What's Happening With The US Fruit And Vegetable Supply?

(This post appeared on Sustainablog on 1/3/12)
At first glance there has been an unsettling trend in the supply of fruit and vegetables in the US (see graph above).  We seem to be reversing some of the consumption gains that public health experts would see as important - even critical.  The USDA Economic Research Service tracks the farm-level supply of many commodities and expresses it relative to the population of the country.  Overall, this data set appears to indicate a decline in per capita fruit and vegetable supplies from a peak in the late 1990s ( Note: these numbers are not a direct measure of how much fruit and vegetables a typical American consumes because there is some loss along the commercial chain and also in the consumer's home).  Most public health and nutrition experts would say that it would be better if Americans ate even more fruit and vegetables because of their value in addressing obesity, cancer and other health concerns.  How does that goal reconcile with these recent supply statistics? Fortunately, a closer look at the details reveals a more nuanced situation in which our US produce supply is getting:

• slightly smaller
• fresher
• more diverse, and
• increasingly imported.

Getting Fresher

From the graph below we see that most of the decline in the produce supply has been in processed categories.  There has been a decrease of about 25 pounds per person in processed vegetables (canned and frozen).   However, since the middle of the last decade there has also been a drop of more than 10 pounds per person in the supply of fresh vegetables. The 30 pound per person drop in processed fruit consumption is mainly due to a 15 pound per person drop in orange juice along with declines in canned and dried fruit.

Vegetable Options Are Becoming More Diverse

Of the fresh vegetables that USDA-ERS tracks (see table below),  there have been "winners" and "losers" comparing the period 1997-1999 with the period 2007-2009.  Traditional high consumption vegetables like carrots, head lettuce, and potatoes saw the largest decline in terms of pounds and on a percentage basis.  Eighteen tracked vegetables had an increasing supply over the same time period with romaine lettuce, onions and peppers being the largest on a weight basis and spinach, okra and asparagus showing the largest gains on a percentage basis.

Fruit Options Are Becoming More Diverse

Looking at the same time period, the fruit supply has also shifted towards greater diversity (see table below).  On a weight basis, the big winners have been avocados, pineapples and strawberries, but 10 fruits have seen more than a 25% increase and 5 fruits have increased more than 100%.  The biggest supply declines are for oranges, bananas, grapefruit and apples - again, traditional "main stays."  The gains are for more exotic options.


Overall, the fruit and vegetable supply is growing in crops that supply a diverse collection of desirable phytochemicals with positive health associations.  This is probably the most encouraging trend in recent years.  Not surprisingly, most of the big "winners" have been crops that are delivered with reliable taste quality.

Fruits and Vegetables Are Increasingly Imported

In 1960, very few vegetables were imported to the US; but since that time there has been a slow but steady increase in imports so that by 2009 they represented ~21% of the total (see chart below).  Per capita domestic production of vegetables had risen significantly in the 1980s, but leveled off during the 1990s.  Since around 2004, domestic vegetable production has declined ~30 lbs per person.   The most significant growth in vegetable imports since 1990 has been for artichokes, asparagus, brussels sprouts, garlic, cucumbers, peppers, eggplants, squash and tomatoes. By 2009, more than 40% of all these crops were imported.  Even crops which were not often imported in 1990 (carrots, mushrooms, broccoli), now have more than 10% imports. (Crop-by-crop trend lines can be found on SCRIBD)

In the early 1970s, only about 25% of all US fruit was imported.  Since then, there has been a steadily increasing trend in imports. Nearly 50% of US fruit was imported by 2009.  Since 1990, pineapples and limes have gone from ~55% US grown to 100% imported.  Papaya imports have increased from 25% to 95%. Kiwifruit imports have grown from 55% to 80%.  Avocados have risen from 10% to 70% imports and grapes from 35% to 50%.  Smaller increases have also been seen for tangerines, cantaloupe, and lemons.  Even strawberries are approaching 10% imports. (Crop-by-Crop trend lines can be found on SCRIBD)

Why The Rise In Imports?

