Tag archive

organic standards

Revision of the Canadian Organic Standards

in 2024/Current Issue/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Standards Updates/Winter 2024

By Nicolas Walser

It’s that time again: the review of the Canadian Organic Standards!

Every five years, the Canadian Organic Standards undergo a revision and an updated version is published. Organic standards need to evolve to address emerging challenges, technological advancements, and scientific research. The last revision was published in 2020—always be sure you are referring to the most up-to-date version.

You may be asking, “If revisions occur every five years, don’t we have some time before the 2025 version?” The reality is that updating the standards is quite a lengthy process and requires input from many stakeholders.

The Canadian Organic Standards are held by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) and maintained by the Organic Federation of Canada (OFC) but are ultimately “owned by the public.” This means that it is the public and industry, not the government, who gets to make and set the standards. So, anyone can be involved in the revision process.

The revision process is spearheaded by the OFC, starting by receiving proposals from the public; this began in July 2023, and 290 proposals have been received. OFC then convenes seven Working Groups to discuss the proposals, each focused on a specific area of organic production (crops, livestock, etc). Each Working Group is made up of 15 members and contains numerous producers, as well as consultants, organic stakeholders, and at least one verification officer or representative of a certifying body.

Within a Working Group there are Task Forces made up of specialists and focused on specific areas of the standards, such as poultry or mushrooms. They discuss proposals in great detail and bring their recommendations to the larger Working Group.

After the Working Groups have assessed the proposals and come to a consensus, their recommendations are sent to the CGSB’s Technical Committee on Organic Agriculture. The Technical Committee is made up of volunteers who represent organizations from across Canada, including industry groups and provincial associations. There are voting and non-voting members; non-voting members provide input and technical expertise but are unable to vote on the adoption of the standards. Once the Technical Committee has made its decisions the new draft standards will be opened up for public comment in 2025.

Organic BC has the privilege to be a voting member of the Technical Committee. This is a very exciting opportunity for our organization to have a seat at the national table. As the first province in Canada to have had a provincial organic standard—the BC Certified Organic Program was created in 1993 and was foundational to the creation of the National Standard—we have lots to offer the rest of the country.

Involvement in the revision process allows Organic BC to contribute to the development of standards that not only meet regulatory requirements but also enhance consumer trust in the authenticity and integrity of organic products. Organic BC will be able to contribute valuable insights on how the standards can be adapted to better suit the specific conditions of BC’s unique and diverse organic sector. BC requires a set of standards which are robust and empower our producers to continue in our mission “To cultivate a resilient organic movement in British Columbia.”

I am very excited to be able to represent Organic BC on the Technical Committee. I don’t take this responsibility lightly, as our industry relies on these standards. Organic BC’s executive director, Eva-Lena Lang, and I will be having regular meetings throughout the revision process to ensure that our votes align with the needs of the organic community in BC. I encourage everyone to review the 290 proposals that have been submitted for consideration for the revisions.

Each proposal will have to be assessed and discussed, which is why the revision process takes such a long time. This rigorous process relies on many volunteers contributing a significant amount of effort to ensure that the standards continue to be robust and reflect IFOAM Organics International’s Principles of Organics (Health, Ecology, Fairness, Care).

I am looking forward to undergoing this work in a manner that fosters collaboration and ensures that the standards are developed through a consultative and inclusive approach, taking into account the perspectives of our various stakeholders.

Your input is crucial throughout this process, both now in reviewing the proposals, and later, when the draft is released for public comments. The sooner we have your input, the more time we will have to devote to ensure that the revisions reflect the needs of our community.

You can view the proposals at the Organic Federation of Canada website:

If you have comments on any of the proposals, please share your feedback with Organic BC by emailing info@organicbc.org.

Nicolas Walser (he/him) is an agrologist who lives and grows in unceded Ktunaxa territory with his family. A seed saver, wetland enthusiast and policy nerd he sits on Organic BC’s Accreditation Board and the Central Kootenay Food Policy Council.

Featured image: Peppers ripening at Northstar Organics. Credit: Maylies Lang.

You might be interested in

GM Seed Secrecy Threatens Organics

in 2023/GMO Updates/Seeds/Winter 2023

By Lucy Sharratt

WARNING: This seed packet could soon be full of undisclosed genetically modified (GM) seeds.

