their lives, and the multiple contributions to a healthy society that result from the dignity of work. In other words, the people who work on their own farms or as employees on farms are not merely “productive units” that enable input companies, commodity traders, and food processors to maximize their profits.

The crisis in farm labour goes beyond a labour shortage that threatens Canada’s food production capacity. It is also an alarm bell for Canada to heed before we lose the essential skills and knowledge carried by the people who do the work of agriculture.

We in the NFU believe we need an Agriculture Labour Strategy that respects and values the work of farming—whether it is done by farmers or farm workers.

Are labour shortages having a negative impact?

The failure of the agri-food sector to provide returns to labour has resulted in a loss of farms, and an inability of the agriculture and agri-food sector to reliably attract and retain needed workers. This worsens the farm income crisis, accelerates rural depopulation, and contributes to a decline in the quality of life for rural residents. These factors drive a vicious circle of decline. When farmers on small and mid-sized sustainable farms are unable to secure a liveable income, they are unable to hire farm workers at competitive wages. The long-term loss of farmers depletes the pool of local people with the required skills. Retired farmers have become an important but time-limited source of labour on the prairies where farm size has increased dramatically. If and when there is nobody available to hire, work goes undone, resulting in higher risks, more farm stress, lower production, higher costs, and lower incomes. A lack of labour also inhibits farms from adopting or continuing practices that are better for the land but take more time.

Labour shortages also mean existing workers (including farm owners) work for longer hours and must cover a wider range of tasks. The strain that results often induces undercompensated, skilled farm workers to leave the sector, further worsening the loss of farm productivity.

Carrying flats of strawberries. Credit: Tim Mossholder.

Has the supply and demand related to agricultural workers changed in recent years?

With the exception of the supply managed sectors, Canada’s agriculture markets are structured to keep prices paid to farmers as low as possible. This is due primarily to the monopoly power of the main agri-business corporations purchasing commodities, and is reinforced by trade agreements and export policies that require Canadian products to compete at home and abroad with those produced in countries with much lower wage rates and weaker labour standards. The “demand” for labour is tightly linked to the ability to pay, thus the leakage of Canada’s food dollars to multinational corporations elsewhere reduces the amount of revenue available in our own food system that could support a larger number of farmers and farm workers.

The supply of agricultural labour in Canada is constrained by low wages and working conditions, discouraging young people from pursuing agricultural careers. While trade agreements allow Canada to easily import low-priced agricultural products, workers’ mobility to come here, and to move within Canada, is tightly controlled at the border and by the rules governing TFWs. In addition, the restrictions on TFW mobility and their lack of rights contribute to the undervaluing of farm labour across the board.

How can we help keep workers in the agriculture and agri-food sector, and better support the recruitment and retention of under-represented groups?

Many farm workers are racialized and/or are from disadvantaged communities that are under-represented in better-paying sectors of the economy. The Farm Labour Strategy needs to increase equity within the sector, and between agriculture and other sectors of the economy, with policies that ensure both farmers and farm workers are able to earn livable incomes.
All farm workers in Canada should have the coverage they need under provincial and territorial labour laws, including the right to associate and form a union.

All TFWs in agriculture should be entitled to permanent residency status. Many TFWs have been coming to Canada seasonally for over 30 years. If we want to keep these workers in the agriculture and agri-food sector and attract even more high-calibre, skilled foreign workers, we need to ensure they have access to and can benefit from all the rights and protections afforded to Canadian workers.

Globalization has entrenched an imbalance between farm product prices and the living wage level required for farm workers in Canada. A Basic Income Guarantee and/or changes to the Employment Insurance (EI) system are needed to address this problem. The EI system should recognize the seasonality of agriculture work and the need for a year-round livable income for farm workers. With a liveable year-round income, people employed as farm workers could continue the essential task of growing food for Canadians without worry of seasonal income loss, climate change disruptions (drought, fires, etc.) and without increasing food costs for consumers.

Improving Business Risk Program design to ensure labour intensive operations have adequate support and a Guaranteed Basic Income program that takes into account the specifics of agricultural work should be explored so that all agricultural producers can continue the essential task of growing food for Canadians.

In addition to low wages, our farm worker members consistently voice how a lack of quality, affordable, and conveniently-located housing is a major deterrent for remaining in the sector. Canada must invest in rural public housing; rural schools; rural public transit; and child-care facilities. More investment in rural health care and more affordable access for both farm operators and farm workers to supplementary health and dental benefits and workers’ compensation insurance is also needed.

Small and medium enterprises in local food processing should have priority for grants to allow them to upgrade their facilities to improve working conditions in order to attract and retain skilled workers. The benefits of such support go beyond the success of the enterprises themselves, as smaller operations which are distributed across Canada generally have a greater net impact on their local economies and regional food security by providing both jobs in the community and value-added revenue for local producers.

Do most workers have the skills they need to be successful?

Some agricultural production and processing jobs go unfilled because there are not enough people with the necessary training. Improved training programs, funding to support on-farm training, and recognition of skills acquired in previous work situations would help close this gap. This is particularly true for small and medium enterprises in the food processing sector, such as provincially licensed abattoirs. For example, in BC, the only training program for meat cutters graduates 12-14 new butchers a year. This post-secondary institution (Thompson Rivers University) reports that after five years, only two of those graduates will still be working in the industry. A recent study by the BC Abattoirs Association estimates that the need for trained meat cutters is 200 immediately; and another 400 will be needed within two years.

The NFU Ontario report, Reframing the Farm Labour Crisis in Ontario, notes that farmers identified the need for Human Resource management training, with upwards to 60% saying that they didn’t have the time or knowledge to provide a variety of HR policies to their staff. In the same report, farm workers identified a number of top agricultural skills they wished to acquire, including training on soil health and amendments, weed and disease identification, horticultural and crop care, irrigation, livestock care, training for construction and infrastructure, tractor & heavy equipment use, and marketing and customer service.

How can agriculture help ensure workers have the skills needed for transition to a more resilient and adaptable economy?

Canada needs publicly-funded financial support for transitioning to more climate-friendly agricultural methods, including research into agronomic methods that are not input-dependent and hiring agronomists to provide free and reliable extension services to promote best management practices. The NFU recommends establishing a new Canadian Agriculture Resilience Agency to deliver coordinated research and extension to support a just transition to profitable, low-emission, climate adaptation.

The Agricultural Labour Strategy also should provide financial support for on-farm training. Most farmers learn how to grow food while on the farm. Government financial support for both farm employers as “trainers” and for farm workers as “trainees” for on-farm training/education will enable farmers to share best environmental farming practices.

With increasing automation and use of digital technology in farm machinery, the government needs to promote on-farm innovation by assisting farmers and farm workers to access open source information, share their own knowledge, skills, and creativity to create and use appropriate technologies while strengthening social relationships within their enterprises and communities.

Are automation and labour-saving technologies being adequately utilized?

Farmers take many factors into consideration when deciding whether to adopt new technologies. A better question might be ‘do automation options fulfill the expressed needs of farmers?’ More automation with bigger machinery risks increased soil compaction, reducing water infiltration and holding capacity in soil, and making farms less resilient to weather extremes we’re now experiencing on a regular basis due to the climate crisis. Farmers highly value their autonomy as decision-makers, which automated technologies can impinge upon. For example, proprietary computer systems mean the farmer is dependent on dealers’ technicians to make repairs, adding costs and delays that can have major consequences.

Are there barriers to the development and adoption of automation and labour-saving technologies?

High capital costs of automation may exceed potential savings for small and medium sized producers and processors. Automation may reduce farmers’ ability to adjust operations in response to unexpected situations or conditions. Reliance on Artificial Intelligence and algorithms programmed into machinery has the potential to generate landscape level errors, hazards, damage and losses when the automated system fails to comprehend the complexity of the situation and applies the wrong solutions.

Energy costs and emissions from automation can increase GHG emissions when it involves replacing human energy with fossil fuel energy; sustainable farming methods often require more, not less, labour inputs.

