The post Farmers Fought a Factory Farm and Won appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Many labels that guarantee humane treatment of farm animals (e.g., “humanely raised”), do anything but and are largely meaningless. Only recently did the USDA announce that it might regulate some of these labels after a push from advocates (we aren’t holding our breath). If this is the case of animal welfare labeling, consumers are right to be concerned that it is likely true of “green” labeling as well, particularly for the dairy industry, which is one of the most environmentally intensive industries on Earth. 

Farm Forward recently published a major investigative report detailing systematic animal suffering and consumer fraud at Alexandre Family Farm—a leading large-scale organic dairy company with “well over 9,000 head of cattle,” according to co-owner Blake Alexandre—whose products are covered in certification labels. The details of this investigation and the facts about large-scale dairy production should call into question the idea that the industry can be compatible with a more sustainable and humane food system. 

Farm Forward’s investigation and deceptive labeling

One of the key findings of Farm Forward’s investigation into Alexandre was this: Certifications such as Regenerative Organic Certified and Certified Humane were, sadly, insufficient to stop widespread abuse of cows and apparent environmental violations of land and water. This means that the primary function of labels—to give consumers assurances that a given product meets their values—frequently fails. In other words, humane labels aren’t there to help the consumer find better products. They’re tools for the meat and dairy industry to market their products. It’s unlikely, for example, that when a consumer sees one of these labels on Alexandre milk products in a Whole Foods Market, they imagine a field of dead cows being used as compost, or decaying cow corpses dangling into waterways, likely violating state water quality laws. Yet that’s exactly what Farm Forward’s investigation found. 

And then there’s the halo effect. Other companies that use Alexandre as a supplier, whether for ice cream, cheese, or even toddler formula, have used marketing based off of Alexandre’s humanewashing and greenwashing, and reaped the benefits. For a long time, Alexandre—and companies that have Alexandre as a supplier—have touted the Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label, a certification with genuinely high standards for cow treatment. However, Farm Forward learned from its investigation that only a relatively small number of Alexandre cows (fewer than 300 of the more than 5,000 to 9,000 cows raised by Alexandre, or roughly three to six percent) actually qualify under the label. Yet, companies bathe in the good image of Alexandre all the same, touting Alexandre’s ROC certification whether or not the actual milk used in their products came from ROC cows (as of writing, Alexandre’s ROC certification was suspended after a February 2024 audit, pending conclusion of the investigation).

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides require that marketers “ensure that all reasonable interpretations of their claims are truthful, not misleading, and supported by a reasonable basis” and that environmental marketing claims “not overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental attribute or benefit.” The FTC itself states that “…sometimes what companies think their green claims mean and what consumers really understand are two different things.” A consumer buying milk adorned with labels such as ROC and “Certified Humane” ought to have confidence that those products were actually made from properly treated cows by a company following environmental guidelines and ordinances, and free from the systematic abuse documented in the investigation. 

Large-scale dairy is incompatible with net zero

In order to understand deceptive labeling, however, we have to go back to the beginning: Why do massive dairy companies feel a need to plaster their products with misleading labels that may violate FTC guidelines? There’s a simple answer: They know the reputation of industrial dairy is faltering and are desperate to remedy the problem with claims that their industry can both expand and save us from climate disaster. And if the recent industrial dairy ad campaigns are any indication, it would seem that they are quite desperate. 

On an ultra-small scale, a sincere commitment to regenerative agriculture is compatible with reducing many of the harms of industrial animal agriculture, including harms to the climate. However, Alexandre and so many other companies that want to rehabilitate dairy farms are not small-scale; they may have thousands of animals under their care. And recent research into the ability of large-scale “regenerative” cow operations to offset as much greenhouse gas emissions as they produce is quite clear: It won’t work. The authors conclude that soil-based carbon sequestration “has a limited role to mitigate climate warming caused by the ruminant sector.” According to the study, offsetting the methane associated with global ruminant farming annually—a massive 135 gigatons—with soil-based sequestration is biophysically impossible. 

And yet, for decades, the broader dairy industry has been pushing smaller farmers out of business, the very farm operations that can represent a legitimate attempt at a regenerative system. 