The biotechnology industry is pushing to take over the regulation of genetically engineered (genetically modified or GM) seeds and foods, and establish corporate self-regulation in place of government oversight. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is considering letting corporations conduct their own environmental safety assessments of many new gene-edited seeds with no government oversight, and decide if they want to disclose that their new product is genetically engineered. The Minister of Health has already decided that many gene edited foods don’t need any government safety checks. The proliferation of unknown genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food system is a serious threat to the future of organic farming.

Seed Packet Warning Sent to the Minister

At the end of last year, hundreds of farmers in the Prairies sent seed packets in the mail to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. These envelopes were empty of seeds but carried an important message to the Minister about the threat to organic farming if she allows the sale of unassessed, undisclosed genetically engineered seeds.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is proposing to allow companies to sell many new gene-edited GM seeds—those that have no foreign DNA—without notifying farmers, consumers, or even the federal government. This exemption will mean that companies will do their own environmental assessments and leave farmers dependent on companies to find out if seeds are gene-edited.

The biotechnology industry has launched a public relations campaign to characterize gene editing techniques as “plant breeding innovation” or “precision breeding,” and argue that gene-edited seeds should not even be defined as GMOs. However, gene editing is genetic engineering. This is the science, and it is also the definition in the Canada Organic Standards.

The Canada Organic Regime is overseen by the CFIA and includes the enforcement of the organic standards, which prohibit the use of genetic engineering. The Canada Organic Trade Association says, “It is the CFIA’s responsibility to ensure the environmental safety of all genetically engineered plants and the protection of the organic integrity. CFIA must continue to regulate all genetically engineered plants under the Seeds Act—including those produced through the new techniques of gene editing.”

CropLife Influence Exposed

A 2022 investigation by French-language CBC found that a CFIA document summarizing the agency’s proposals to remove regulation was actually authored by the biotechnology and pesticide industry lobby group CropLife Canada. The history of the Word file shows that CropLife’s executive director was the creator of the document.

This revelation led the National Farmers Union, CBAN, and 13 other groups to call for the CFIA President to be replaced. The groups said, “It appears that key aspects of the proposed guidance…were requested by self-interested industry groups and have been incorporated into the CFIA regulatory guidance.”

The CFIA has explained that CropLife authorship of the document was a technical mistake in the process of exchanging draft documents for comment. However, this mistake was only possible because the CFIA sent CropLife this proposal summary for their input. Farm groups such as the National Farmers Union were not asked to review it.

The CFIA consulted with farmer organizations in the summers of 2021 and 2022. However, as Garry Johnson, President of SaskOrganics said, “If the government is sincere about hearing from farmers, when their proposals would have such a major impact on organic farmers in particular, they should choose a time that is much less demanding on all of us.”

Minister Pledges GMO Transparency

In response to the media story, the Minister of Agriculture told organic farmers that they don’t need to worry; that she will make sure farmers have transparency about new GM seeds coming to the market. However, the Minister has not yet secured mandatory reporting and the CFIA continues to meet with CropLife to discuss the industry’s proposal for “voluntary transparency.”CropLife is pushing to be the arbiter of information for farmers. It wants to manage a public list that relies on biotech companies to voluntarily disclose their GM seeds. In fact, CropLife has its own private, voluntary product notification system ready to roll. This is a tactic to avoid regulation and mandatory reporting.
The biotech industry wants the Minister to accept voluntary corporate notification as sufficient transparency. However, there would be no way to know that this list was complete or to verify the information on the it.

This lack of transparency would go far beyond the existing problem of unlabelled GM foods in our grocery stores. Some GM foods and seeds would be sold, planted, and eaten without the public, farmers, and government knowing that they even exist.

Removing regulation would remove the ability of the federal government to request information from companies about their new unregulated GM foods and seeds. There would be no way to track and trace these secret, unregulated GMOs.

In an October 2022 letter to the Minister, SaskOrganics, the National Farmers Union, and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) argued that “transparency and traceability will only be possible if the CFIA and Health Canada retain their regulatory authority over all genetically engineered products such that, prior to release into the environment or onto the market, the departments require submission of information from product developers and have the ability to provide it to Canadians in a timely, trusted, and accessible way.”