Automation can be used for worker and farmer surveillance with unacceptable implications for privacy, fairness, and autonomy. For example, the world’s largest farm machinery company, John Deere, is also investing heavily in big data applications and has entered into partnerships with seed and commodity trading corporations that exacerbate the power imbalance between farmers and the companies they deal with.

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) reported in 2020 on the technological tools greenhouse employers use to monitor migrant farm workers on the assembly line. UFCW observed that the assembly-line workers who do not achieve quota are docked pay or have their shifts reduced. The use of surveillance to increase productivity of farm workers is an unacceptable level of control. It is not only incompatible with worker dignity, but can create occupational health and safety problems from repetitive strain and overwork, as documented in Amazon warehouses.

Are there barriers to expansion of automation and labour-saving technologies in the processing sector?

Solving the abattoir labour shortage is extremely important for livestock farmers, but increased automation cannot replace skilled, trained workers. Rather than investments in automation technologies we need the government to invest in the expansion of butchery training programs and support for small-scale, local, and regional abattoirs.

We need an employment and immigration program that allows livestock producers, butchers, and meat-cutters access to temporary foreign workers who are given pathways to permanent residency so abattoirs and livestock producers can benefit from their skills year-round.

The severe shortage of trained butchers threatens the viability of small and medium sized cut-and-wrap facilities, and a special immigration program to fast-track skilled butchers to be employed in provincially inspected abattoirs and community butcher shops is urgently needed.

Increased capacity in these enterprises is needed to address unacceptable delays and bottlenecks that are constraining the ability of farmers to serve growing demand from customers who wish to buy locally raised livestock.

What gaps in labour market information need to be filled?

We need to know more about the differences in income, profits, wages, etc. between large corporate operations and smaller, family-run farms. We need to know whether—and by how much—larger operations are actually able to increase what they pay their workers.

We need data on wage averages or range of wages paid across the agri-food sector, especially in provinces like Ontario, where primary agricultural workers are not regulated by minimum wage laws.

What priority solutions should federal and provincial/territorial governments pursue to address labour shortages?

Canada needs to provide Permanent Residency for All Temporary Foreign Agricultural Workers.

All farm workers need to be guaranteed labour rights, including the right to unionize.

A Basic Income Guarantee, along with Employment Insurance reform (increasing rates and eligibility for all those who labour in the agricultural sector), wage subsidies, and/or increases to minimum wage rates are urgently required to ensure farmers and farm workers can have economically and socially sustainable careers producing food for Canadians.
Rural, agricultural work will be more attractive if the government invests in rural services and amenities, including affordable and conveniently-located public housing; affordable childcare; schools; health care services and access to affordable supplementary health and dental benefits; inter-community public transit; and other cultural and recreational amenities.

What government service, programming and/or engagement related to labour, needs to be immediately changed?

Open work permits for all Temporary Foreign Workers: until the government creates a dedicated immigration stream for agricultural workers, all TFWs should be issued open work permits which will allow them to change employers if necessary. They should also be granted all the rights and privileges of Canadian workers under provincial and territorial labour laws. Farm workers frequently experience low wages, poor working conditions, precarious employment, lack of needed services for quality of life, discrimination, and at times mistreatment and threats of violence. Enduring such conditions should not be the price of working in Canada for anyone, including TFWs.

Canada needs an agricultural labour strategy that puts the people who labour – farmers and farm workers – at the centre. It must start with policies that ensure the price farmers receive for the product will return to the producer the cost of production, including a reasonable return on investment, management and labour. This principle holds whether the buyer is a commodity trader operating internationally, a food processor serving the Canadian market or supermarket owners buying local produce: all need to pay prices that allow their suppliers to maintain safe and equitable working conditions for all farmers and workers.

nfu.ca

The National Farmers Union is a voluntary direct-membership, non-partisan, national farm organization made up of thousands of farm families from across Canada. Founded in 1969, the NFU advocates for policies that promote the dignity, prosperity and sustainable future of farmers, farm workers, their families and their communities.

Featured image: Workers in the field on a rainy day harvesting strawberries. Credit: Tim Mossholder.

Further reading:

Reframing the Farm Labour Crisis: nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Reframing-the-Farm-Labour-Crisis-NFU-O-Farm-Labour-Study_compressed.pdf

Canadian Farm Resiliency Administration: nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CFRA.25.02.pdf

You might be interested in

Organic Stories: OMRI

in 2022/Organic Standards/Organic Stories/Summer 2022

Behind the Scenes of Input Approvals

Matt Sircely

This year marks 25 years since the birth of the Organic Materials Review Institute, commonly known as OMRI. Two and a half decades in the organic sector means many lessons learned and advice to keep in mind as organics looks forward to the next quarter century.

Bridging the Certification Gaps

Founding OMRI board member Emily Brown Rosen remembers “when there was no national program, and multiple systems of certification with no accreditation, we had to rely a lot on each other…to try and bridge the gaps and differences. It was all very grassroots, and sometimes the separate tunnel-vision of each group caused problems.”

Early certifier councils helped iron out regional differences and OMRI’s founders intentionally sought broad geographical representation. Brown Rosen served as Policy Director at Pennsylvania Certified Organic before working at the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP). The lesson, she says, is “to continue building or participating in new alliances and consensus-building among the various sectors wherever possible.”

In her early 20’s at the time OMRI started, Kim Dietz supplied a handler’s perspective and support from Bill Knudsen’s juice company for preliminary discussions before OMRI’s founding. Review of materials for organic production was “disjointed” before federal regulation, says Dietz. “We brought the standards to the USDA and at the same time, this very active group of people saw that we could fill the gap with material review. I always say we started the National Organic Program with a skeleton and we slowly put the meat on the bones. And it was hard,” she says. “We all brought a strength to the table, and everybody was open to listening. Collectively we agreed on how OMRI should be founded, and the organic community the same way.”

Red Kuri squash. Credit: Moss Dance.

In the early days, Lynn Coody and the late Yvonne Frost from Oregon Tilth were already collaborating on materials lists with Brian Baker and Zea Sonnebend from California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF). Coody explains that OMRI’s founders sought to standardize procedures for reviewing materials by “creating a national generic list, articulating criteria used to review materials, and documenting the steps in the materials review process.”

While not easy, she says, “there was a common understanding among the OMRI founders that we needed to come to solid agreements in order to support the evolution of the organic infrastructure, as well as a crucial trust in the goodwill, experience, and intelligence of our colleagues. I think some of these basic elements of cooperation are largely missing now, and that refocusing on them is the most important thing we can do to prepare for future challenges and opportunities.”

The first certifier councils introduced the West Coast founders to Bill Wolf, then board president of the Organic Foods Production Association of North America (OFPANA later became the Organic Trade Association, or OTA). OFPANA was developing its own organic input list, as was the Organic Crop Improvement Association in the Midwest, represented by the now late Peter Murray. Bill Wolf was elected as OMRI’s first board president, and Murray became vice president. Still farming in Virginia, Wolf says we are at a “critical juncture in the attempts to have harmony in the organic community, because the disharmony has become fractious enough so that there isn’t a good vehicle for having the different forces and belief systems within organic have a conversation. And in a way, OMRI served early on in that role, where everyone was at the table. OMRI could look to be a facilitator for some of that,” says Wolf. “So there’s an opportunity there, not to take a position necessarily, but to have a place for dialogue.”

The now-late Peter Murray, representing OMRI at the Expo East trade show in 1999. Murray held an early certifier seat on the OMRI Board of Directors. Credit: OMRI.

Trust and Unity

In classic startup style, Brian Baker drove with CCOF files in the bed of a pickup from California to Eugene, Oregon to open OMRI’s first office in Coody’s garage. “OMRI had to forego its advocacy role to build a reputation that it is fair, objective, and evidence-based in its evaluations. It was a price worth paying,” Baker says. “The development of organic standards was an inclusive, bottom-up approach that was open and transparent, so OMRI fit within that context. While not entirely based on consensus, the standards reflected broad agreement in many areas.”