Playing dairy roulette 

Farm Forward’s investigation didn’t just reveal that one particular company eschewed these standards, but also that the entire dairy system is flawed. Several certifications failed to see animal abuse happening right under their noses. USDA Organic requires that producers that treat an organic cow with antibiotics must remove that cow from the organic program. In doing so, the USDA inadvertently creates a financial disincentive for producers to treat suffering cows with the proper care, since non-organic milk and meat is sold at a far lower price point (see the report’s appendix); and many companies have benefited from the halo effect of Alexandre’s deceptions. What makes this all especially sad is that there are labels—Regenerative Organic Certified and Animal Welfare Approved among them—that genuinely have high standards relative to many other labeling schemes on the market. They can represent a small piece of the path toward a more sustainable and humane food system. But in the context of dairy production, the findings of the investigation have led Farm Forward to think that guaranteeing proper care of thousands of dairy cows just isn’t possible, given the unique challenges of dairy at scale and given the bad incentives. 

Alexandre’s failures are just one example of the dairy industry failing to live up to its promises. It tells us it can save the planet while treating cows humanely, while raking in unprecedented profits with its mega-dairies. How many more instances of animal abuse and climate devastation do we need to see before we stop believing that the industry that creates these harms also somehow holds the key to fixing them?

When a consumer buys milk from the grocery store—milk that they cannot guarantee came from an ultra small-scale operation with high standards of care—they are playing a game of dairy roulette. And in a world of such extreme levels of consumer deception, it becomes an easy choice to try oat milk. 

Farm Forward is a team of strategists, campaigners, and thought leaders guiding the movement to change the way our world eats and farms. Its mission is to change the way our world eats and farms end factory farming by changing farming, changing policy, and changing the stories we tell about animal agriculture. Learn more at https://www.farmforward.com/

The post Opinion: Farm Forward’s Investigation Into Alexandre Farms and the Greenwashing of Large-scale Dairy appeared first on Modern Farmer.

And then it got sued for it.

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against JBS because its claim of pursuing net neutral emissions is not substantiated by actual changes in company behavior. Not only has the company not established an accurate enough estimate of its emissions, it has documented plans to increase production, which will increase emissions. JBS USA’s parent company reported greenhouse gas emissions of 71 million tons in 2021. This is higher than the total emissions of some countries. Concentrated animal agriculture is high in emissions because of things such as improper manure management and land used to grow feed. However, JBS’s estimate of its footprint does not include the emissions impact of deforestation—the company is responsible for clearing millions of acres in the Amazon.

This lawsuit alleges that JBS made these declarations anyway, knowing that it would be received positively by the public, creating a financial incentive. This is known as “greenwashing.”

JBS is not the only company to make extravagant climate claims. Many companies have made similar pledges. As a business, committing to reducing your emissions footprint is a good thing, when it’s done authentically. This lawsuit is an attempt to hold a company accountable for benefitting from an untrue message.

The outcome of this case could set an important precedent in the food industry and beyond.

Futurewashing

Tom Lyon, PhD, of the University of Michigan and the Greenwash Lab, says that he thinks James has a good case and could win.

“JBS hadn’t done anything to measure their existing footprint,” says Lyon. “So, if you have no idea of what your current footprint is, it’s really hard to develop a credible plan for reducing it over time.”

JBS is not the only company that has made a promise to achieve net zero emissions by a certain year. When a promise is not backed by a legitimate plan, this is a particular type of greenwashing called “futurewashing,” says Lyon.

“When we get to this futurewashing, it’s just a story about the future,” says Lyon. “So, there’s no way to verify if it’s true or not, because it hasn’t happened yet.”

There’s still a lot of gray area when it comes to the legal repercussions of greenwashing, but outside of the US, strides are being made.

This year, Canada passed a new law that requires companies to back up their sustainability claims. Companies that put forth net zero plans must also shoulder a burden of proof.

“If they don’t have any documentation to back it up, then they may be at risk of some sort of litigation,” says Lyon.

The United Nations, the Science Based Targets Initiative, and others are reaching a shared, science-backed understanding of what “net zero” can mean in the corporate world.

If James wins this case, it will mean that JBS must cease its “net zero by 2040” claims to continue selling its product in New York, potentially having a ripple effect beyond just one state.

Skepticism and grace

Maisie Ganzler, a strategic advisor for Bon Appétit Management Company, says that bold company goals need to be grounded in reality and transparency. There’s a difference between corporate greenwashing and failing to achieve a goal that was planned.

“We do need companies to make bold commitments to stick their neck out, maybe even without having all of their ducks in a row and their plans in place. But that’s very different than making a claim that is seemingly impossible, that you don’t have any plan as to…how to measure, much less how to meet.”

In Ganzler’s recent book, You Can’t Market Manure at Lunchtime: And Other Lessons from the Food Industry for Creating a More Sustainable Company, she writes that companies that make positive strides toward authentic sustainability can create a ripple effect toward industry change, for good and bad.