There are probably several reasons for the increasing role of imports in the US fresh fruit and vegetable supply which vary by crop.  First, many popular fruits can only be grown in tropical or semi-tropical climates.  Such environments are limited in the US and those that exist are often under urbanization pressure (CA, FL, HI).  Secondly, many produce crops are labor intensive to produce.  Since the US does not currently have a workable guest worker system, it is more practical to import crops from regions with a more adequate or predictable source of labor.  Thirdly, there is an on-going trend towards "protected culture" for high value crops (greenhouses, shade houses, rain shields...).  Canada and Mexico have been major innovators in that area and their highly productive systems have become important for many crops.   Fourth, American consumers have come to expect year around supplies of popular produce items, and this requires sourcing from different regions at different times of year.  Finally, as US population has grown and fruit and vegetable consumption has increased, it is increasingly difficult to find enough suitable farmlandin terms of climate and water availability.

Can We Pursue Both Sustainability and Healthy Eating?

Most health professionals would favor substantially higher per capita produce consumption than we see today.  Imports are a major means by which such goals are likely to be achieved.  Some observers will be concerned that the increasing import trend is problematic because of "food miles."  Whether the energy or greenhouse gas "footprint" of imported crops is high depends a great deal on the basic productivity by region and also depends on the means of shipping.  In any case, it is impractical to locally produce the quantity and diversity of fruits and vegetables that Americans have proven willing to consume, let alone a higher goal.  If we wish to harmonize our national goals for both "sustainability" and "public health,"  the best strategies will include components such as:

• A rational, agricultural guest worker system to preserve our domestic production
• Continued development of "protected culture" for land, water and labor efficiency
• The local and/or multi-regional production of crops where that is practical (e.g. blueberries, sweet corn...)
• The use of preservation methods such as freezing for crops where taste and nutritional profiles are positive in that form
• Continued improvements in waste reduction in the production and distribution system
• Finding purchasing/contracting regimes to make "in season" economics mutually beneficial for growers, the value chain, and the consumer
• Continued improvement of the consumption experience at the consumer level to avoid "disappointment shrink"
• Use of highly efficient, long-distance shipping methods (e.g. ocean freight) where possible

Graphs by Steve Savage based on USDA-ERS data.  A more extensive set of graphs is available for download on SCRIBD.  My email is savage.sd@gmail.com.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

24 Long-Term Feeding Studies Reviewed By European Scientists Support GMO Safety

An argument frequently made by the opponents of plant genetic engineering is that there have been no long-term, independent studies about the safety of GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops.  Actually, there has been quite a lot of research on that question and it supports the safety of the technology.  A major new review on the question of long-term feeding effects of GMO crops is about to be published.  It was written by a group of seven European scientists from the public sector, and will appear in the Journal: Food and Chemical Toxicology.   The authors examined a large body of peer reviewed, scientific studies on the topic and identified 12 long-term feeding studies (longer than the typical 90 days and up to two years) and 12 multigenerational studies (2 to 5 generations).  They reviewed all of these papers in detail and came to the following conclusion:

"Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.  However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance."

OK, this is "science-speak" for "we really didn't find anything to be concerned about."

Reasons To Take This Paper Seriously

• The authors are independent academic and public sector scientists
• The studies they reviewed are all by independent, publicly funded, academic groups
• The studies looked at many different crops (maize, rice, soybeans, triticale, potato)
• The studies included both commercial and purely academic GMO examples (insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, pollen protein expression - a non-commercial example)
• Many different animal models were included (rodents, cows, goats, salmon, macaques, chickens, quails, sheep)
• The various researchers examined scores of biological parameters looking for any negative effects
• This review has been conducted by highly qualified scientists and their paper was also peer reviewed
• The paper addresses an important question, but in doing so it adds to many other European-based findings supporting the safety of GMO crops and foods

So even though one can never "prove a negative,"  this sort of extensive scholarship must be taken seriously. What has NOT been found means quite a bit.

The authors also provided a useful critique of these independent studies.  In many cases the GMO and non-GMO feeds were not from near isogenic lines, sometimes the event was unspecified, and in some cases the crops were grown under different conditions.  All of this can lead to differences that cannot be clearly attributed to whether the crop was GMO or not.  The downside of independent testing of this type is that potentially misleading results can emerge and cloud the discussion.

Why Does This Matter?


It matters because 16 years into the commercialization of GMO crops, controversy persists. To date, most of the commercial GMO crops are ones that are either used for animal feed or are the source of refined ingredients in human foods.  They have not, for the most part, been crops that people eat "whole." That barrier may need to be broken as one component of efforts to feed humanity over the next several decades. There are three immensely important food crops which are not now GMO on a commercial scale:  wheat, rice, and potatoes.  That may change in the next several years.