Baker describes how the organic movement united in response to the USDA’s first proposed National Organic Program rule in 1997: “The organic community succeeded in meeting that threat head-on. It has not achieved that level of unity since.” Baker reflects that “ever since then, the organic community has been divided over standards issues, many of which are related to materials review.”

Dietz says OMRI should consider how to “step into the ring” to participate and even help facilitate. “The service that OMRI brings is these technical reviews. Very strong, scientific-based minds that can ground—can really bring people to understand a complex issue. If anybody can do it, OMRI can do it.”

Baker remembers OMRI’s initial work to convince organic product manufacturers of the value of sharing information with one trusted entity to gain broad acceptance among certifiers. Now, he sees a similar need for cooperation and information sharing: “Fertilizer and pesticide fraud pose a threat that cannot be ignored. OMRI can’t handle it alone. It will need to collaborate with other materials review organizations, regulatory agencies, and law enforcement. It is now clear that organic fraud is a persistent problem, not as isolated as once thought, and that we are dealing with international organized crime. International cooperation is needed to address a global problem.”

Dietz worked on an OTA task force to develop new anti-fraud tools. “We’ve opened ourselves up for vulnerability in those areas,” she says, noting higher organic prices intrinsically invite fraud. “So we have to protect the supply chain.” She hopes the movement worldwide sees the National Organic Program as “the foundation” for organic standards. “If a country makes their stance and says, ‘You’re not doing that in our country,’ then it could change the other rules, because you want everybody to try to be as harmonious as possible for trade.” OMRI can help, she says, “in those areas where there’s controversy and it’s not settled yet.”

Lettuce seedlings. Credit: Moss Dance.

Building New Bridges

With an eye toward the future, Baker notes the “growing number of OMRI Listed® products that are made, sold, and used entirely within Mexico. It is not clear when or even if the USDA will reach an equivalency agreement with Mexico, or what issues will need to be addressed.” He says a renegotiation between the US and European Union (EU) is “nearly certain” before 2025. “Producers in developing countries would benefit from consistent standards in the US and EU, and many of these are inputs-related,” he says, adding: “I have long seen Canada and Australia as key to the harmonization of international organic standards.”

Towards this international harmonization, Brown Rosen advises to “keep abreast of new developments domestically and internationally. Look for partners and allies that can expand OMRI’s presence.” She notes OMRI could engage the advisory boards of state and federal regulatory agencies in the US and abroad. “It will help if OMRI becomes appreciated by more of the traditional ag regulatory groups, since organic is going more and more mainstream.” Brown Rosen cites “ongoing concerns” about fumigation issues at border crossings and “recent agreements between APHIS, US Customs, and NOP,” and wonders “if there is any role OMRI can provide with education, information, or research.”

Baker explains how OMRI historically hired and trusted talented people, adding that the Advisory Council and Review Panel helped attract expertise. The organic industry is currently experiencing a shortage of qualified people, and “materials review requires a specialized set of skills that requires training. It comes down to having a team of talented, dedicated people who know their stuff.” Baker suggests more technical outreach “to train extension agents and producers to understand the place of materials within an ecological systems approach. OMRI’s role in research and education are vital,” he says, to help producers “be more successful and better stewards of the land, water, and other natural resources.”

“Fundamentally, organic has become a much faster-moving industry than 25 years ago,” says Wolf. “So, capacity to move labels and decisions through the system is really critical.” Organic industry growth represents a “60-fold increase in a fairly short period of time, and to try to measure what that means, and what has to happen to change the paradigm, the fact is the system wasn’t designed to deal with the volume that exists today.”

The proposed standard for inert ingredients signals that many new operations will be brought into the sphere of organic verification, and oversight requirements will increase for some OMRI reviews. The industry now produces “mostly very complex products,” Wolf says. “Pet food, fish, aquatic standards” are among the issue areas that require inputs, along with understanding of those inputs. Streamlining systems is critical, he says, also suggesting flexibility around creating a “Miscellaneous” listing category to accommodate products outside standard listing categories. Hearkening to the naming of OMRI, Wolf stands by his original notion of including “Research.” OMRI could provide efficacy research with “comparisons, trials, and tests to verify that the inputs are exactly what they say they are.”

Coody suggests OMRI convene a think tank to approach challenges both “expansively” and “practically,” and including “organic elders to retain institutional knowledge.” In government-run organic programs, “the regulation of the organic inputs sector is in its early stages, and OMRI can offer extensive experience,” she says, specifically identifying “material review organization accreditation, improved auditing of materials review systems, and preventing and identifying fraud in the input sector. OMRI’s technical expertise is essential in ensuring that inputs are used not only in compliance with organic regulations, but in line with organic principles.”

Brown Rosen recommends more proactive consultation with certification agencies. “Perhaps a small committee of the materials experts from each member agency could meet periodically,” identify unsolved problems, and contribute insights on important issues to the OMRI advisory council. “In addition to certifier materials experts, it would be nice to get some university scientists with appropriate expertise.” If possible, “getting a NOP person on board the advisory council would be very helpful—I did it for a while when I was at NOP (as a non-voting member), so there is precedent.” She says it would help foster communication and offer “insight on potential problem areas coming down the road.”

For each step of organic evolution, “we have to keep the intention, and go back to those organic principles.” Dietz describes an increasing reliance on the private sector to act and lead in accordance with the organic principles. “For OMRI to be successful, for the trade to be successful, we have to continue to do what we think is right.”

Dietz cheers the founders living today: “Active! We’re still active. That was a long time ago, but we’re just as passionate as we were back then. There is no difference. We’re still fighting the good fight. It’s fun. It’s good. We believe in it.”

omri.org

Matt Sircely has written for OMRI since 2006. Most at home in his garden on the Olympic Peninsula, Matt writes songs and performs and teaches mandolin. Over the years he has become a familiar face in the BC fiddle scene.

OMRI supports organic integrity by developing clear information and guidance about materials, so that producers know which products are appropriate for organic operations. OMRI is a non-profit that provides an independent review of products, such as fertilizers, pest controls, livestock health care products, and numerous other inputs that are intended for use in certified organic production and processing. OMRI also provides technical support and training for professionals in the organic industry.

Featured image credit: OMRI

You might be interested in

A Canadian Organic Program to Grow Sustainable Agriculture for Canada and the World

in 2022/Organic Standards/Standards Updates/Summer 2022

Organic Federation of Canada

Canadian farmers are already experiencing serious negative impacts of climate change due to extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, forest fires, and ocean acidification—but resilient agriculture delivers ecological services and sets the path for food security amid climate change turmoil.

In alignment with what the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations proposes in terms of climate-smart agriculture, the Canadian Organic Standards prescribe effective strategies to foster the emergence of a carbon-neutral economy in the food sector.

The Canadian Organic Standards include practices that contribute significantly to reducing our agricultural sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, sequestering atmospheric carbon in soils and increasing biodiversity, while encouraging the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, increasing agricultural resilience to the effects of climate change (particularly flooding and drought) and increasing farm income.

Canada is considered to be the 6th largest organic market in the world, and organic sales are growing at an impressive rate ($8.1 B in 2020). Despite a steady increase in production, supply is not keeping up with demand, both domestically and internationally. This offers great opportunities for the future.

The Canadian Organic Standards, referenced by law, define ecological agriculture as the basis of the whole industry; the standards need to be maintained and updated. Under the Canada Organic Regime, the Standards Interpretation Committee harmonizes the certification process by providing independent guidance to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on issues related to the standards.

Since 2017, the Government of Canada has drastically reduced its support for organic agriculture:

  • The Canada Organic Office, created in 2009 by the CFIA to address regulatory issues, was dissolved in 2017.
  • The Organic Value Chain Round Table, mandated to analyze the Canadian organic sector’s competitive position and improve its performance and profitability, was dissolved in 2019 by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).
  • The Standards Interpretation Committee, created by the CFIA in 2009 and funded by CFIA to provide independent guidance to the industry on issues related to the standards, will see its funding ended in 2023 (reduced by 54% in 21-22 and in 22-23).
  • The Canadian Organic Standards are referenced in the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. The Canadian General Standards Board, which owns the Standards, requires a mandatory review every five years. But the federal government has not budgeted for future revisions. AAFC clearly states that they will not fund any future review.