“I think that when one company sets the bar, their competitors have to come to that bar,” says Ganzler. “And a lot of positive change is made that way with true leaders raising the bar on their industry and forcing others along. But there is the shadow side of when false promises are made, it inspires other companies to also make false promises to appear competitive.”

For companies that want to be leaders in sustainability without greenwashing, Ganzler recommends setting audacious goals with specific plans to achieve them. Don’t make a promise about something that is beyond your scope to know, such as what happens at every stage in the supply chain. If those plans go awry, be transparent with your consumers about why. In her book, Ganzler details an experience she had at Bon Appétit, when she realized that its pork supplier wasn’t meeting the welfare standards to which Bon Appétit had committed. Bon Appétit had inaccurately overstated its supplier’s welfare practices, but found a new supplier and issued a press release owning up to the mistake. Instead of facing backlash, Bon Appétit was praised by the Humane Society for its progress.

As for consumers, Ganzler says everyone has a responsibility to do a little bit of research. But in the end, it’s important to approach the companies they shop from with a balanced perspective.

“[You should have] both a healthy dose of skepticism, but also on the other side, a healthy dose of grace,” says Ganzler. “You should question commitments that companies are making, but also have grace for companies who aren’t truly trying to do the right thing and may fall short.”

The post New York is Suing One of the Country’s Largest Meat Processors for Greenwashing appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Two hours into the journey, the truck stopped for fuel in South Dakota. The Animals’ Angels investigators were able to approach the truck and see the ear tags for the calves. They were about one week old, and crammed together so tightly they were stepping on each other.

The truck continued to Kansas, where it stopped again for gas. At this point, temperatures had reached 100 degrees, but at no point were the calves given water or milk. The investigators could hear the calves bellowing in discomfort.

Video courtesy of Animal Welfare Institute/Animals’ Angels

There are a few issues here, says Adrienne Craig, senior policy associate and staff attorney for the Animal Welfare Institute. First is that these calves were being transported so young—sometimes just a day or two after they are born—before they had the chance to develop mature immune systems. This makes them vulnerable to disease during transport, potentially resulting in death. In this particular truck, the calves still had their umbilical cord attached, creating a risk for infection.

Second is that the conditions of the trip are stressful. The vibrations, noise, fumes, and abrupt motion of the road cause discomfort for the calves. During the 19-hour transport that Animals’ Angels investigators documented, they witnessed this truck reach risky speeds of up to 90 miles per hour, maintaining speed on curves. The investigators felt confident the calves were tossed around in the back. 

Typically, calves this age will eat every few hours or so. During the entire trip, the investigators did not see the calves get fed even once.

“We know that they’re not being fed on these journeys, because the logistics of stopping and bottle-feeding 200 neonatal calves is entirely unfeasible,” says Craig. 

When the truck reached its final destination, Animals’ Angels was not able to follow it inside to see the condition of the calves. But they drove by the next day to see where the calves were kept. It’s called a ranch, but it’s anything but idyllic—the investigators drove by and saw row after row of confined hutches filled with calves.

Product of consolidation

The long-haul transportation of newly born calves is a practice that has become common for very large dairies with tens of thousands of cows. According to research by the Animal Welfare Institute, hundreds of thousands of newborn calves are transported long distances every year to ranches where they are raised, either to be returned to the dairy as milking cows or slaughtered for dairy beef.

The problem is that the conditions of this travel at such a young age put these calves in a vulnerable situation, says Craig. Despite this, there are virtually no enforced legal protections for calves in this position.

“Some producers don’t prioritize…feeding them in such a way that they’re in the best shape to be transported these long distances,” says Craig. “Unfortunately, there just really isn’t any oversight on this.”

The dairies that participate in this practice are the ones with tens of thousands of cows, commonly called mega-dairies. It’s unclear when exactly this practice began, says Craig, but it has likely increased since dairy cows and beef cattle began being bred together to produce cows raised for “dairy beef,” dairy industry cattle that are butchered for consumption.

Dairies require pregnant cows, but at mega-dairies, many of the calves do not remain there after they’re born. Many mega-dairies ship these calves to the southwest where they are raised. Some of the females will be returned as dairy cows and the rest, both male and female, are butchered as dairy beef.

The industry dominance of megadairies at the expense of independent farms is a factor here. These systems prioritize efficiency, and transporting calves as quickly as possible is the most expedient option.

“It is certainly a product of consolidation of the dairy industry,” says Craig.

Solutions 

Waiting until the calves are older, perhaps a month old, or at least until their navel has healed from the umbilical cord, would make transport a lot safer for them, says Craig. The AWI has filed a petition with the USDA to improve regulations for interstate transport of young animals. 

