Catastrophic Failure of Organic Values and Standards in California: Scandal Erupts Over California Growers Use of Prohibited Substances

It appears that for several years, some California growers have benefited from a significant advantage in producing lower cost organic crops—they were using a fertilizer touted as organic but which  in fact contained prohibited substances and sold for a lower price than true organic fertilizers. As a result, for the same several years many consumers purchased fruits and vegetables from organic farms in California that in fact were not organic. This practice violated the core tenet of organic farming and one of its greatest strengths-the lack of synthetic inputs, including petroleum derived and other synthetic fertilizers and a lack of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. In other words, this was a catastrophic failure of the organic system that wholly undermined the core values that consumers have come to trust in purchasing organic products. According to the article written by Jim Downing of the Sacremento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/288/story/1501772.html) there is no evidence that the farmers themselves knew about the presence of the prohibited substance in the fertilizer. Instead it appears that the company involved engaged in a systematic fraud on farmers, regulators, and ultimately, consumers.  However, the behavior of the regulators involved does not appear consistent with their obligations under the organic regulations. It appears that California, the certifiers involved, and the NOP allowed the farmers to continue farming organically, despite the fact that the land had been contaminated with prohibited substances which the Organic Food Production Act does not allow. Under the Act, the farms should have been decertified because the land has not been free of prohibited substances for three years. A requirement that the regulators have apparently turned a blind eye to, apparently waiving the provision because the farmers were not at fault, an interpretation that is likely to encourage further organic fraud which when discovered will be defended using what will come to be known as the California Defense: ” But I didn’t know that there were prohibited substances being applied to my land!” And, I might add, an interpretation that appears to be at odds with the bright line rule contained both in the Act and the NOP regulations. The saddest fact of all: It took a Public Records Request to unearth the controversy. No regulator came to the public to reveal the truth until the Sacramento Bee broke the story. Make no mistake, there are no winners here: Everyone loses, the farmers who work hard and with integrity to produce organically but are defrauded by their suppliers, the regulators who choose to twist the regulations rather than face the fallout of enforcing them only to have their actions revealed by good journalism, and the public who for years have supported organic agriculture by paying a premium price for a product that was in fact not organic and who placed their trust in a system that may have catastrophically failed them. And what about the other farmers throughout the world who experienced higher costs than their California counterparts, leading to higher prices which made them less competitive against California organic producers?

I would link to examples of the uproar but it appears the news has been met with a deafening silence.

Here’s a link to the Sacramento Bee story: http://www.sacbee.com/288/story/1501772.html