The organic industry needs a Canada Organic Program to increase the sustainability of Canadian agriculture, assure access to markets and continue to ensure competitiveness. Other jurisdictions have implemented such programs to support their respective organic industries. The USDA and EU fund the maintenance of their organic standards.1 The USDA funds the Organic Cost Share Certification Program which provides cost share assistance to producers and handlers, and has created the USDA Organic Integrity Database to promote the growth of agricultural ecological practices and prevent fraud. The European Commission has set a target of at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming and a significant increase in organic aquaculture by 2030. In Europe, many countries offer direct support to their organic producers with an annual subsidy per hectare, with the objective of encouraging the maintenance of organic management practices over the long term.

Michelle Tsutsumi in the fields at Golden Ears Farm. Credit: Thomas Buchan.

What a Canada Organic Program will Accomplish

Different support measures are needed to increase Canadian agriculture’s sustainability, assure access to organic markets, and continue to ensure the competitiveness of our organic industry through a Canada Organic Program. An effective Canada Organic Program should include support measures addressing four elements:

  • Market access through a sound regulatory framework
  • Growth in capacity
  • Increased funding for organic research and knowledge transfer
  • Recognition of the organic sector’s contribution to sustainability
  • Market Access Through A Sound Regulatory Framework

The Canadian Organic Standards are owned by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) and establish the requirements that agricultural producers and food processors must meet to ensure the legitimacy of Canadian organic products. This allows Canadian businesses to access markets, both in Canada and internationally, by ensuring that their organic claims are true. The Standards, put in place by the Safe Food for Canadians Regulation are thus the basis of the entire regulatory and certification system surrounding organic products, both for products sold outside their province of origin and for imported and exported products.

The CGSB Policy and Procedures Manual states that every standard shall be reviewed every five years. An unrevised standard is no longer relevant and a standard that has been published for more than five years cannot be amended (CGSB Manual clause 6.11.9). The CGSB may withdraw a standard if there are insufficient funds to update it (6.12.1), or if maintenance of the standard no longer meets CGSB requirements (6.12.2.3).

Canada establishes organic equivalency arrangements with other countries only if the signatories determine that the two regulatory systems involved, including their standards, assure that equivalent principles and outcomes are achieved in both jurisdictions.2 The Canadian organic industry cannot remain competitive if the Standards are not reviewed periodically to remain comparable to the standards of other countries, and equivalency agreements could be withdrawn. This would compromise access to international markets for Canadian organic products.

Funding for Five-Year Reviews of the Standards

The Canadian Organic Standards have been reviewed twice, once in 2015 and a second time in 2020.

For the first review in 2015, the Assurance Systems Stream under the AgriMarketing Program through AAFC contributed $297,414 to the Organic Federation of Canada (OFC) to cover part of the cost. Fundraising to industry stakeholders led by the OFC contributed $83,490 in cash, while stakeholders’ in-kind contributions amounted to a total of $16,062. The costs incurred by the CGSB were covered by the Standards Council of Canada.

For the 2020 Standards review process, AAFC’s Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program, a program that has since been terminated, funded a total of $292,554 to the OFC. Industry cash contributions amounted to $59,000 and in-kind contributions were $39,000. AAFC also covered CGSB costs, a budget of over $200,000.

Government funding of the Standards review through ad hoc programs is not viable in the long-term. In 2022, the federal government is asking industry to pay for the costs of future Standards review work itself. However, industry funding of the Standards review is seen as a threat to the independence and integrity of the process. Also, there is no funding mechanism, such as a check-off program, that allows all operators and industry stakeholders to contribute equitably to the funding of the review work.

The USDA and EU publicly fund the review of their organic standards without any financial contributions from industry. If the Canadian organic sector were to attempt to cover the cost of reviewing the Canadian Organic Standards, Canada will be at a competitive disadvantage with stakeholders in competing countries.

Considering all these factors, the Canadian government needs to implement a Canada Organic Program that assures the independence of the review process by instituting permanent government funding for the mandatory five-year reviews of the Standards imposed by CGSB.

 

The Regulatory Role of the Standards Interpretation Committee

The Standards Interpretation Committee harmonizes the certification process by providing clarification to the CFIA when certified operators and Certification Bodies ask questions about the standards.

The Standards Interpretation Committee must be an independent, credible and impartial entity. The Committee must be funded by the CFIA, not by industry. Rather than abolishing the funding provided to the Standards Interpretation Committee since 2009, the Canadian government should maintain and even increase funding. This support is important to harmonize the certification process, maintain its independence, and accelerate the work of the Committee so questions can be answered in a timely fashion.

A Canada Organic Regime Integrity Database

Listing the certified organic operators under the Canada Organic Regime on a national database comparable to the USDA Organic Integrity Database will promote the growth of agricultural ecological practices and prevent fraud. This can only be accomplished by government.

Growth in Capacity

The government of Canada invests in organic businesses through various programs that are not specifically targeted towards organic production and processing. However, businesses producing organic products may have specific needs. Investing in organic processing and distribution capacity is essential to guarantee the supply to meet a growing demand for organic products, both in Canada and internationally.

Also, AAFC’s AgriMarketing Program provides funds to facilitate market connections between farmers and buyers and increase international market development. This type of funding needs to be increased through the Canada Organic Program to focus on organic market connections and development.

Increased Funding for Research and Knowledge Transfer

Organic agriculture should be recognized as a driving force in developing agricultural practices designed to conserve soil, water, and biodiversity. To support the adoption of such practices by the greater farming community, the government of Canada needs to aim long-term resilience of agroecosystems to climate change and to share the risk between farm businesses and society. This involves substantial support for research and knowledge transfer in organic practices.

Offering more government funding for research that seeks a greater understanding of agroecosystems, looks to develop alternatives to fossil fuel-based inputs, and increases on-farm technical assistance for organic practices, through a Canada Organic Program, is thus more than justified.

Recognition of the Organic Sector’s Contribution to Sustainability

The European Commission’s “Farm to Fork” strategy for a fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly food system aims to allocate at least 25% of EU farmland to organic farming by 2030. To achieve this, an action plan includes direct support for organic production, on the basis of an annual payment per hectare, to encourage the maintenance of practices associated with organic farming, ensuring their implementation over the long term. This type of measure applies significant leverage on the rate of conversion to organic agriculture. Very often, the payments per hectare are justified by the reward for positive externalities and partly financed by the deployment of taxes on pesticides.

A Canada Organic Program needs to include the recognition of, and financial compensation for, ecological goods and services and health and societal benefits associated with organic farm management practices.

In North America, although there is more support focused on investment assistance and relatively less action in favour of environmental payments, the USDA funds the Organic Cost Share Certification Program, which provides cost share assistance to producers and handlers of agricultural products who are obtaining or renewing their certification. Certified operations may be reimbursed for up to 50% of their certification costs paid during the program year. Because this program is based on recurrent assistance, not just support for transitional growers, it supports the practice of keeping land certified for years to come.

In order for Canadian organic businesses to remain competitive, a Canada Organic Program needs to implement a certification cost-share program to organic operators, offering, at minimum, the same benefits as those in the equivalent Farm Bill program.

Towards an Organic Future

In all countries with a structured organic sector, the budget devoted directly or indirectly to the development of organic agriculture is increasing. In general, assistance programs in favour of maintaining good practices are multiplying to sustain a form of agriculture that meets the challenges of sustainable development and climate change.

A Canada Organic Program is a must: organic agriculture maintains soil health, prevents climate change and promotes biodiversity. This is the responsibility of our federal government as this affects organic consumers, processors, and the thousands of farmers who grow organic food and feed.

Feature image: Arzeena Hamir cleaning Annie Jackson beans. Credit: Thomas Buchan.

