In The Corn Belt, The Problem's Not "Big Organic"
More like "No Organic".
The latest USDA figures (see Table 3) for certified organic acreage, from 2005, report 130,000 acres planted.
Hard telling what the acreage will be in 2007, but let's assume, rather wildly given the trend line, that organic corn has doubled in just two years, to 260,000 acres.
If USDA's March 30 planting intentions estimate comes to pass and we see an ethanol-driven 90,500,000 acres of corn in the ground this spring (12 million acres more than 2006), that would mean less than three-tenths of one percent of US corn production is organic.
I'm betting organic's share of corn is even lower than that. Then again, organic comprises only 0.5 percent of the roughly 800 million acres used to produce crops and livestock in this country. Organic needs to grow in the right way--and here's some encouraging news on that point from ChewsWise.
"Organic," Dr. Phil Landrigan once remarked, "is private school for food." It's great if you find it; great if you can afford it. But for all its cultural salience, in the grand scheme of U.S. agriculture's impacts on environment and public health, organic farming at its current scale is still making a trivial contribution after all these years. It most certainly does need to grow--a lot--to begin making a difference on the scale of landscapes and populations.
EWG's ambition for the 2007 farm bill is to kick it up a notch. I talked about this (starting about minute 50) at the recent event at Berkeley hosted by Michael Pollan.



Comments
Great talk, Ken!
Disappointing that the speakers who were on the platform representing farmers and agricultural workers appeared to pin their hopes on government regulated 'fair price' policies (and the production quotas that must go along with these). These are backward-looking, inefficient and unrealistic. Essentially they are rent-seeking sectional interests, little better than any of the others.
The only way that small farmers, local producers and the like are going to have a sustainable and profitable future is if they win the 'fair price' in the market, not by diktat from government central planners.
These guys ought to be our allies, but they're stuck in the stone age.
Posted by: Jack Thurston | April 2, 2007 1:25 PM
...and you were far too gracious to point out that George Naylor omitted to declare his own personal financial stake in the farm bill. So allow me. $151,373 over the past 10 years. Courtesy of EWG's database:
http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=009080180
Posted by: Jack Thurston | April 2, 2007 1:39 PM