Mark Lipson

Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.

Reprinted with permission.

Editor's Note: The following article is adapted from the Executive Summary of the report Searching for the O-Word, published by the Organic Farming Research Foundation. The full report is available from OFRF, Tel. (408) 426-6606, for a requested donation of $15.

Overview

U.S. sales of organic foods exceeded $3.5 billion in 1996. The organic foods sector has grown at an average rate of 20 percent annually for the last seven years. Over 10,000 U.S. farms are engaged in profitable, agronomically successful commercial production without reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming encompasses every region of the country and every crop grown in the U.S.

Despite this positive record, the potential of organic farming remains largely undeveloped. Research and development support for organic farming systems is needed to fulfill the promise of highly productive, non-toxic, ecologically sound agriculture. To assess the state of organic farming research, the Organic Farming Research Foundation initiated the National Organic Research Policy Analysis project (NORPA). During 1995 and 1996 the NORPA project conducted a study to identify and catalogue federally supported agriculture research that pertains specifically to the understanding and improvement of organic farming. In addition, the study contains a brief history of organic research policy and policy recommendations to USDA.

Methodology

The study used the Current Research Information System (CRIS) database, which contains about 30,000 summaries of research projects supported by USDA. There is not a specific "organic" classification within the CRIS system, so an indirect search strategy was developed. An initial screening of the CRIS database was performed using 71 keywords related to organic farming systems. This process returned a pool of approximately 4,500 distinct project summaries. A rating scheme for evaluating "organic-pertinence" was developed based on research topics, as well as the project's experimental context. Each of the 4,500 projects was reviewed and rated for organic-pertinence. Aggregate FY1995 funding data for organic-pertinent projects was compiled by USDA staff and forwarded to OFRF.

Results

The results of the CRIS search found only 34 projects rated as "strong organic," meaning that the project was explicitly focused on organic systems or methods, and described an experimental setting consistent with conditions found on working organic farms. These projects represent less that one-tenth of one percent of USDA's research portfolio, both numerically and fiscally. An additional 267 projects were rated as "weak organic," meaning that the research topic was compatible with organic methods, but not explicitly placed in the context of organic agriculture. The "strong organic" projects with FY1995 funding received a total of $1.5 million in federal funding, although even this small amount overstates the actual support of organic-pertinent activities. [Editor's Note: In the full report the authors state that in FY 1995, one single project (out of 15 total) accounted for 81 percent of the funding that went to the "strong organic" projects; the remaining 14 received a total of $280,000. Also, as discussed in the full report, most projects funded by the USDA-Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program do not appear on the CRIS database. The author estimates that a full review of current SARE projects would add 30 to 50 organic-pertinent projects to the list.]

Conclusions

While some organic-pertinent research does exist, these projects mostly are unrelated to any coherent strategy or analysis of organic farmers' needs. Organic farming systems represent a vital scientific frontier in the development of environmentally sound agriculture. The growth of the organic production sector is also an important economic opportunity and an element of sustainable rural development. The national agricultural research system has failed to recognize this potential, let alone explore it seriously or help improve the performance of organic farming systems. This failure is contradictory in light of policy goals seeking reduced environmental risks in agriculture (e.g., The President's IPM Initiative), greater diversity in cropping patterns (e.g., "Freedom to Farm" legislation), and the incorporation of "sustainability" as a guiding policy principle.

Recommendations

1. USDA should issue a basic policy statement recognizing that organic farming can play a significant role in meeting the nation's agriculture, environmental, and economic development needs.

2. Collection and dissemination of information about organic agriculture should be a routine and expected task for all relevant USDA agencies.

3. Current efforts to improve the CRIS system should incorporate a definition of organic-pertinence and integrate it into the reporting system.

4. Implementation of USDA national initiatives (e.g., Fund for Rural America, National Research Initiative, Integrated Pest Management, Food Safety, etc.) should support and utilize organic farming research and education.

5. Specific research and development support should be allocated for the implementation of the National Organic Program.

6. USDA should undertake a national initiative for organic farming research, including;

• Assessment by all USDA research and education agencies of the potential contributions of organic farming to their Missions and Goals.

• Facilitating the development of scientific goals for organic farming research, bringing together producers and scientists to construct a long-term scientific agenda.

• Funding for multidisciplinary investigations emphasizing on-farm organic systems analysis, combining research and extension.

• Establishing a national network of dedicated organic experiment stations, guided by local organic farmers.

For more information: Mark Lipson, Organic Farming Research Foundation, PO Box 440, Santa Cruz, CA 95061

.(DEC.548) Contributed by Mark Lipson