References
1. Union des producteurs agricoles (2021). Benchmarking of support measures for organic farming in Quebec to other jurisdictions. upa.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/filebase/Benchmarking_support_measures_organic_farming_Quebec_to_other_jurisdictions_2021-04.pdf
2. Organic equivalency arrangements with other countries (CFIA, 2021) inspection.canada.ca/organic-products/equivalence-arrangements/eng/1311987562418/1311987760268

You might be interested in

What is Agriculture’s Legacy?

in 2022/Crop Production/Grow Organic/Organic Standards/Tools & Techniques/Winter 2022

Book Review: Toxic Legacy by Stephanie Seneff

By Hans Forstbauer

I recently read Toxic Legacy by Stephanie Seneff, a quintessential book on the agricultural chemical glyphosate. Her book has assembled and consolidated decades of research and data giving an in-depth explanation of the devastating impact this chemical has had—and continues to have—on not only human life, but all life on earth.

When glyphosate was patented as an herbicide in 1974, they said it was as safe as drinking water. My first thought was, how could something that kills everything be as safe as drinking water?

I was introduced to this chemical at a horticultural short course in the late ’70s. The instructor of the course was the head of the Federal Research Centre in Saanich, where they tested pesticides for approval for use on agricultural crops for Health Canada.

At the end of his presentation, the instructor said there is one caveat: do not use the chemical glyphosate in your greenhouses because it will take three to four years before anything will grow again. This led me to the conclusion that it doesn’t disappear; in fact, it remains in the environment for many years after use. In a greenhouse setting, water evaporates and condenses on the plastic or glass of the greenhouse and falls back down on the plants. The plants die. The glyphosate doesn’t disappear; it remains in the water and continues to kill. The lie that it disappears was exposed, yet the marketing machine continued even when they knew what they were selling was a lie.

Despite the known dangers of glyphosate, today close to 4.2 billion pounds are being used annually worldwide. Bayer, the chemical company who is now responsible for the use of glyphosate, agreed to pay over 10 billion dollars to end glyphosate-related law suits in the USA. Currently, 32 countries are in the process of fully or partially banning the use of glyphosate. But just this year, Canada and the USA approved the use of glyphosate for another 13 to 15 years! By 2023, Bayer will be withdrawing glyphosate from the retail market; it will only be available for agricultural use. Which leads me to ask: if it isn’t safe for the average person to use, how is it safe for it to be used on the food we eat?

Hans Forstbauer. Credit: Forstbauer Farm

Today as I sit here and try to make sense of the apparent insanity of what seems to be the “zeitgeist” of our time, I feel the sting of smoke-filled air in my nostrils, my mouth, my lungs, and my eyes. Yes, it is 1:30 in the morning and it is 26 degrees outside. This surely must be a record high/low. Earlier it was 38 degrees Celsius and as the sun went across the western sky, it looked like a filtered moon because of all the smoke.

Global warming is really kicking in. There are floods, winds, fires, and a pandemic across the entire globe like never experienced before. The reasons for this seeming catastrophe of global warming is the excessive use of fossil fuels and the way our agriculture and the world food systems are set up. Studies show that chemical farming not only makes us sick, but also makes everything it comes in contact with sick or dead. Furthermore, it stops carbon sequestering. Studies show that organic practices can sequester up to 16 tonnes of carbon per acre per year. One of the deadliest chemicals ever approved for use in agriculture is glyphosate, more commonly known as Round Up. A chemical that kills all living plants and a whole range of bacteria probably isn’t that safe. We were told it disappears rapidly, but because it is water soluble, it only appears that way.

Genetically engineered crops, such as corn, soy, and cotton are modified to be glyphosate-resistant which guarantees the use of glyphosate. More than 65 countries label GMO foods, including the USA (using QR codes). Despite more than 80% of Canadians wanting GMO foods labeled, two free parliamentary votes to label GMO foods in Canada failed to pass both times. What is wrong with our country? Why is glyphosate so bad and why is it still so widely used?

Einstein said, “Don’t do anything that goes against your conscience even if your government says so.” Many world governments, including our own, say the use of glyphosate is safe, but there is overwhelming evidence that it is not. To change the world, we have to become more active, more organized, more passionate, and more vocal about how our life is directly impacted by the life around us and in us. It is not good enough to just farm organically and regeneratively when the overwhelming majority of agribusiness which is so closely linked to the fossil fuel industry is making our earth, us included, sick.

Become educated, become aware. Read Toxic Legacy by Stephanie Seneff and as Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

Just thoughts,

Hans Forstbauer, the natural earth farmer.

Feature image: Spraying pesticides in California. Credit: USDA Photo by Charles O’Rear.

You might be interested in

Organic Stories: OMRI

Behind the Scenes of Input Approvals Matt Sircely This year marks 25 years since the birth of the Organic Materials

Fairness as Migrant Justice

in 2021/Fall 2021/Organic Community/Organic Standards

By Susanna Klassen

The organic sector has many roots, and has been strengthened by a diversity of movements and ideas. Though rarely acknowledged, the sector was given a significant boost in the late 1960’s when hundreds of thousands of Mexican farm workers mobilized millions of consumers in the United States to boycott the conventional grapes and lettuce they were working to produce.(1) The boycotts were organized by the United Farm Workers under the leadership of Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez, and others, in collaboration with allies like the Black Panther Party. The protest was a response to the hazardous working conditions caused by unsafe applications of toxic pesticides. This was around the same time that the organic food movement was starting to gain traction among both farmers and consumers, and the boycotts bridged struggles for farm worker justice with the interests of health and social justice-minded consumers—a boon for the organic market in North America.(2)

We often hear about the influence of organic pioneers, such as Sir Albert Howard, and how their commitment to soil health helped shaped the organic sector. However, there are other movements, including the struggles for justice and labour by agricultural workers, without which organic agriculture would not be what it is today. The Canadian organic sector is anchored to some of these social justice roots through the organic principle of “Fairness,” which includes explicit reference to farm workers, and is “characterized by equity, respect, justice, and stewardship of the shared world, both among people and in their relations to other living beings.”(3) But, despite the inclusion of the Fairness principle in the introduction to the Canadian Organic Standards, the standards themselves do not contain a single requirement relating to social fairness, including for workers.

Today, the wellbeing of farm workers has once again been elevated in the public consciousness. The devastating impacts of COVID-19 shone a light on many of the ugliest parts of our food system, including insufficient access to protective equipment, deadly incidence of disease, and xenophobia experienced by essential farm workers, many of whom are racialized migrants.(4) The climate crisis also continues to threaten the health and safety of farm workers—look at the recent heat wave in the Pacific Northwest—and has already been deadly.(5)

Migrant workers are uniquely vulnerable due to their precarious and temporary status in Canada. Since migrant workers’ ability to work and remain in the country is tied to a single employer, they cannot easily leave unjust, abusive, or dangerous working conditions the way that workers with residency or citizenship status can. Despite regulations that are meant to guarantee minimum standards and conditions of employment, migrant workers’ access to these limited rights and benefits is effectively curbed by the risks associated with exerting them. Meanwhile, poor enforcement and follow up by regulatory bodies means that employers often break rules and cut corners at the expense of workers.

While not all organic farms hire paid workers, increasingly, more labour-intensive organic farms do hire temporary foreign workers through either the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), or the Primary Agriculture stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). While we don’t know how many migrant workers are employed on organic farms, we know that organic farms in Canada use more labour than conventional farms in general. There is not good data specific to migrant labour on organic farms, but preliminary analyses of a survey I conducted of BC vegetable growers and publicly available data suggest that organic farms utilize migrant farm workers at a rate that is similar to conventional farms.