Potatoes were actually one of the very first commercial GMO crops but were unofficially sidelined by companies worried about consumer backlash. GMO potatoes may be getting a new look because scientists are working on a GMO trait for resistance to "late blight," the most serious disease and one which costs grows a great deal to control.  European farmers would benefit from such a trait even more than those in North America.
GMO wheat was blocked in North America early this century by European and Japanese wheat customers.  The wheat growers in the US, Canada, and Australia have agreed to pursue a simultaneous commercialization of GMO wheat so that they cannot be frustrated by a non-scientific barrier again.

Recently, China has begun pre-commercialization trials with an insect-protected GMO rice. GMO wheat, rice and potatoes will not feed the world - but they could contribute significantly to that effort.  The question of whether to commercialize these GMO versions of these crops is going to be on the table in the not too distant future.  Regulators, food companies and consumers are going to have to wrestle with the issue.  Careful studies like this one will help to make that a better informed discussion.

Wheat image by Dag Endresen
You are invited to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Food Price Spike Persisting

(This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 12/9/11)
Yesterday the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released it's monthly index of global food prices.  When the current price spike is compared with the one that occurred in 2007/8, the striking difference is the persistence of relatively high prices.  Rather than falling rapidly as in 2008, this "spike" is only showing a modest decline 23 months into the cycle (see chart above).  One UN economist is quoted as saying that prices are "stabilizing at high levels."  Back in October I thought it would take until January to know if this spike was actually different.  Now it seems clear that it is.



Cereal prices were down marginally (see chart above) and following a record harvest  there is hope that they will ease further in coming months.  Meat prices, which have risen far further in this spike than in the last, show no real sign of decline (see chart below)



The dairy index dropped slightly, but the index for fats and oils actually increased.
These prices are most relevant for nations which are largely dependent on food imports.  Unfortunately this month's report is not encouraging for the world's poor.

My email is savage.sd@gmail.com.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Who Owns America's Farmland?

(This post was originally posted on Sustainablog on 11/29/11)

Nationwide, farmers only own 60% of the land they farm.  In many of the most productive row cropping areas of the Midwest, the percent of farmer-owned land is significantly lower (see Map above from the USDA, 2007 Census of Agriculture).  Much of our farmland resource is owned by non-farmers and rented to those who actually farm.  Some of that rented land is owned by investors or real estate speculators, but most of it is actually still owned by the descendants of the families who used to farm it, often several generations back.  These are the families who have been part of the steady trend of urban migration for more than a century.

Why Does Farm Ownership Matter?

This ownership question is important  for several reasons.  US agriculture not only supplies our domestic needs for many crops, we are also among the major grain exporters.  Our farmers, and our farmland owners, play an important role in determining whether we will be able to supply the increasing, global demand for food.  Land ownership is also a key issue for agricultural sustainability.  The most sustainable row crop farming practices can actually "pay their own way," but they do so over time by building soil quality.  Those soil changes are at the heart of the environmental benefits, but they also increase the productive potential and yield stability of the land. Land rental rates are closely related to yield potential. Thus, the economic benefits of soil building are realized by the owner of the land. If growers don't own the land that they farm, or if they can't predict how long they will be the ones farming each given field, they can't rationally make the optimal, long-term investments in soil improvement.

Fading Connections

Earlier in the history of rural-to-urban migration, there were often were personal relationships between land owners and renters.  That allowed for more stable "land tenure" (the same grower might rent a field for many years).  But those connection have faded over generations.  In many cases today, the ownership is through a family trust for inheritance purposes.  The leasing arrangements are often handled by a farm management company that provides the service of making the connection and negotiating the lease terms. Land rental has become much more of a year-to-year arrangement.

Is Rental of Farmland A Good Or Bad Thing?

Rental is actually a practical arrangement for both sides.  The city-dwelling families get a steady stream of income.  The farmers are able to expand their operations without incurring the sort of debt risk that bankrupted many of them in the 1980s.  The problem is that most lease arrangements don't provide the mechanisms to favor a long-term, soil-building protocol.  Addressing this issue will be challenging, but first it is useful to look at what we know about the "farmland rental business" as a whole.