Existing protections for interstate animal transport begin and end with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, which states that animals must be offloaded for rest, food, and water if they have been traveling for 28 hours. However, this law is not consistently enforced. 

In June, Representative Dina Titus of Nevada introduced the Humane Transport of Farmed Animals Act to Congress, a bill that, if it becomes a law, would require the USDA to come up with a way to enforce the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, and it would make it illegal to transport animals deemed unfit to travel. This could be because of sickness, injury, or being too young.

Craig recommends that shoppers who are hoping to avoid supporting these kinds of practices can look for the third-party certifications Global Animal Partnership and Animal Welfare Approved on their dairy products, both of which have a minimum age requirement for transport. Another option is the Certified Humane certification, which does not have a minimum age but does have a time limit on how long animals can be on the road. You can read AWI’s full certification guide here.

The post The 1,000-Mile Journey of a Newborn Calf appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Sonoma County is the heart of California wine country. With a population of almost half a million, the region is known for its arable land and stunning vistas – the “Tuscany of America,” according to local rancher Bronte Edwards.

But Sonoma has a less genteel side: The area is also home to approximately 3 million head of livestock held in concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These factory farms not only force animals to live in overcrowded, dirty conditions, they also produce copious amounts of manure, which can cause water pollution and other health hazards.

In November, county residents will have the unique opportunity to ban CAFOs with a ballot initiative that would completely prohibit industrial livestock operations. If “Measure J” passes, Sonoma will be the first county in the United States to ban CAFOs. It would call for a moratorium on the creation of future facilities, along with a three-year phase-out period for current operations. The petition to get Measure J on the ballot garnered 17,000 signatures more than the minimum of 20,000 needed to get on the ballot.

“It’s a good balance of a moderate ask that is widely supported by the public, and bold in that it’s the first of its kind,” said Cassie King, an organizer with the Coalition to End Factory Farming, a collection of groups backing Measure J.

According to the Sierra Club, “large, high density CAFOS have reduced the number of livestock farmers in the U.S. by 80%.” In a tight-knit agricultural county like Sonoma, though, even the big players are friendly faces at the grocery store. And if Measure J passes, it would force these larger enterprises in Sonoma to change their practices or shut down.

“It’s a good balance of a moderate ask that is widely supported by the public, and bold in that it’s the first of its kind.”

The measure faces strong opposition, even from some small-scale farmers and ranchers, who fear that banning CAFOs will disrupt an economy grounded in agritourism and gastronomy. The measure has split Sonoma County, with local farmers and concerned citizens lining up on both sides of the proposed ban. Both the “Yes on J” website and the one belonging to “No on J” feature numerous local farms and advocacy groups.

In an email to High Country News, Roy Smith, a Sonoma County farmer who runs a seven-acre hay operation, wrote that the debate lacks nuance: “Both sides argue a truth, and both sides permit a falsehood,” he said. Still, he applauded Measure J for “rais(ing) awareness of the presence of industrial confinement facilities in our backyard.”

In a country dominated by large-scale farming operations comprising thousands of acres of monocrops, Sonoma County is an outlier. Forty-three percent of its farms are very small — around one to nine acres — and 32% are 10 to 49 acres. (The average U.S. farm is 464 acres.) In 2022, Sonoma County farmers produced half a billion dollars’ worth of wine grapes. Livestock, poultry and animal products brought in approximately $140 million.

A series of recent legal fights over water pollution set the stage for Measure J. Last year, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs), a nonprofit that focuses on chemical pollution, sued Reichardt Duck Farm, a 373-acre duck-processing facility in Sonoma County. CATs alleged that Reichardt was discharging storm water into an unnamed creek, which eventually made its way to Tomales Bay and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Reichardt Duck Farm settled the suit.

“We heartily support curbing CAFOs. They’re disgusting. They have a horrific impact on the environment,” said Patty Clary, executive director of CATs, which is a member of the coalition backing Measure J.

This year, on July 5, CATs gave a dairy CAFO in Sonoma a 60-day notice of the group’s intent to file suit for violations of the Clean Water Act. Almost all waterways in Sonoma County are considered “impaired” by the Environmental Protection Agency, meaning they’re too polluted for swimming and boating.

Clary, who grew up in Sonoma County, is not only concerned about the animals in CAFOs, but also the lives of the people who work in them. Measure J declares that the county must provide “a retraining and employment assistance program for current and former CAFO workers.” She hopes that a ban on CAFOs would create a “lower-key” agricultural environment.

“Without a giant CAFO, this sort of animal production would be more spread out in the community, where people could develop little co-ops and have a number of small farms providing the product that one big CAFO is producing,” she said.