The CFIA is stuck with an irreconcilable contradiction. The CFIA, federal government, and Minister have all publicly committed to “transparency,” but the CFIA is proposing to remove the very regulation that would ensure it.

Act Now to Stop Corporate Self-Regulation

In May 2022, Health Canada announced that it will not regulate gene-edited GM foods, and will propose amendments to the Novel Food Regulations to formalize these changes. This is an acknowledgement that the Minister of Health can still reverse Health Canada’s new regulatory guidance that exempts these foods.

In a January 2023 letter responding to SaskOrganics, the Minister of Agriculture said she has asked the CFIA and Agriculture Canada “to propose options to ensure traceability and transparency of genetically engineered plant varieties to maintain the integrity of Canada’s organic food production system.” However, the solution needed can only be secured if organic farmers, organic sector groups, and the public continue to communicate with the Minister.

The Endgame is Complete Corporate Control

CropLife members include the biggest seed and pesticide companies in the world. These companies would clearly be the beneficiaries of an open door to sell unregulated GMOs. These corporations would be free to put many GM products on the market without the costs of submitting safety data to regulators, could cut their confidential safety studies down to a bare minimum, and could keep their GMOs a market secret and thus avoid the risk of consumer boycotts. The proliferation of undisclosed GMOs would also remove the competition: by contaminating the entire food system with secret GMOs, over time, organic production and other non-GMO choices would become unviable.
Actions and updates are posted at: cban.ca/NoExemptions

Lucy Sharratt is Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), a project of the MakeWay Charitable Society.

Featured image: Letters and seed packets. Credit: Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

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

Reflections on the History of Organic BC

in 2022/Grow Organic/Marketing/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Spring 2022

We asked past presidents and board members of Organic BC to share memories from their time on the board—so many people have contributed so much over the years. These reflections are snapshots from the past 30 years, as we grew from small group of dedicated farmers, ranchers, and processors to the incredible community we have today. Here’s to many more decades of cultivating a resilient organic movement in BC!

Robert Hettler – Pilgrim’s Produce

Board member from 1993 to 1995

I was chosen by the North Okanagan Organic Association in the early 1990’s to be their representative on the board of what is now Organic BC.

I have many memories from the era of being on the board. The strongest is the commitment of all the board members of the time to get the job done, no matter the distance travelled, the time spent reviewing the few other standards written at the time, and the long hours spent thrashing out our first versions and then revisions after revisions.

Beginning with the travel, most of the board members came from the interior, Hans Buchler from Oliver, but more so Paddy Doherty and Lee Taylor from the Cariboo (an eight-hour drive), and especially Bill Smith from the Peace and his overnight drives of 12 or 16 hours. If I felt like whining over my four to six hours of winter driving, the guys from the north had us beat by a long shot. Sure, there was Fred Reid just half an hour down the road in Abbotsford, and Harvey Snow, who at the time worked for the BC Ministry of Agriculture, who also had little travel. Harvey Snow had a small office in Cloverdale, where we would all pile in and get to work.

Many a time I would arrive at Harvey’s Ministry of Agriculture office before 8 am to find Hans asleep in the cab of his Datsun pickup.

I remember reviewing the organic regulations from California and Oregon especially, but also some from Europe. None of us had experience writing regulations like many do now, so there were hours and hours of working out the principles we wished to convey, and then the tough job of choosing the right words and phrases with which to express our ideas. There seemed to be endless revisions made in those early days.

Since we met one day per month in the winter, in most cases we would work all day on regulations, and then usually it meant a drive back home at the end of the day, at least for me.

At the time the Apple 11e computer was the latest aid in doing regulations, which Harvey used to record our meetings, as were fax machines, which aided greatly in sending documents to each other. No cell phones back then and selfies had not been invented, so no pictures even contemplated —but we had Tim Hortons coffee and doughnuts to keep us going.

Paddy Doherty (centre) washing carrots at West Enderby Farm. Credit: West Enderby Farm.

Paddy Doherty – West Enderby Farm

Board member 1993-2000; 2012-2020; Staff 2001-2005

I remember particularly the friends I made. There were so many, and so many are still close friends. Gunta Vitins was working at the Ministry of Agriculture in the early 1990’s. She was assigned to the fledgling Certified Organic Association of BC (COABC) to help us get the organization off the ground. She found the funding somewhere and got us started on our first strategic plan.