Farmland Rental Is A Significant Economic Activity

Every 5 years (2007, 2002, 1997...), the USDA conducts and publishes the "Census of Agriculture." This includes dozens of interesting statistics, including the number of farmland acres in each county that are rented.  Since 2008/9, the USDA-NASS has been tracking average land rents at the county level (before that such data was only available for certain states).  Combining these two data sets (see graph above), we see that farmland rental is a very substantial industry representing 217 million acres of land and combined rent payments of $14.7 billion/year.  Much of the land area (green bars, millions of acres) is rented for low prices, while there is another subset of the land in the $150 or more range (13% of the total area).  The value of the rented land (red line, millions of dollars) is concentrated in the higher rent land,  representing 1/3 of the total value, or $4.9 billion/year.  Not surprisingly, much of this high value land is in the heart of the "corn belt."

Land Rents Reflect Productive Potential

Land rents are actually a very good measure of the productive potential of a parcel of land.  In the graph above, the X axis gives the average per acre value of the major crops grown in each county in Illinois.  The Y axis is the county average rent, and there is obviously a strong relationship between the two.  The graph below plots the same sort of data for all the corn belt counties where corn, soybeans, wheat, and sorghum are the dominant crops.

Land Rent Is A Major Farming Expense

In the histogram below we see that average farm rents for the same "corn belt counties" generally represent 25-30% of the total gross crop income of that county.  Thus land rental is one of the largest single, year-to-year costs that a grower must pay.


Farmers effectively compete with each other for the better land, and so when crop commodity prices rise, rents rise as well.  The graph below shows how land rents have been rising in recent years as agricultural commodity prices have been increasing.

Sustainable Farming Could Increase Land Rent Potential If...

As I mentioned earlier, a several year investment in soil building practices can increase the yield on a given piece of land.  Beyond that, improved soils capture and store moisture more effectively so that the yield is better insulated from year-to-year variation in rainfall.  That issue is likely to become increasingly important with climate change.  The owners of farmland have the long-term financial incentive to find farmers who are willing and able to execute a soil-building strategy.  What this would take, however, would be a mechanism for the farmer to share in the "upside potential" of land improvement, and a mechanism for the landowner to help to carry the near term investment costs and risks associated with that farming change.  All of this is certainly possible, but it entails major challenges in terms of communications and legal/financial arrangements.  Land lease practices are only one of several structural barriers to more sustainable farming. Normal crop financing and crop insurance are also designed around year-to-year economics and a year-to-year mindset.
By definition, sustainable farming must involve a long-term perspective.  Many of the people who are in the key role of farmland ownership don't know much of anything about farming of any kind, let alone what constitutes the cutting edge of sustainability.  Therein lies both the challenge and the opportunity.

A more detailed analysis of this issue is posted on SCRIBD

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

A Survey Of The Graphics For The GMO Labeling Campaign

It is interesting to explore the pictures or graphics that accompany blogs, web pages and articles supporting the campaign for labeling of foods containing GMOs.  A great many of these images are seriously misleading.  This is ironic for a campaign that is spearheaded by a group called the "Truth In Labeling Coalition"

The Hypodermic Needle Theme

The most frequent theme in these graphics is that of a large hypodermic needle injecting a piece of fruit, a tomato, or some other produce item.  In an article about GMOs in "natural"  cereals, TG daily features an image with no less than 11 needles in five tomatoes.   Treehugger uses the same photo which is from Getty Images.  Organic life style magazine.com also has a drawing of a tomato being injected. Eat Local Guide.com has the image of someone in a lab coat injecting an apple. Grist features an "infographic" with a cluster of grapes being injected.  Fastcompany.com uses the same image.

Why The Images Are Misleading

While clearly these images are effectively emotive, they are misleading in at least three ways.  First, The process of genetic engineering of plants does not involve a hypodermic needle in any way.  Second, the the process occurs at a single cell level, not with some massive amount of material being injected into a ready-to-eat food item. (A site called Ask Roger Drummer.com that sells herbal remedies sets the record here with an image of a huge hypodermic of purple liquid being injected into an orange). Finally, the foods most often pictured are not currently GMO crops, and most are unlikely ever to be genetically engineered for commercial production.