Measure J is more complicated for many local farmers, including Smith, who raises sheep, poultry and swine, in addition to hay. But he agrees with one major aspect of it: a ban on poultry confinement facilities in Sonoma.

“They are an abomination in every possible way,” he said.

Smith grew up in Sonoma and laments the changes he has witnessed; a shift from small-scale operations dotting the landscape to large-scale enterprises that gobble everything up. “CAFOs, local and national, continue to drive retail prices down below levels that can sustain small, humane, agroecological producers,” he said.

But he fears that Measure J will impact some medium-sized dairies that, in his opinion, do not meet the standard definition of a CAFO.

Bronte Edwards and her wife, Liz Bell, who run Rainbow Family Ranching, share these concerns. Edwards and Bell are self-described “queer first-gen livestock ranchers.” They describe their farm as “carbon negative” and try to purchase locally grown hay. The prospect of Measure J worries them, especially its proposed definition of a CAFO, which denotes facilities where “animals … have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period.” This “45-day” rule is part of the same definition that the EPA uses for CAFOs.

Other provisions in the measure — such as language specifying the number of animals confined and how waste is discharged — appear to protect farms like the Rainbow Family Ranching from the ban. Advocates for Measure J have identified 21 “large CAFOs” in Sonoma County that house anywhere from 900 to 600,000 animals. A spokesperson for “Yes on Measure J” said that an operation that meets the 45-day rule, but none of the other CAFO definitions, would not be affected.

“This measure will force multigenerational family farmers to sell their farms. They will be fragmented, and they will be developed.”

Despite this, Edwards and Bell remain concerned about what the measure will mean for their neighbors, some of whom operate facilities with over 200 head of livestock — which might render them a CAFO under Measure J.

“This measure will force multigenerational family farmers to sell their farms. They will be fragmented, and they will be developed,” Edwards said.

She added that keeping farms together is important for conservation, as it allows wildlife to move between open spaces and grazing lands. In her day job, Edwards works with a land trust to purchase development rights and easements to keep farms whole, preserving land for future generations.

Regardless of the result at the ballot box in November, both sides of the Measure J debate agree on one thing: The proposal will leave a mark on Sonoma County. According to Clary, if Measure J passes, it could set an example to other counties across the nation.

“If it loses, it will have made a crack in the in the eggshell, and it will still have an impact,” she said.

This article first appeared on High Country News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Banning Concentrated Feedlots is on the Ballot in Sonoma appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan spoke first. He touched on the importance of having representation for urban agriculture within city government. “I felt like I was supportive of farming, but our bureaucracy wasn’t supportive,” he said in the announcement.

And then Rushdan moved in front of the microphone, to the sound of loud cheering.

By appointing Rushdan, Detroit joined a small handful of cities that are creating positions within city government for urban agriculture. Urban farming is known for connecting city dwellers with their food source, increasing food security and creating beautiful green spaces. Although urban agriculture has deep roots in many cities, these directors are giving city food spaces an institutional voice within the government, complementing the agency and advocacy that has long accompanied the practice.

“It really shows that community that they’re valuable to the city, because they have an advocate at that level,” Rushdan said later to Modern Farmer. 

Detroit, Michigan

Mayor Duggan’s proposed Land Value Tax Plan, on which Detroit may get to vote in 2024, would cut property taxes on structures such as houses while dramatically increasing the taxes for vacant lots. The idea is to reduce taxes for homeowners, without losing tax revenue for the city and simultaneously encouraging owners of vacant land to develop it. But the initial plans also created a problem: Urban farmers were caught in the middle, potentially facing big tax burdens if the plan was passed.

Urban farmers began meeting with Duggan to discuss the issue, leading to an exemption for urban farms under the proposed tax increases. Another byproduct of these meetings was the realization by the city that they needed the voices of urban farmers represented in government. Shortly after, Rushdan’s position was created.

In her speech at the ceremony, Rushdan made sure to acknowledge that while she’s the first in this position, she stands on the shoulders of giants in the Detroit agriculture scene. She referenced multiple local leaders who had helped build and expand urban agriculture in Detroit, such as Kathryn Underwood of the City Planning Commission and Malik Yakini of the Detroit Black Community Food Sovereignty Network.

“Even though this is a new iteration… I do see this as like a little bit of a continuation of that spirit,” said Rushdan later to Modern Farmer. “I think it’s important to always uplift that history.” 

Farming has a long history in Detroit, and many cities can say the same. In her position, Rushdan can help urban farmers navigate the challenges that remain—acquiring land is difficult, and finding land that has access to public water is an additional challenge. It can also be hard to compete with developers. In some cases, developers have bought up land where cultivation was taking place, and farmers lost decades of work.