Numbers aside, it is clear that organic farms are not exempt from the structural inequities faced by migrant farm workers. Instances of abuse, neglect and unfair treatment of migrant workers have been documented on organic farms in Canada. These include several complaints of underpaid wages and poor conditions at Golden Eagle Blueberry Farm in BC, or the tragic death of two migrant workers at Filsinger’s Organic Foods & Orchards in Ontario. While these examples may seem extreme, many experts have pointed out that unfair conditions for migrant workers are not the result of a few “bad apples,”(6) but rather a system that disempowers and devalues migrant workers in favour of a flexible and dependable labour force.(7)

In recognition of these realities, and the lack of any requirements in the Canadian organic standards to enact the organic principle of “Fairness,” several organic community members have been asking what can be done to improve fairness in organics as it relates to labour. These efforts have included a petition to the organic standards review process for social fairness standards put forward by Organic BC’s own Anne Macey, in collaboration with Janine Gibson and Marion McBride.(8) While these proposed standards were not voted on by the Technical Committee (which governs the standards revision process) in the 2020 revision process, the committee has committed to discussing it again in 2025.(9) Additionally, several directors of the Organic Federation of Canada are already working on revising the proposed social fairness standards, which include but are not limited to standards relating to farm workers.

Another approach to embodying the principle of fairness, however, is to look to migrant workers and migrant advocacy organizations themselves and ask how the organic community could contribute to migrant justice demands in Canada. Together with other experts and advocates, and in light of exacerbated inequities caused by COVID-19, these groups have called on the federal and provincial governments for structural changes to the TFWP, including:

  1. Regularized/resident status for all migrants upon arrival and an end to repatriations;
  2. Granting of open work permits to migrants;
  3. Improved protections and benefits;
  4. Improved procedures to follow-up on complaints from workers;
  5. Stronger mandates and supports for employers;
  6. Improved inspection regimes;
  7. Improved access to information for workers; and,
  8. Improved representation of migrant organizations in planning and implementation of supports.(10), (11)

Another important issue that has been raised by groups like Fuerza Migrante (including during a session about Fairness and Solidarity with Migrants at the 2020 COABC conference) is the lack of worker voices in, and knowledge about, their own employment contracts. It is important to note that the changes that migrants and migrant advocacy organizations are seeking are much broader than the organic sector, and most are focused on structural and systemic changes to the temporary foreign worker programs, including how they are regulated and governed.

The theme and purpose of this fall issue to “harvest wisdom” from beyond the BC organic sector presents a valuable opportunity to contemplate how the organic community fits into a larger landscape of demands for change within and adjacent to the food system. Aided in part by the values-based grounding to the principle of Fairness, it seems that the organic community has made progress towards viewing labour generally, and migrant workers specifically, as inherently part of organic agriculture. But as of yet, migrant justice demands (including improved representation of migrant justice organizations in planning and decision-making) are not yet centred in the sector’s approach to Fairness.

Perhaps the sector can continue to explore what can be done to achieve Fairness through organic standards in addition to considering how they might advance migrant justice priorities. Treating migrant justice as the core of the Fairness principle seems like a good place to start.

Susanna is a PhD Candidate at the University of British Columbia. Her PhD research is about the contributions of organic agriculture to food system sustainability with a focus on labour and agroecological diversification. This article draws from a collaboration with Fuerza Migrante, a migrant worker collective, and a forthcoming publication by Susanna, Fuerza Migrante, and Hannah Wittman called “Sharing the Struggle for Fairness: Exploring the Possibilities for Solidarity & Just Labour in Organic Agriculture.”

Feature image: Credit: Fuerza Migrante

References:

  1. Araiza, L. (2009). “In Common Struggle against a Common Oppression”: The United Farm Workers and the Black Panther Party, 1968-1973. The Journal of African American History, 94(2), 200–223. doi.org/10.1086/JAAHv94n2p200
  2. Obach, B. K. (2015). Organic Struggle: The Movement for Sustainable Agriculture in the United States. The MIT Press.
  3. ifoam.bio/why-organic/principles-organ ic-agriculture/principle-fairness
  4. Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. (2020). Unheeded Warnings: COVID-19 & Migrant Workers in Canada.
  5. aljazeera.com/economy/2021/7/15/what-choice-do-we-have-us-farm-workers-battle-deadly-heat-wave
  6. Hennebry, J. (2010). Not just a few Bad Apples: Vulnerability, Health and Temporary Migration in Canada. Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens, Spring, 73–77.
  7. For a more in-depth article about temporary foreign worker programs and the organic sector, see the following piece from the BC Organic Grower by Robyn Bunn, Elise Hjalmarson, and Christine Mettler, collective members of Radical Action with Migrants in Agriculture (RAMA) Okanagan: bcorganicgrower.ca/2017/04/tem porary-migrant-farm-workers-in-bc
  8. Anne Macey wrote an article for the Canadian Organic Grower about Fairness in Organics, which you can find here: cog.ca/article/opin ion-fairness-organic-agriculture
  9. CGSB. (2020). Organic production systems: General principles and management standards (National Standard of Canada CAN/CGSB-32.310-2020). Canadian General Standards Board. publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.854643/publication.html
  10. Migrant Rights Network. (2020, May 7). Status for All – for a Just Recovery from COVID-19. migrantrights.ca/statusforall
  11. Haley, E., Caxaj, S., George, G., Hennebry, J., Martell, E., & McLaughlin, J. (2020). Migrant Farmworkers Face Heightened Vulnerabilities During COVID-19. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1–5. doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.016

You might be interested in

Organic Leadership

in 2021/Land Stewardship/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Summer 2021

Niklaus Forstbauer

When I was asked what it means to be on the Organic BC (Certified Organic Associations of BC) board and executive, and the importance of engagement and being an advocate and ambassador for organics in the agriculture sector I immediately took a step back to think. It brought me way back in time.

The first organic board meeting that I remember attending was back in January of 1991. The reason I remember this is because, as a special treat on my birthday, I got to tag along with my mom to a BC Association of Regenerative Agriculture (BCARA) meeting. For my birthday that year I got my own little transistor radio, and with it I sat under the table at Mom’s feet flipping through the stations quietly listening to whatever music I could find—and news of the start of the first Iraq war. I was 12.

That was normal for us growing up. When my parents began farming in the 1970’s they began to meet with other like-minded farmers who had the same calling and passion for organic agriculture. Through their meetings they began to lay the foundation for the strong organic sector that we have in our province today.

Travis and Forstbauer kids doing farm chores on the tractor. Credit: Niklaus Forstbauer.

The organic standards that were eventually developed were important for consumer confidence and best practices, but the reason they did it is because they knew it was the right thing to do for the planet, for the soil, and for our health. And it wasn’t easy: every expert, the government, and the universities all advocated, endorsed, and promoted chemical agriculture with the promise of it being safe and profitable. Organic was definitely counter-culture.

Fast forward to this past winter. While rummaging through our barn we came across a pile of old papers and documents from years gone by. Included in it were some old BCARA and Organic BC newsletters and meeting notes. We even came across an old flyer from Harvey Snow, at the time a young contractor offering his expertise to help folks get started in organic agriculture. The forgotten history, often taken for granted, is an incredible tale. Beginning with several dozen folks with conviction, growing to hundreds with a vision, and now numbering thousands. A movement, all because of a few farmers who started volunteering their time to get organized.

So here we are today—we’ve come a long way. We have a strong and growing organic sector. It’s great and all the hard work is done, right? Not quite! Though organics has become mainstream, we are facing some pretty serious global challenges directly related to agriculture—climate change, increased use of pesticides, GMO, depletion of soil, health crises… The list is long.

Generations of Forstbauers harvesting in the greenhouse. Credit: Niklaus Forstbauer.

I’m sure as farmers we can all relate to the age old saying, “the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.” We’ve all been there! When it comes to the work that the organic sector is doing, both in the province and beyond, I think that this saying certainly strikes a chord. We still have strong and courageous people who year after year work hard to advocate for the earth through organic agriculture, and we would love to have more people get involved!

So what does it mean to be involved as an advocate for organics? It’s rewarding to contribute alongside amazing and passionate people at Organic BC. The earth can be healed by working with nature through organics; we simply need people who are willing to do the work.

I was fortunate to be brought up around people, my parents included, who put in a lot of work to build what we have today. Now it’s our turn to build on their foundation to leave a thriving system for the next generation. Your unique talents and voice are needed to ensure the vitality of the organic movement in BC! Let us know how you can help!