I must admit I didn’t know what a strategic plan was. Bill Smith, Rob Hettler, Fred Reid, Harvey Snow, Brian Mennell, Brian Hughes, and I all worked on this plan, but Gunta made it happen. It was a great plan. We’ve accomplished most of the aspirations described in it—I don’t have a copy anymore.

I recall Bill Smith saying, “We have a great organization on paper, but we don’t have anything on the ground.” The COABC was the administrator of the Organic Agricultural Product Certification Regulations under the Food Choice and Disclosure Act. We were in charge of administering an act of the BC legislature but we had no office, no money, and no employees.

The economic development official in Quesnel happened to be a friend. He told me, “You need a secretariat. Ask the government for a secretariat for your organization until you can get on your feet.” A friend and I went to visit David Zirnhelt, then the Minister of Agriculture, who coincidentally owned a ranch in the next valley over from our place. We brought a proposal—this was another thing I had no experience with, but luckily had help from people who did.

People in the Ministry said it was irregular to approach the Minister in such an informal fashion, but it worked. We were provided with $275,000 in seed money to get us started, as well as a ministry staff person (and office) for three years. The next week I received a cheque in the mail for $80,000. We didn’t even have a bank account so I opened one at the Quesnel Credit Union.

The Ministry was holding an agriculture standing committee—in the summer, which was awkward. I was haying, but I really felt it was important to attend. After I finished baling, I drove all night to catch the first ferry to Victoria. I met Brian Hughes and Mary Alice Johnson outside the legislature, and they accompanied me. Somehow, I had managed to draft a speech for the standing committee. I don’t have it anymore, but I recall the opening: “I’m here to give you some good news about organic farming in BC.” I didn’t ask for anything, I just told them how great we were and what great things we were going to do. I also told them about the incredible market for organic food, and how fast it was growing. I could see the committee’s eyes light-up.

That was the first of many meetings where I was one of a group representing agriculture in BC. I was hanging out with the commodity groups like the chicken farmers, cattlemen, etc. Once the BC Agriculture Council was formed, I spent many hours attending meetings—often not doing much, but just being there.

Carmen and Glen Wakeling in the sunflower shoot house at Eatmore Sprouts. Credit: Eatmore Sprouts.

Glenn Wakeling – Eatmore Sprouts

Board member 1997-2001

I first attended a COABC AGM as a board representative from the Comox Region. I was thirty-something at the time and in the first decade of operating Eatmore Sprouts with three business partners. One of them, Carmen, was the whole reason I was here—a Kiwi growing sprouts in BC.

At the time, Hans Buchler was wrapping up his presidency. Paddy Doherty was coaxed in as president with a cell phone provided by COABC, and later a computer provided by Cathleen Kneen. Somehow, I ended up on the executive and became president several years later (the world is run by those who show up!).

The big issues of the day were recognition of the Standard (e.g. getting BC organic apples into Europe) and marketing boards (chickens and eggs). The Ministry was engaged. As is still the case, many farmers wanted little or no governance, with a handful who wanted everything, both federally and provincially.

Both of my parents in rural New Zealand did a lot of community time on boards. I felt it was important to participate. I jumped in deep, learning lots. We were still using dial up internet and basic computers. This kept the beginners mind active—looking back I was in way over my head!

I met a lot of amazing people, and we had a lot of good times.

Deb Foote – The Organic Grocer

Board member 2004-2008

I think I was the first non-producer coming from the world of distribution, retail, and marketing.

The mid-2000s were a time of big growth for COABC and organics. Just some of the issues that the sector faced during that time were:

  • West Nile virus and the potential impacts of use of malathion on organic farmers. The Province asked COABC for input
  • Plant Breeder Rights and seed severity
  • Marketing board accommodations for organic and specialty producers
  • National Standards development and implementation
  • Discussion of aquaculture certification
  • Collaboration with BC Ministry of Agriculture and Ag Canada
  • Introduction of the Environmental Farm Plan program
  • Abattoir regulations
  • GMO contamination
  • Organic Harvest Awards
  • BC’s adoption of the Canadian Organic Standards
  • An Organic Extension Officer position was created
  • Buy Local and the 100-mile diet took off

Hermann Bruns – Wild Flight Farm

Board member 1998-99; 2004-2006; 2011-2013

I was the NOOA rep on the COABC board over 20 years ago now. The world was a lot simpler back then, and we were all making it up somewhat as we went along.

