Features
'Super' marketing a real symbol of success
How do you know that the food you buy is truly organic? Purely because the word 'organic' is legally protected and organic associations only give their symbol of certification to farmers and growers they are sure are sticking to the rules. But the system of inspection is bureaucratic and expensive. Maybe there is a better wayhellip;?
Mentoring: How Organic Certification Might be Made Fairer to Small Producers, and Much Cheaper, Too.
The problem as I see it is that small, principled, producers in the UK are completely locked out of the organic movement by the likely prospect of having to pay a tithe of £425+VAT (total £499.37) to the Soil Association before they can sell a single genuinely organic carrot at the gate or to a shop. This leads to demoralisation and even cynicism towards the SA. I've talked to a number of people who feel this way.
I guess that this state of affairs has arisen while the SA has had bigger fish to fry on the national and international fronts, including getting organic food into the supermarkets. But now is the time, I suggest, to re-focus on the social aspect of organics rather than the economic-political, now that the latter battle is halfway-won, or at least sensibly engaged.
We all want organic awareness to grow, but we should be very wary of the supermarkets as promoters of Organics. Their interest is not in rational sustainable agriculture and food production, but in marketing opportunities and selling niche gear for greater profit. We must aim for grass roots growth instead, through education and greater availability of genuinely local organic veg. We want local people to be aware of and to buy local stuff, preferably from the bloke on the allotments, or at the corner shop. This cannot happen while the £499.37 tithe is in place.
My point for discussion addresses the issues of acreage and inspection cost. Many people's first reaction will almost certainly be to reject it as unworkable and unreasonable, not to mention naïve.
I would disagree, of course, and would maintain that nothing is impossible if the will is there. All that is required is 'thinking outside of the box', and encouraging other concerned parties to do the same. The SA has already achieved great things. One more great thing is not beyond it.
Finally: since my own first application, the SA has had twenty years to address the issue of the small grower/gardener, and all that has happened is that the cost has quadrupled and quadrupled again; and the unfairness to the small producer has gone up in proportion.
Points and Suggestions
-
The current notion that a 'small' producer is someone with 'only' 20 acres of land is the first stumbling block, as it implies an inherent SA bias towards Big. Twenty acres of veg is a lot. The mindset seems to have drifted into 'Big is Better' and away from 'Small is Beautiful'. 'Big is Better' is the driving paradigm behind Big Capitalism that is driving world pollution and the horrors of 'globalisation'. I think it is essential to reconsider this fundamental mode of thought if the social/local spirit of the organic movement is to prevail.
It is a fact of life that supermarkets dominate the food chain. Thus the organic movement can not ignore them and must treat with them. However, it is dangerous to over-rely on them, because their motives are not the same as those of the environmentally-conscious farmer or grower or gardener. Their instinct is towards greed and monopoly, while the e-c grower tends towards fairness and diversity. These two sets of motives are ultimately incompatible, no matter what rationalisations one might like to apply, or what compromises might sometimes be necessary.
It is a rational tenet of the organic principle that Small is Beautiful: small scale; small (low-mile) travel; small (fair) profit; small waste.
The small, local, producer has always thus been upheld (in theory) as an essential part of the organic movement, if not its principal agent. However, the SA fee structure has always meant (in practice) that the small producer has been badly treated.
The fees paid by the small producer have always subsidised the larger producer, as the small producer has had to pay a larger proportion of his income for SA certification. This is perceived (both rationally and rightly, I would say) as being grossly unfair.
Currently, a gardener or allotment-holder who is growing according to SA standards out of conviction is not allowed to sell a single bean or carrot without first paying the SA £499.37 per annum. No wonder so many principled gardeners view the SA with scepticism or cynicism.
The current policy of Inspection is a bureaucratic approach to the problem of maintaining standards. This method is expensive, time consuming, and does not guarantee that standards will be maintained. It is all too easy to cheat, if the Member is not growing organically from a sense of conviction. The general public know this, and hence regard Inspection with some scepticism.