Get in touch:

info@certifiedorganic.bc.ca

Niklaus Forstbauer farms at Forstbauer Family Farm with his wife Lindsey and other members of his family. Established in 1977, Forstbauer Farm uses biodynamic farming principles, a method of farming that focuses on soil health and a holistic approach. Niklaus is the Co-President of COABC, and sits on the board of BCARA.

Featured image: Forstbauer kids leading the way with rhubarb placards. Credit: Niklaus Forstbauer.

You might be interested in

Regenerative Agriculture is the Way of the Future

in 2021/Grow Organic/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Spring 2021

Certification is Helping Define Best Practices

Travis Forstbauer

This article first appeared in Country Life in BC and is reprinted here with gratitude.

Soil health is the foundation of any healthy organic farm. While modern agriculture has primarily focused on nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, soil health from an organic perspective focuses on the health and diversity of microscopic and macroscopic life in the soil.

The foundation of all life is carbon, so on an organic farm, soil health can often be directly related to soil organic matter (soil carbon). So, it is with cautious optimism that the BC Association for Regenerative Agriculture (BCARA) welcomes the renewed focus on regenerative agriculture.

Use of the term “regenerative agriculture” has exploded over the past few years. However, this is not a new philosophy. In North America, Indigenous peoples had been practicing forms of regenerative agriculture for thousands of years before the Europeans came and settled. In more recent times, during the early 20th century after the industrialization of agriculture, European farmers were noticing significant decreasing crop yields. Rudolf Steiner attributed this in part to depleted soil health and gave instruction that laid the foundation for biodynamic agriculture, a regenerative system of agriculture dedicated to building soil life.

Then through the mid to late 20th century, pioneers like J.I. Rodale, Lady Balfour, Robert Rodale, and the lesser-known Ehrenfried Pfeiffer championed organic agriculture practices that, at their heart, were regenerative. Through the 1980s and 1990s this movement blossomed to what is known as organic agriculture.

In 1986, as part of the early organic agriculture movement, a group of farmers in the Fraser Valley organized themselves to create the BCARA. An early definition of regenerative agriculture that they settled on was:

BCARA went on to become a leader in the early organic movement in BC, where, at the grassroots of organic agriculture, was the belief that every organic farm should strive to be regenerative in its practices. Soil health expressed as life in the soil, has always been the foundation of organic agriculture.

“Regenerative Agriculture is both a philosophy and a farm management system. Philosophically, it says that there is within people, plants, animals and the world itself a way of recovery that both comes from within and carries the recovery process beyond previous levels of well-being. Robert Rodale says, “Regeneration begins with the realization that the natural world around us is continually trying to get better and better.

Over the past 30 years much has changed in both organic and conventional agriculture and over the past few years the term “regenerative agriculture” has been loosely used for a variety of farming systems. There is a general understanding that a regenerative farming system captures carbon and helps to mitigate climate change. There are many organizations that have jumped onto this wave of regenerative agriculture. But the term “regenerative agriculture” is not regulated like the term organic. There is no governing body overseeing the use of this term and as a result it has been loosely used and often misused and this is of concern to BCARA.”

Travis Forstbauer on the farm. Credit: Forstbauer Farm

There are some that believe that no-till agriculture systems are more regenerative than organic systems that perform some tillage. However, we fundamentally disagree with this assertion. Many of these no-till systems still rely on toxic herbicides such as glyphosate, and while we applaud agriculture producers’ actions to build soil life, capture carbon, and mitigate climate change, BCARA holds the position that any form of agriculture with the goal to be regenerative should have a foundation of organic practices.

BCARA believes that the healthiest, cleanest food is produced in a regenerative agricultural system, without the use of herbicides, pesticides, and agrochemicals. Regenerative agriculture strives to be a closed loop system whereas the production of these agrochemicals is CO2 intensive and are often produced long distances from the farm.

In the US, a regenerative agriculture standard has been developed called Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC). This certification requires the operation to be certified organic to be designated as regenerative. Certification is on a tiered system of bronze, silver, and gold. The farm is granted certification based on how many regenerative practices they use on their farm as defined in the ROC standard. It is our view that this is the gold standard of regenerative certification.

Currently, there are countless researchers, soil advocates, and organizations doing the much-needed work to shift the collective focus of agriculture towards regenerative practices. These people and organizations include Gabe Brown, Elaine Ingham, Matt Powers, Zach Bush of Farmers Footprint, Maria Rodale and the Rodale Institute, Ryland Engelhart and Finnian Makepeace from the film Kiss the Ground, the Regenerative Organic Alliance, the Canadian Organic Trade Association, and the list goes on and on.

Much like organic agriculture has evolved, the understanding of regenerative agriculture will continue to evolve and BCARA looks forward to being a leading voice for regenerative agriculture in BC.

Travis Forstbauer is president of BCARA, an organic certification body that certifies farms and businesses across the province of BC. He farms alongside his wife and children, his father Hans, his brother Niklaus and his family, sister Rosanna and many other family members throughout the growing season. Together they steward Forstbauer Farm, a multigenerational, certified organic, biodynamic farm located in Chilliwack.

Feature image: Cows in field. Credit: Forstbauer Farm

You might be interested in

Certification Coordinator Welcomes New Online System With Open Arms!

in 2020/Grow Organic/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Standards Updates/Summer 2020/Tools & Techniques

Corinne Impey

When it comes to growing, organic certification, and supporting local operators, Cara Nunn could be considered an expert. She has also seen many changes over her 20-year career in the organic industry.

Cara is the Certification Coordinator for the North Okanagan Organics Association (NOOA) and the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Producers Association (SOOPA).

“My interest in growing began at a very young age as a child raised on a market garden in the Lake District of the Okanagan,” says Cara, who has a professional background in biogeography and experience working as a Managing Agrologist in the ginseng industry.

Cara started working with NOOA in 1997 and later expanded her work to include SOOPA. Now, nearly 23 years later, Cara continues to support organic growers and operators. Most recently, Cara has been helping her operators with the switch to iCertify, COABC’s newly launched online organic certification and renewal system. At the same time, she has been learning new skills and processes related to the administration of the online program.

“The system has come together better than I could have asked for,” says Cara. Having participated in the initial system development as well as many system demos, feedback gathering sessions, and testing, Cara played an active role in the project. “I really appreciate the input we had in developing the questions and format,” she says.

“The system is very robust and extremely capable,” says Cara. She acknowledges that at times, it can be a bit daunting, but “the iCertify Technical Advisor has been invaluable in getting answers and finding how to navigate the system.”

Regardless of any challenges related to learning a new system, she says the move to online certification is important. “I see the biggest benefit being an integrated location for all operator information: files, emails, communications, uploads, reports. Everything—chronological and orderly!”

“Record management has been heading this way for decades,” says Cara. “And the benefits go beyond the certification bodies.”

“The ability to provide details about our industry to government and funding bodies will provide a stronger voice for organics. It is also important for ourselves to have an integrated, clear system to verify integrity of organics to our own members and within our industry.”

Looking ahead, Cara is anticipating the launch of a new feature in iCertify: a database of approved inputs that will become available this summer. This database will be managed under the COABC umbrella of certification bodies and will be accessible to COABC members.

“To be able to offer an ongoing list of approved inputs and products throughout the community and have it accessible to our producers will keep the knowledge flowing,” says Cara. “It will also streamline the time involved in verifying products that may have already been looked at by another certification body.”

“Pooling resources and building community is a strength of the BC Certified Organic Program that I am happy to support.”

Funding for this project has been provided by the Governments of Canada and British Columbia through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. The program is delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC.

Feature image: Cara Nunn building her new greenhouse. Credit: Maia Nunn

You might be interested in

Footnotes from the Field: Fairness in Organic Agriculture

in 2020/Footnotes from the Field/Grow Organic/Land Stewardship/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Standards Updates/Summer 2020

Anne Macey

Originally published in The Canadian Organic Grower, Spring 2018, and updated by the author in May 2020, with thanks.