My strongest memories are of getting an office set up for COABC. NOOA also needed an office space. At that time the Ministry of Agriculture was downsizing a lot, so one of the NOOA board members was bold enough to ask the Minister at the time, Corky Evans, if we could take up one of the empty offices in their Vernon building—and he agreed! Not all of the Ministry staff were pleased, however, so they created an outside entrance to the office.

NOOA moved in first and COABC followed soon after. The NOOA part-time administrator, Shelly Chvala, was also tasked with some of the COABC administrative work. Prior to that time, all the work was being done by board members from their homes, with regular meetings to get the organization up and running.

When that office space become too small, NOOA and COABC moved to a second office down on Kalamalka Lake Road for a number of years, then to a small house downtown that was also shared with PACS. In 2008, COABC moved to its own office at the current location.

Accreditation in the early years was being done by a committee of a few board members, with a government representative funded by the Ministry acting as Chair. At first it was about trying to get the certification bodies to work together, and then eventually our own standards came over time.

The first COABC website was created by Tim Jackson, son of a local organic fruit grower and university student who knew a little bit about html. I had to convince the board that a website would be a good thing; I thought it was important to have information more easily available for the organic community—as a kind of ‘open filing cabinet.’ Right from the beginning we envisioned a directory of all the certified operations, and we created the listserv which was very active at the time.

Carmen Wakeling – Eatmore Sprouts

Board member 2003-04; 2009-10; 2014-2019; 2021

I stepped into the role of president of COABC right when mandatory organic labelling in BC was announced in 2015. If I had known what that meant I may not have taken the job! So much work but a definite strengthening of organics. We worked with ministry, consumers, producers, and everyone in between to develop a staged approach to achieving this outcome. I remember one moment particularly well, when we were given a bit of an ultimatum: “If you want this, you must…” I felt my heart hit the floor—and then we figured out how to get through it. When I walk around the grocery stores now, I can see that our work on this has helped so much in giving consumers a clearer way to purchase certified organic products. This makes me very happy!

The current strategic plan was developed during my time as president. I feel very pleased that we were able to take the organization’s ability to work together and to identify gaps so solutions could be found to overcome challenges and build on opportunities. It was through this strategic plan that “iCertify” and the core review were undertaken. I look forward to the opportunities that lie ahead for Organic BC, as I know that many of the identified gaps will be addressed in the short- and medium-term.

It was so great to be supporting the work of the generations of leaders before me, and building opportunity for generations of leaders to come. It was an honor and a privilege to hold this position and contribute the important work of making the world a better place through organic agriculture. Step by step, bit by bit, building stronger communities and building stronger bridges is essential to humanity currently.

Keep up the good work everyone!

Feature image: Hermann Bruns with early spring greens in his moveable greenhouse at Wild Flight Farm as part of the Organic BC Virutal Field Tours 2022. Credit: Organic BC.

You might be interested in

In Memory of Dave McCandless

in 2022/Organic Community/Spring 2022

Over the past year, the Organic BC community lost two very special people, Dave McCandless and Bob Mitchell.

We remember them here with sadness for their passing, and with gratitude for the legacy of their knowledge, skills, rich soils, stories, passions, and contributions.

They are remembered, and live on in our work.

Dave McCandless (1934 – 2021)

By Medwyn McConachy

In the fall of 2021, the organic community lost one of its early pioneers and advocates, Dave McCandless. As a long-term member of the BC Association of Regenerative Agriculture Dave’s focus was always on creating positive solutions for farmers working towards organic standards.

Dave was determined to eliminate fossil fuels. When he left us he was still engaged in pursuing a fossil-free future for organic farms. His partner Susan Davidson tells the story: “his passion for getting OFF fossil fuels was paramount, I remember helping him to write a letter to the president of Kubota tractors, urging them to develop a kit for converting diesel tractors to electric.”

Dave walked his talk by driving one of the early hybrid Prius cars. Susan recalls the time she was driving a car full of recyclables to the end of the driveway and when she rolled down the window, she saw a sticky note on the mirror that said, “is this trip really necessary?”