“We really got aggressive over the last five years—we’re trying to figure out how to make people land secure,” says Rushdan.

But Detroit is in a unique position, because there’s a lot of vacant land. “It’s like re-imagining what a city could be with a lens of green space or the lens of sustainability,” says Rushdan.

Boston, Massachusetts

Shani Fletcher is the first director of GrowBoston, the city’s office of urban agriculture. In 2013, Boston adopted Article 89, which brought urban agriculture into the city zoning code. But there weren’t a lot of city programs to move urban farming initiatives forward. 

“We just saw this need for more kinds of programming and more kinds of investments beyond capital investments,” says Fletcher. In response, the mayor created GrowBoston, and Fletcher, whose career was driven by food justice, was appointed to the helm.

Part of Fletcher’s work at GrowBoston is to meet with other city departments that have an impact on urban agriculture—Public Health, Water and Sewer, Parks and Recreation and many more—which is part of why having a voice for urban agriculture in city government is so important. 

“Because of just the nature of urban agriculture, there’s so many departments that can have an impact on it, in a positive or negative way,” says Fletcher. “And so I think having an office and some staff who are actually focused on addressing the whole of urban agriculture and can kind of work with other departments to strategize is really a big benefit.”

The fact that urban agriculture is influenced by multiple departments is evidenced by the fact that in the cities that have an office for urban agriculture, it is housed in different departments. Boston’s is in Housing. DC’s is in Energy & Environment. Atlanta, City Planning. Philadelphia, Parks and Recreation.

As in Detroit, accessing land for urban agriculture and the upfront costs associated with making land suitable for farming is a significant obstacle in Boston. Fletcher says for people looking to begin urban agriculture in cities facing similar access issues, creatively engaging with others about how to use existing space is a good way to begin. This could be connecting with public officials or private landowners or rethinking what garden space can be.

“I really get excited thinking about growing food in weird places,” says Fletcher, such as vertically, on rooftops or in other creative spaces. “I like the idea of it just being kind of everywhere you go, there could be food growing, and that that’s being eaten, and that’s getting to people who need it.”

Washington, DC and beyond

Kate Lee became the director of the Office of Urban Agriculture in Washington, DC in March 2020, but the need for her position arose several years earlier. In 2014, the District passed an environmental sustainability plan called Sustainable DC. One goal of this plan was to increase the amount of land under cultivation in the District by 20 acres. Urban agriculturists wanted to step to the plate, but they hit a common barrier—how to access land for this purpose? 

“The community advocated more and more vocally that we need a position embedded in this government, we need someone with know-how to run these programs to liaise between the government and the stakeholders,” says Lee.

In response, DC passed legislation in 2019 to create the Office of Urban Agriculture and Lee’s position.

DC is and has been gentrifying rapidly, and there’s a lot of value in supporting long-term residents of the District, says Lee. “The office is driven by community ownership, food sovereignty and self-determination … using our resources and our opportunity to advocate for self-determination.”

Although some of the cities with official urban agriculture positions might look far apart on a map, they don’t exist in silos. The directors have self-organized into a group that meets regularly and shares ideas and feedback with each other. The name of the group, of which Lee and Fletcher are co-chairs, is the Urban Agriculture Directors Network (part of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network), but you don’t actually have to be a director to join, as long as you’re a municipal government employee influencing urban agriculture in your area. Four years after its inception, this cohort now includes about 20 different municipalities. In the meetings, participants share best practices, support and coach each other and even celebrate victories, such as the creation of a new urban agriculture liaison in New Orleans.

“Our three cities [DC, Boston and Austin, Texas] wrote to the mayor of New Orleans [and] said, ‘Based on this position, please join this echelon of other cities leading in this work,’” says Lee. “And they did. New Orleans just funded an urban agriculture liaison position. And so that is the type of stuff that is really keeping me going.”

Are you thinking about getting started in urban agriculture?: Look into local ordinances so that you can stay safe from accidentally breaking the law. Make connections with your neighbors and let them know what you’re doing. If your city doesn’t have an office of agriculture (yet), Rushdan says: “Find some advocates within the city. In a city that doesn’t have any office of agriculture that you can turn to, you [have] to find those advocates within the departments that believe in what you’re doing, so that they can figure out the internal systems.”

Fletcher echoes the sentiment of building connections with others who are engaged in urban agriculture. “I think there’s so much about urban agriculture that is about building community. And I think if someone’s interested in getting involved in urban agriculture, looking around your community and seeing who’s doing that already is a really good starting point.”