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has established its Principles of Organic Agriculture. Within those, IFOAM includes a Principle of Fairness, which states “Organic agriculture should be built on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities.” The IFOAM text elaborates further, saying this principle “emphasizes that those involved in organic agriculture should conduct human relationships in a manner that ensures fairness at all levels and to all parties—farmers, workers, processors, distributors, traders, and consumers.”

Many of us have always thought of organic agriculture as a food system that includes social values, yet nothing in our standards speaks to social issues. The focus is very much on agronomic practices and permitted substances. Animal welfare is addressed, but when it comes to people and relationships, North Americans have resisted any suggestion that social justice standards are needed. The argument is that those kinds of standards are written for the global South where exploitation of the work force and poor working conditions are more common. The US and Canada have labour laws to protect farm workers.

I am not so sure, and in any case, fairness in the food system is about much more than treatment of farm workers. Fairness and basic rights include fair trade, fair pricing for the farmer, and fair access to land and seeds. It means fair wages for workers, decent farmworker housing, and more. I agree that incorporating social issues into standards could be problematic, but it is time we had a serious discussion about whether they are needed—and, if not, whether there is an alternative approach. How we can create trust and demonstrate that organic farmers respect their workers as much as the critters in the soil? How can we ensure farmers get a fair price for the quality food they produce?

Colleagues in the US (Michael Sligh, Elizabeth Henderson, and others) worked on these issues with the Agricultural Justice Project (see sidebar on Social Standards in Food Production), developing social stewardship standards for fair and just treatment of people who work in organic and sustainable agriculture. These standards currently fall into the realm of “beyond organic” with the stated purpose:

  • To allow everyone involved in organic and sustainable production and processing a quality of life that meets their basic needs and allows an adequate return and satisfaction from their work, including a safe working environment.
  • To progress toward an entire production, processing and distribution chain that is both socially just and ecologically responsible.1

Here in Canada, two things got me thinking more about the need to introduce something on the topic of fairness in the Canadian Standard. The first was hearing about the poor housing with no potable water for migrant workers on a fruit farm in the Okanagan (not an organic farm), despite laws being in place to protect those workers.

The second is the debate about farm interns and apprentice rights on organic farms. With high labour requirements, many organic farms depend on WWOOFers and other short-term interns for their work force. But sometimes the relationship sours and the workers end up feeling exploited. While many farmers commit to providing a rich and rewarding experience for their interns, in other cases conditions are less than ideal. An intern’s expectation will likely include learning what it takes to become a farmer, not just how to weed carrots.

Maybe we don’t need to spell out lots of specific requirements in the standards, but we could at least make some principled statements about the need for organic agriculture to provide fair working and living conditions for farmers and their workers, whatever their status. For years this type of approach was used in the livestock standards, without the need to spell out exactly what was needed for compliance. We only articulated more specific rules when consumers became unsure about the ability of organic agriculture to address animal welfare issues and started looking for other labels. We could also include statements about fair prices and financial returns for farmers or buyers’ rights to a good quality product.

Unfortunately, since writing this article not much has changed. To bring the discussion to the table, I made some proposals for the 2018 standards revision process. The Organic Technical Committee set up a task force on the topic but no agreement was reached, although it might end up as an informative appendix to facilitate the review in 2025. In the meantime, following a discussion at the 2020 COABC conference we wondered if COABC should conduct a pilot project which, if successful, could be brought forward to the 2025 standards review. Perhaps a first step might be for organic operators to have a “letter of agreement” or similar in the first language of their employees and interns committing the operator to uphold the principles of social fairness regardless of any other formal labour contract that might exist.

The conversation continues.

Social Standards in Food Production

Domestic Fair Trade: The Agricultural Justice Project is a member of the Domestic Fair Trade Association along with a wide range of farmworker and farmer groups, retailers, processors and NGOs from across North America. These groups are united in their mission to promote and protect the integrity of domestic fair trade.

Farmer Direct Co-op, a 100% farmer-owned, organic co-op based in Saskatchewan, was a leader in domestic fair trade, as the first business in North America to earn that certification. Its membership includes more than 60 family farms producing organic small grains and pulse crops in the Prairie region.

Domestic fair-trade certification is based on a set of 16 principles, encompassing health, justice, and sustainability:

  • Family scale farming
  • Capacity building for producers and workers
  • Democratic and participatory ownership and control
  • Rights of labor
  • Equality and opportunity
  • Direct trade
  • Fair and stable pricing
  • Shared risk & affordable credit
  • Long-term trade relationships
  • Sustainable agriculture
  • Appropriate technology
  • Indigenous Peoples’ rights
  • Transparency & accountability
  • Education & advocacy
  • Responsible certification and marketing
  • Animal welfare

Source: Domestic Fair Trade Association

Aquaculture: The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) includes social requirements in its standards certifying responsibly farmed seafood. “ASC certification imposes strict requirements based on the core principles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), these include prohibiting the use of child labour or any form of forced labour. All ASC certified farms are safe and equitable working environments where employees earn a decent wage and have regulated working hours. Regular consultation with surrounding communities about potential social impacts from the farm and proper processing of complaints are also required by certified farms.”

Source: Aquaculture Stewardship Council

Anne Macey is a long-time advocate for organic agriculture at local, provincial, national and international levels. She has served on the CGSB technical committee on organic agriculture, the ECOA Animal Welfare Task Force, the COABC Accreditation Board and on the Accreditation Committee for the International Organic Accreditation Service, as well as her local COG chapter. She is a writer/editor of COG’s Organic Livestock Handbook, a retired sheep farmer, and a past president of COG.

References:
1. Agricultural Justice Project. 2012. Social Stewardship Standards in Organic and Sustainable Agriculture: Standards Document. agriculturaljusticeproject.org/media/uploads/2016/08/02/AJP_Standards_Document_9412.pdf

You might be interested in

First Generation Farmers Find Ease with iCertify Renewal

in Grow Organic/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Spring 2020/Tools & Techniques

Amy Lobb & Calum Oliver, Makoha Farm

Corinne Impey

Makoha Farm is owned and operated by Amy and Calum, who began their farming journey in 2019 on 0.6 acres of leased land on Cordova Bay Ridge in Saanich, BC.At Makoha Farm, they want their love of good food to come across in what they grow: providing tasty, healthy, and top-quality produce. They grow a diversity of vegetable crops and have quickly fallen in love with growing flowers for cut arrangements.

Currently at the start of their second year of farming, Mahoka Farm is part of Haliburton Community Organic Farm, a certified organic incubator farm in Saanich, BC.

As they geared up for their 2020 organic renewal with Islands Organic Producers Association earlier this year, they were looking forward to trying iCertify, COABC’s new online organic certification system.

Amy with a harvest of leeks. Credit: Kristina Coleman

“iCertify was quite simple to use when it came time to do our renewal,” says Amy. “The webinar preview and in-person training sessions were helpful and informative and made the process undaunting. To be honest, I feel that even if I hadn’t done the initial training before starting my renewal I wouldn’t have had any issues.” In particular, Amy found the clear and simple layout easy to follow.

“Also, having the percentage complete bars for each section is a nice touch visually, quickly letting you know if you missed something or giving you peace of mind that you’re almost done.”

Amy looks forward to future renewals where the process will be even more streamlined now that everything lives in iCertify. “It will be interesting to see how everything goes during next year’s renewal,” says Amy. “It should save us time in the future, only needing to update information that may have changed for our operation and uploading our annual forms.”

Time saved doing administration work means more time spent focused on farming. For 2020, Makoha has launched their first flower CSA subscription, which includes a small veggie box add-on option.

“We can’t wait to share this with the community. As the season begins in this world of uncertainty, we’re also happy to be able to still provide the local community with food for their homes. No matter what happens, we will be here growing food and offering it to the public.”

Funding for this project has been provided by the Governments of Canada and British Columbia through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. The program is delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC.

Feature image: Amy and Calum of Makoha Farm. Credit: Amy Lobb

You might be interested in

1 2
Go to Top