The Buzzwords of Growing Stuff Like They Used To

I was reading in The Beginning Farmer blog today about the meaning of organic, sustainable, natural and local as they pertain to the labeling of foods we purchase. I wanted to take the time to put my own views out there.

The term "organic" used to mean something, and people used it to denote a return the the old ways, growing things without pesticides and commercial fertilizer. Then the USDA got involved, and defined the term. No longer can we use the term in reference to our own grown products to sell unless we have spent a large amount of money being "certified." And in the end, the USDA has all but adulterated this term. They have determined an amount of pesticide and fertilizer residue that can be found on those things labeled organic. What can I say, even "organic" isn't organic anymore, especially in reference to dairy products.

Here's what the USDA has to say about "organic": What "organic" really means under federal law:

"100 Percent Organic" products must show an ingredient list, the name
and address of the handler (bottler, distributor, importer,
manufacturer, packer, processor) of the finished product, and the name
and seal of the organic certifier. These products should contain no
chemicals, additives, synthetics, pesticides or genetically engineered
substances.

"USDA Organic" products must contain at least 95 percent organic
ingredients. The five percent non-organic ingredients could include
additives or synthetics if they are on an approved list. The label must
contain a list that identifies the organic, as well as the non-organic,
ingredients in the product, and the name of the organic certifier.

"Made With Organic" products must contain at least 70 percent organic
ingredients. The label must contain a list that identifies the organic,
as well as the non-organic, ingredients in the product, along with the
name of the organic certifier.

If a product contains less than 70 percent organic ingredients, it
cannot use the word "organic" on the packaging or display panel, and the
only place an organic claim can be made is on the ingredient label.


"Sustainable" is a buzzword used to mean that the inputs required for growing something, whether that be vegetable, grain or meat, are produced at the same location. For example, the cattle that run on the pasture also fertilize it, and if you keep the cattle out long enough will be used by the grasses growing in that pasture to provide more forage for the cows or whatever else you have running through there. The debate rages around what is sustainable and what is not.

The "Natural" buzzword is also taking a beating. Dairy farms are using the consumers' preconceived notion of natural to round up milk from thousands of animals, and package it with "Natural" on the carton. Natural used to mean completely unadulterated. Dairies are now saying the only thing guaranteed "natural" about their milk is that the animals it came from aren't given any hormones.

"Local" can mean anything from on your farm only, or from farms with in a 15, 25, 50, or even 100 mile radius. Local today can be quite relative.

What do these words mean to me?

Let's start with what appears to be the easiest. "Natural." To me, that means I'm not giving my animals hormones, unnecessary wormers or vaccinations. Are they healthy, heck yes. For my plants, that means they get water, and compost, and no commercial fertilizer or pesticide is used. By commercial, I mean lab-cooked. There are some bio-residue fertilizers and pest controls that I could use. Bone meal and blood meal are two such fertilizers (with specific purposes) and lady bugs and preying mantis are pest controls.

But, what happens if my goats get wormy, or the incidence of blackleg in cattle is so high in my area that NOT vaccinating them is far worse than actually giving the shot. In times of old, vaccines weren't available. Neither were worming medications. How did our ancestors overcome these issues? Population densities of people AND animals were not as great then as they are today. Epidemics were not as far reaching, because contact between the ill (or soon to be ill) was not as quick as it is now. I can be exposed to xyz today, fly to China tomorrow, and expose a vast number of people in between, and I haven't even shown any symptoms yet. Animals weren't contained by the thousands on feed lots to "feed them up" before slaughter, butchering, and shipping off thousands of miles away. The fall slaughter of meat was done on your own family farm. This is obviously before the Industrial Revolution took so many people to the city for manufacturing jobs. Most people living in town still had land near by on which they grew their food. After all, there was safety in numbers, so the central village is a recurring theme seen throughout history. If you had more than what you needed, you bartered with neighbors or traveling traders for what you couldn't grow that you DID need.

"Organic" is defined (at dictionary.com) as "noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon" and the second definition on the same site "characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms." To me, that means organic produce, or meat, should not be using any fertilizer, pesticide, medication or vaccine that can not be created with only living (or formerly living) organisms. Most vaccines can qualify, assuming they don't have metal carrying agents, as they are usually modified live organism or killed organism based. Most medications have their history in plant-based derivations. But because you can't reliably produce those parts day after day, laboratory equivalents came into being. The same thing happened with pesticides and fertilizers. Using truly organic methods takes time, effort and a knowledge base, and I applaud those who actually follow through with the intent of the term rather than the current legislated term.

Lastly, we come to "sustainable." Can a system be truly sustainable, if we are taking things out of it, in the form of the plants and meat we eat? Are we returning enough nutrients back into that system to counteract that which we harvest. I want my place to be sustainable, that is, I don't need to bring in any composting materials, any fertilizers (natural, organic or not), and I certainly don't use pesticides (I pick off bugs, drop them in water, then feed them to the chickens.) But is it enough? At this time, the sustainability of my farm is not there. I bring in feed grains for my goats and cows, they aren't yet completely pasture fed. I see sustainability as a goal to be reached for, but I do not forsee my place as being 100% with out inputs from the outside world. (We still have to pay the mortgage, after all.)