Dave influenced our Organic BC community widely. As Rochelle Eisen noted in a correspondence with Susan “…once again Dave has raised my consciousness. The gist of Dave’s message was organic farms should not be allowed to use fossil fuels. And as we know ….. the logistics of even reducing our dependence is daunting. But I agree with Dave’s underlying thoughts as it is true: organic farmers are deluding themselves if they think they are making a difference practicing replacement agriculture.”

Dave’s journey to find his passion for organic agriculture was rich and varied. As the firstborn son of Stella and George McCandless, he began his working years with his father on the MV Uchuck, plying the waters from Port Alberni to Bamfield. The ship carried freight and passengers to remote communities. Dave left his sea legs and found his footing on land when he started a career in urban landscaping, discovering his love of fruit tree propagation and pruning. He carried this passion with him to Fraser Common Farm in Aldergrove in the 1980’s.

Dave was committed to cooperative living and working. He was an early member of Community Alternatives Society living in their Kitsilano cooperative housing community. With his partners in the Glorious Garnish and Seasonal Salad Company—the farming enterprise that grew out of the fertile soils of Fraser Common Farm—he co-created a workers’ cooperative now known as Glorious Organics.

In the late 1990’s Dave and Susan were instrumental in gathering the necessary shareholder energy, finances, and enthusiasm to create the cooperative that purchased Glen Valley Organic Farm, a 50-acre certified organic farm in danger of becoming just another cranberry bog in the Glen Valley. Reminiscing about Dave’s contribution, Paige Dampier, one of the current farmers at Glen Valley, recalls “Dave will be remembered for his enthusiastic participation at farm work parties in the early days of the co-op, his valuable time as a member of the Stewards, his passionate input and regular attendance at all of our meetings, and his sincere concern for the planet.”

Dave demonstrated this concern in so many ways. At Fraser Common Farm Dave restored an almost-invisible trickle of water running through the small forest beside the driveway into a viable salmon habitat, and was rewarded with the salmon returning to spawn in the stream. His determination to improve organic soils led him to experiment with Biochar—learning to make and use it on crops for Glorious Organics. Dave worked with UBC Farm to evaluate the benefits of biochar. He said, “as a soil amendment, it acts like a coral reef for soil organisms, helping to house beneficial micro-organisms, creating air pockets, holding moisture, and it lasts for a VERY long time.”1

Recognizing the importance of crop planning and land management, and before having access to sophisticated technology tools such as GIS and Google maps, Dave took the initiative to create land use maps for both Fraser Common and Glen Valley farms. Starting with a simple sketch, the data he collected was then enlarged and copied onto mylar, which was then used to support walkabouts on the land to gather more details. The end result was an accurate record of built and natural features on both farms.

Committed to the planet from the smallest worm on his fishing hook, to the mysteries of the night sky, it seemed no accident that the day of Dave’s birth, April 22, was declared Earth Day and is celebrated by more than 1 billion people in 193 countries every year.

1 Gary Jones, Inside View, Greenhouse Canada, 09/25/2012, greenhousecanada.com/in side-view-3314

Feature image: Dave McCandless in the field. Credit: Glorious Organics.

You might be interested in

Federal Government Set to Abandon Organic Agriculture

in 2021/Fall 2021/Grow Organic/Organic Standards/Standards Updates

By Jim Robbins

The Canadian government is dropping funding for the review and interpretation of the Canadian Organic Standards (COS). The Standards must be updated every five years in order to remain relevant to evolving organic practice and in order to be useful in organic equivalency agreements with other countries.

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) did contribute significantly to the 2015 and 2020 reviews of the COS, but it has alerted the organic sector that it will not fund any future reviews and will insist that the organic industry pay for this mandatory process, a budget of over $1M every five years. Moreover, Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has confirmed that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) will drop funding of the Standards Interpretation Committee, which has been funded since 2009 by the CFIA. This committee resolves disputes between certification bodies and organic operators, and prevents fraud and misinterpretation of organic practices.

AAFC claims that they support maintenance of assurance systems related to sustainability as they look to make industry more resilient and competitive, and that there is much to be drawn from the organic sector. They argue that they have funded projects submitted by organic organizations for market development, strengthening of organic supply chains, development of the National Organic Ingredient Strategy, and a few other projects over the past ten years.