Ultimately, the grower who can be guaranteed to grow genuinely organic crops is the grower who grows out of a spirit of conviction, not because he has been inspected twice or fifteen times a year. The SA should, I suggest, recognise this fact and develop means of quality certification based upon it.
I suggest a system of Mentors, which might be applied to both farm scale and garden scale production.
On the farm/commercial scale: an applicant should, I suggest, be referred to his nearest (known and trusted) SA member, who will become his Mentor, and will be responsible for checking that the applicant has fully understood the principles of organic growing, and that he is growing from conviction, and is not just bandwaggoning.
This Mentor is responsible for liaising with the SA, and is ultimately responsible for approving or otherwise, the applicant's application. If necessary, the applicant might sit a brief exam, or be approved by a third party from the SA.
The Mentor will monitor the new member for as long as is thought necessary.
As a part of his membership conditions, the new member will agree to undertake similar mentoring in the future when he is properly established.
The terms of the mentoring commitment may be formalised, if thought necessary: eg, each member might be expected to put in 20hrs/year, or whatever is thought reasonable.
The advantages of Mentoring over Inspection are:
- it gets to the heart of the matter, which is 'can we be sure this applicant will stick to the rules?' by checking the quality of the man, not what he may or may not have hidden behind his pig-shed.
- it involves the applicant with a fully-accredited working colleague, who will be able to offer him continuing advice and support when anxiety sets in.
- it avoids putting the new member in the position of being treated with suspicion, which 'inspection' implies. He is trusted.
- it will save tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds currently spent on inspections.
- it will involve the new member not just as a producer, but as a future Mentor himself. He will thus feel more integrated with the organic movement as a whole.
- The Mentor himself will need to become more au fait with all aspects of SA standards if he is to monitor the applicant properly. Thus he is kept up to date himself.
- The Mentoring pool will grow (organically!) as more people are accredited.
- The cheapness of Mentoring will allow for allotment holders and gardeners to grow and sell genuinely organic produce locally, without having to pay ridiculous 'taxes'. Small can again be Beautiful.
On the garden/allotment scale: the same principles can be applied here. There are thousands of committed and principled organic gardeners and allotment-holders who would be delighted to act as Mentors. I suggest that in the UK, members of HDRA/Garden Organic would be ideal for the job. A joint scheme could be established.
A fraction of the money currently spent (wasted?) on inspections could be spent on a web-based logging system which keeps track of the Mentor's observations and comments, and the applicant's responses and progress. The rest could be diverted into research, or be set against much lower and thus more equitable joining fees for very small growers, gardeners, window-box operatives, etc. Acreage need not be an issue, below an agreed 'professional/commercial' level, say.
A final point: the organic movement is a new movement, led by principle and reason, unlike its chemical-industrial counterpart, which is driven by greed and fear. The bureaucratic way of quality control belongs to the old way: the way of the incipient cheat and the grasping bean-counter, who can understand only suspicion and constant checking as a way of ensuring 'quality'.
The SA should, in my opinion, recognise this fact and consider Mentoring as a new means of quality control commensurate with the quality of the movement itself: get to the heart of the issue: 'can we trust this applicant?' If yes, no inspections are necessary; if no, he is rejected, until such time as he is felt to have become suitably educated and trustworthy.
A web will always be more stable and connected than a pyramid ever could be.
I hope you will find these proposals worthy of serious consideration. I understand that the SA is constrained by various outside forces like government and international committees' long-standing procedures, and derived legal constraints. But if Mentoring is accepted in principle as a good idea, then the next step, I hope, will be to take it forward somehow, and to try to develop it rather than abandon it in the face of the negative pressure of external inertia.
I send all my best wishes to all at the Soil Association, along with many thanks for all that they have achieved so far in promoting sensible farming and growing.
Add your comment
A Soil Association report in the UK finds that Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) offers many benefits to members,
communities, local economies and...