Non-GMO Crops Usually Pictured

The picturing of non-GMO crop examples is widespread.  Even the website for the Truth in Labeling Coalition itself has a side banner of food images which pictures several non-GMO crops.  The image on NatualNews.com has a DNA gel in the background which is more relevant, but also pictures tomatoes.  There has not been a GMO tomato on the market for more than a decade.  The foods pictured on a site called Organic Its Worth It.org pictures the non-GMO crops, radishes and lettuce.  Some sites actually picture crops that are actually genetically engineered on a commercial scale, but this is not that common.

Other Misleading Themes

The hypodermic is not the only example of a misleading graphic.  An "info-graphic" on Treehugger is typical of another common theme straight out of the old "what do you get if you cross a ... and a ..." jokes of childhood.   It pictures strawberry + fish = a sort of half strawberry fish.  That goes back to a long since abandoned effort to make a frost tolerant strawberry using an anti-freezing protein from a fish.  It was never commercial and in fact animal genes are not used in any current GMO crops.  Even if they were, they would not result in some strange chimera.  In an article titled, "Just Label It", Alibi.com actually leads with a picture of an actual GMO crop (field corn), but then follows with a depiction of  some strange orange squash with eyes and fangs. The Groundswell Project.org has an image of ears of corn, but one is a grenade.  A site interestingly called disinfo.com goes with the classic Frankenstein picture.  Pccfarmlandtrust.org goes with an image of a mock "Hungry Man Frozen Dinner" combining the Frankenstein combined with no less than three chimeras (a potato with eyes, a tomato with a fish tail and a broccoli/snail hybrid).  A link titled "Picture related to GMO" on nowpublic.com features a bowl of strawberries, one of which is bright blue.

How Does Disinformation Fit With A Campaign About "Truth?"

The genre of emotive and largely misleading images to depict biotechnology is certainly not new, but it is problematic that it is being so widely used by those that support manditory labeling.  The labeling campaign is being positioned as a common sense argument about the need to give of consumers accurate information from which to make rational decisions.   If that is the goal, why do so many promoters of the idea employ misleading and emotional imagery?

GMO labeling may well need to be discussed, even 15 years into large scale use.  But such a discussion will only be helpful for consumers if it could be based on accurate information - and graphics.

p.s.  It is interesting that although these images are easily found by searching Google Images or Flickr, virtually none are available for free commercial use through something like Creative Commons.  Most of sites that use them make no reference to source with the one exception of Getty Images listed above.  

You are invited to comment here or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com.  My website is Applied Mythology.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Food Price Spike Retreating Slowly

(This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 10/7/11)
I have been posting updates on the most recent, global food price spike since February 2011 - most recently inJune.  Today the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) released its most recent data on the prices of food in international trade.  As seen in the graph above, the overall index and its various components have declined slightly, but remain at very high levels.

People living in the developed world have seen some food price increases, but because we grow so much of our own food and spend a small part of our income on feeding ourselves, the impact is minor.  This has the greatest effect on the lives of poor people in import-dependent countries.

What is actually most unsettling about this phenomenon is that nothing like it has occurred for decades, and yet we are in a second such spike.   The first was in 2007/8, and the current spike has been in 2010/11.  In this post I want to compare these two spikes.

The graph above compares the two spikes on a month-by-month basis beginning in January of the starting year.  What we see is a later and/or slower decline in prices.  The earlier spike showed a steep decline after 19 months, while in 2010 the decline is just beginning at 21 months.  That is for the aggregate "food index," but a similar broadening of the spike appears to be occurring for the cereals-specific index (see below).  Similar trends are seen with the dairy and oils indices.

The most dramatic difference between the 2007-8 and 2010-11 spikes is the path of the meat price index (see graph below).  Meat prices in international trade showed only a minor bump in the first spike, but were the most changed category in the current round.  The index did drop 3% from August to September which may represent an earlier reversal than in 2008.

It would be best not to over-interpret these trends, but also unwise to ignore them completely. We know that basic food demand is rising between population growth and an increased standard of living in many populous regions of the world.  We know that energy prices are high.  It will take the benefit of years of hindsight to know whether climate change has been contributing to these unusual price patterns.  If the current spike is like the last one, it should be largely corrected by the end of 2011.  For now, I plan to update this series in January of 2011 with three more months of data.

Data from FAO, graphs by Steve Savage

You are welcome to comment here or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Why Does Organic Seem Larger Than It Is?