However, without the COS, which is the skeleton of the whole organic industry, these contributions will have no future impact. A lapsed Standard will not convince consumers to buy Canadian organic food, nor will it convince importers of organic food in other countries to buy Canadian; in fact, it will make it impossible.

American and European organic operators do not have to lobby their respective governments every five years for funding of the maintenance and enforcement of their organic standards. On the contrary, the United States Department of Agriculture directly funds the administration of their National Organic Program. The European Commission has a Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, which is responsible for developing and managing the European Union organic production framework, including an expert group for technical advice.

Organic agriculture is recognized as an efficient tool for reducing greenhouse gases, building soils, and enhancing biodiversity. Amid a summer of drought and fires threatening food production in many Canadian provinces, organic systems offer a method of reducing agriculture’s impact on the environment while sustainably producing high quality food.

However, without an ongoing organic standard defining what organic production systems are, and without a fair enforcement mechanism protecting organic integrity, organic agriculture lacks the tools that it needs to maintain growth and provide the ecological services it is capable of producing.

Jim is an organic producer from Delisle, Saskatchewan, growing field crops and raising cattle. He has been President of the Organic Federation of Canada since 2016.

Feature image: Photo: Seedlings at Amara Farm. Credit: Michaela Parks

You might be interested in

Welcome to Organic BC

in 2021/Fall 2021/Marketing/Organic Community/Organic Standards

By Stacey Santos

The Certified Organic Associations of BC (COABC) is now officially Organic BC! In early July, we launched our new website and brand, and along with it, new opportunities for growth, collaboration, and inclusivity.

But before we get to that, let’s talk about the journey and why we decided to undertake such a massive project—one that unexpectedly coincided with the onset of COVID-19 in our province, making it an exceptionally busy and challenging year!

The driving force behind the major change was the fact that our brand and website no longer accurately represented our organization. We outgrew them. They remained securely in place while we expanded, adapted, and continued to accomplish so many excellent things for our members and the organic sector.

And so, the journey began to create a fresh, revitalized, and inviting presence that truly reflects our community and our organization. In the spirit of COABC’s grassroots origins, the Organic BC project was a team effort that brought together staff, members, and volunteers. It’s not easy to build a new website from scratch along with a new brand, but our team really came together to navigate the challenges with experience, creativity, and a much-needed sense of humour.

Deciding on a name was perhaps the easiest part of this project. Organic BC is a reflection of our vision, toward an organic British Columbia, and invites everyone, from organic farmers and farmers-to-be, to consumers and government, to be a part of our community. We worked with an amazing designer, Sandra Hanson, to bring our vision to life. Our logo font is vintage, a nod to our roots, and brings visual interest and a natural, earthy feel.

A lush farmers market display at UBC Farm. Credit: Hannah Lewis.

An important note on our new name: Organic BC is our public-facing brand. Currently, all accreditation activities, internal documentation from the Accreditation Board, and certification body documentation will remain as is and does not need to be updated from COABC to Organic BC. That said, if there are any references to COABC in logos, text, or links on your website/materials, please update those!

The new website, built by a Vernon-based web company, was created with community in mind, and features new tools for organic farmers, prospective organic farmers, consumers, and anyone looking to learn more about what it means to be organic. It connects users to educational events and job postings and offers the latest information and resources on organic agriculture, certification, and opportunities to get involved and help shape the sector.

We’ve spent the last couple of months settling into our new brand and website and are now focused on unleashing the potential of our hard work. We thank everyone for your support during this journey and we can’t wait to take Organic BC to new heights!

We invite you to explore our website, get involved in the #thisisorganicbc community on social media, and celebrate with us as we continue to champion and advocate for a healthy, diverse and resilient food system.

Instagram: @thisisorganicbc
Facebook: @thisisorganicbc
Twitter: @thisisorganicbc
LinkedIn: thisisorganicbc

Stay Connected

We have heard that some of our emails have gone to people’s spam folders. To ensure you keep getting important updates from us, please check that @organicbc.org email addresses are marked as safe.

Funding for Organic BC’s website and online tools has been provided by the Governments of Canada and British Columbia through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative.

Featured image: Erin at Fierce Love Farm with carrot harvest. Credit: Fierce Love Farm.

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

1 2
Go to Top