Are you a local government employee with some influence on urban agriculture in your area? Reach out to the Urban Agriculture Directors Network. The network meets regularly and is a good space for education and collaboration.

The post On the Ground With Local Governments Prioritizing Urban Ag. appeared first on Modern Farmer.

This is especially true for Shannon Williams, a student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, as she shops at her neighborhood Safeway on the west side of town. This is the closest option to South Cushman. Williams picks that store mainly for cost savings.

Across the street is a Fred Meyer grocery store. When asked what she thought of both supermarkets falling under one ownership, Williams was concerned. “It’s a bad idea. These are our two options, and Safeway is cheaper. If Fred Meyer owns both, I’m afraid they’ll control the prices.” 

The fate of food access in South Cushman turns on a proposed merger between Kroger, which owns Fred Meyer, and Albertsons, which owns Safeway. The Cincinnati- and Boise-based owners announced their $24.6-billion deal in October 2022, hoping to close by early 2024. Reaction to the proposed merger has been mixed, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and some states threatening legal action to stop it. If successful, one company will have control over grocery prices for South Cushman. The same goes for neighborhoods like it across the country. Kroger would own 22 percent of the U.S. food retail market.

Over the past four decades, ownership over retail grocers in the U.S. has concentrated further and further. Four companies—Walmart, Kroger, Costco and Albertsons—own more than half of all grocery sales today. If Kroger goes ahead with its purchase of Albertsons, it would be just three companies that control the majority of all grocery sales in the country. 

Food deserts, too, are on an upward trend. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has defined urban food deserts as low-income areas where at least one third of the residents live at least one mile from a supermarket. A 2017 report shows that, since 2010, the number of food deserts in the country have increased, with estimates that almost 30 million Americans live in one. Further, 34 million Americans lack access to affordable, healthy food. Grocery corporations often say that consolidation can help counter those problems, but the evidence proves otherwise.

Less competition, higher prices

A spokesperson for Kroger tells Modern Farmer the merger “will mean long-term job security, higher wages, expanded benefits and a strong unionized workforce for associates. The merger will also mean lower prices and more choices for fresh food for customers and more investments in our communities. The alternative is lose-lose, undermining good union jobs and putting our communities at risk of higher prices, fewer options, shuttered stores, and more food deserts.”

It’s a common claim in the industry.

Yet, several studies, including the USDA’s own review, found that consolidating grocery stores results in higher prices in markets that have few options. In a letter sent to the Federal Trade Commission, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) states, “there is no evidence the projected efficiencies” in the proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger will pass savings on to consumers. According to Sara John, a senior policy scientist at CSPI, this comports with basic economic principles. “When there is less competition, that leads to higher prices.”

This is especially concerning with food prices already at a historic high. Competition between a Fred Meyer on one side of the street and Safeway on the other generally helps consumers. If Kroger and Albertsons merge, a shopper might find their grocery bill changes, even if the stores’ names do not.

We’ve been here before

In a food desert, a significant portion of a neighborhood’s residents lack a supermarket within one mile. That distance cuts access to healthy foods, as low-income folks often lack reliable transportation, especially in difficult weather. The inconvenience alone forces shoppers to choose shelf-stable food, rather than fresh produce.

One study found that “the availability of supermarkets has been associated with more fruit and vegetable intake, more healthful diets and lower rates of obesity.” Kroger and Albertsons state that the merger will “expand access to fresh and affordable food.”

That’s true; supermarkets do provide access to a range of foods. Whether those options are available to low-income neighborhoods, however, depends on their price and store location.

Advocates, legislators and state attorneys general are worried about Kroger closing stores, especially any Albertsons close to an existing Kroger. The FTC, as well as state attorneys general, are currently reviewing the deal under their antitrust authority to ensure that mergers don’t harm consumers. To address those concerns, (as well as other fears of a monopoly), Kroger and Albertsons announced it will instead sell more than 400 of its stores to a third party, C&S Wholesale Grocers. 

To some experts, this is cold comfort. Lina Khan, the current head of the FTC, wrote a law review article in 2017 outlining how divesting stores has not solved monopoly concerns.

History gives us a stark example. When Albertsons purchased Safeway in 2017, the FTC signed off on the deal because Albertsons promised to sell stores to a small chain called Haggen. Haggen was ill equipped to take on so many locations, went bankrupt, closed stores and even sold some of them back to Albertsons. As a result, says Khan, “the level of consolidation resulting from this [2017] merger will be greater than what the government has planned and approved.”

The Kroger-Albertsons’ plan has similar issues. In 2017, selling to Haggen failed because it was unable to manage an increase to 164 from 18 stores. Today, selling to C&S will increase their stores to 413 from 160.