(This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 8/22/11)

For a long time we have been hearing that "Organic is the fastest growing segment of the food industry."  Organic advocates make the claim that Organic could "feed the world" or that it could be "the solution to global warming."  There is definitely enough buzz about Organic to make all of this seem plausible.  The popular image of Organic is that it is finally becoming a significant part of the food supply.  The actual statistics paint a very different picture.

Why Does Organic Seem Bigger?  Failure to Do The Math.

In 2008, a USDA survey of US Organic growers got responses from over 90% of the growers, so we know a great deal about the US Organic industry.  In that year there were nearly 2.5 million acres of certified Organic cropland.  That follows growth since 1995 at the rate of 144,000 acres/year (see graph below).  That sounds like a lot of land to most people (an acre is roughly the size of a football field).

In fact, all those Organic acres put together still only represent 0.71% of the 370 million acres of US cropland.  The amount of that cropland that was actually harvested in 2008 represented only 0.52% of the total.  Organic cropland areahas been growing, but only at 0.0385% per year on an absolute basis (see chart below).  At that rate of growth, US Organic cropland will still represent less than 2.5% of the total in the year 2050.  The math suggests that Organic will remain as a small niche market.

Why Does Organic Seem Bigger? Marketing.

Organic has been heavily marketed as a "super brand" so that the advertising dollars spent on everything from yogurt to spinach to baby clothes contributes to a unified consumer image.  Organic also receives a great deal of free promotion by certain environmental groups, University programs, and certain corporations wanting to present a "green" image.  Positive messages about Organic and negative message about conventional food are abundant in the world of food and sustainability blogging, and in the media in general. All of this gives the impression that Organic must be a sizable industry.

Why Does Organic Seem Bigger? The Price Premium.

When you hear a statistic about rapidly growing Organic sales, there are several things to remember.  The Organic farmer gets a premium price which is needed to cover higher production costs.  The "Organic Premium" does not end there. Instead, each player in the value chain (shipper, broker, distributor, retailer) charges a premium over their normal margin for Organic products.  Also, most of the statistics are about grocery retail, which don't include food service,  which is about half of US food consumption.  So a lot of Organic spending does not mean a great deal of Organic farming.

Why Does Organic Seem Bigger? Contact With Organic Farms.

Organic also seems bigger to many consumers because they have some direct contact with a small, local Organic farm through a CSA, a farm stand, or a farmer's market.  Many people know a student who has gone to work on an Organic farm because that has been a major trend in recent years.  All of this gives the impression that Organic is a major movement in the food industry. Indeed there are a great many small Organic farms.  By 2008 there were >9,600 relatively small Organic farms in the US (having less than $100,000 in total sales - net income would be lower).  Those farms represented 70% of all the Organic farms.  Having a lot of people involved in farming is a great thing; however, all of those farmers combined only produced 6.6% of total Organic sales (see graph below) and thus an even smaller percent of all food sales.  People enjoy being able to buy from small, local, Organic farms, but they represent a miniscule proportion of our food supply.  A highly visible Organic farming industry does not mean that Organic is large.

Why Does Organic Seem Bigger? Imports.

In recent years, much of actual growth in the Organic sales at the consumer level has come from imports of mainly non-perishables from outside of North America (frozen fruit and vegetables, grains, dried fruit, fruit juice concentrate, milk products etc). This last point is of concern to many different observers (Tree Hugger, Cornucopia Institute, Public Radio International, USDA, Business Week, various bloggers)   Because the Organic certification process relies mainly on paperwork and does not include random or even scheduled product testing, the possibility of fraud is substantial.  Many US Organic farmers are also concerned about being undercut on price, particularly if the certification system in other countries has less integrity.   Organic consumers are often surprised about the imports. In a famous case, a frozen vegetable mix called "California Blend" was sold at Whole Foods.  In small font on the back of the package were the words, "produced in China."  It is even more difficult to get statistics on the extent of Organic imports or to know which food products contain imported ingredients. There are widespread concerns about this major source of growth in the US Organic sector.

So, in spite of seeming otherwise, Organic farming is a very small part of US crop agriculture.  It seems destined to remain small. Organic is a solid niche and a good business for some players, but when we hear Organic being promoted as "the solution" to our food supply and environmental issues, we need to be skeptical.

Graphs by Steve Savage based on USDA-NASS and USDA-ERS data.

My website is Applied Mythology.  Please comment here and/or by emailing me at savage.sd@gmail.com

reade more... Résuméabuiyad