Sara John at CSPI is also worried about the disproportionate effect of closures on low-income neighborhoods. She predicts that grocers “will close their worst-performing stores, which has the biggest impact on low-income communities, on average.”

During another merger between Amazon and Whole Foods, there was speculation that Amazon’s capabilities make ordering online easier. However, many low-income folks, especially in Alaska and rural areas, lack reliable internet access to take advantage of delivery options.

Communities respond

Considering the potential harm to consumers, the FTC has an open investigation of the proposed deal. The commission can review mergers for anticompetitive practices, and if it finds problems, it can negotiate with the merging entities to avoid them. If all cannot agree, the FTC can attempt to stop the merger under federal laws that prohibit unfair business practices.

State attorneys general, such as those in Arizona and Washington, are also conducting their own investigations. Nevada has an open survey to take the pulse of consumers. The US Senate will be holding an antitrust panel this month. 

Other stakeholders are organizing to stop the merger. For example, a nationwide Stop the Merger coalition brings together consumer protection, privacy and labor advocates, to name a few. One member of the coalition, Katy Milani, is associate director for policy and advocacy at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. She is calling on the FTC to enforce existing laws. “In the ’50s and ’60s, when the FTC enforced the antitrust laws on the books…independent grocery stores flourished,” Milani told Modern Farmer in an email. “We had a dynamic food ecosystem—we didn’t have food deserts.”

There are also more local efforts. In Alaska, an effort by the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) led to the state’s Republican and Independent US senators, as well as its Democratic House representative, to urge the FTC to oppose the merger. Some (no less cold) communities, such as Chicago, are organizing to form publicly owned grocery stores.

Kroger states the merger will conclude in early 2024. To the shoppers outside Safeway in Fairbanks, consolidation often feels out of their hands. Still, movements to slow consolidation are gathering steam. To continue that movement, we have to recognize that consolidation does not, as the grocers claim, create oases.

This story has been updated to include a statement from Kroger. 

The post How Supermarket Mergers Affect Food Deserts appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Last year, Wolf was indicted by the US Attorney’s office for organic fraud. The state claims that the “organic” seed Wolf was selling was not, in fact, organic. In May, Wolf pleaded guilty to the charges.

While the magnitude of Wolf’s scam is unusual, the fact that he falsely profited from the “organic” label is not. Thousands of people do it, which is why many countries have strict regulations about what organic is and is not. Over the COVID-19 pandemic, fraud escalated in many sectors, and more fraudulent food items entered the market as criminals capitalized on fears of food shortages and as fewer inspectors were available. Federally accredited agencies are trying to suss out the fakes—while some organic farmers wonder whether staying organic is worth the price of admission.

What is organic, anyway?

Organic farming is a practice that emphasizes natural processes, ecological balance and the conserving of resources. The USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) was first enacted in 1990, with the laws being amended occasionally since then. Synthetic fertilizers and genetic engineering are prohibited, among other measures. The label can cover crops, livestock and dairy products, and the industry is huge—worth about $62 billion last year. 

But the process to become certified as an organic farming operation is a lengthy one. It takes three years to allow for any previous synthetic substances applied to the fields or used on the farm to filter out. And in that time, farmers are on the hook for the higher costs associated with organic farming, without any guaranteed return. 

Then, once farms have been certified, there’s a yearly testing process, which dives deep into the farm’s yield and audits its books. “We spend a few hours with the inspector, and that’s a walk around every garden plot we have, and talking about what we’ve grown there and our practices, the rotation, any pest issues, anything like that,” explains Shepsi Eaton, owner and farmer at Darthia Farm in Gouldsboro, ME. The inspector also asks a variety of questions geared towards figuring out what the farm produced and how that matches its receipts. “How much seed did you purchase? How much did you plant? How much area did you plant? What were the yields in a given week? How much did you harvest? How much did you sell?” 

It’s a big job for both the farmers and inspectors. Eaton says they have to ensure that all of their paperwork and records are updated within the NOP’s system and maintained in a way that enables easy sharing with the auditors. 

It’s also not cheap. Costs for organic certification vary based on gross income of the operation, along with the size, type and complexity of the farm. For Eaton’s two acres of vegetable crops, he pays about $1,400 per year. 

There are also some hidden costs. In 2019, when Daniel Lagueux decided to apply for organic certification for Hip Peas, his Hooksett, NH farm, he says he didn’t realize all of the time investment required. “Once I started talking to my farm manager, I asked, ‘how many hours a week do you think [are needed to log everything?]’” Lagueux recalls. “He said it was about 40 extra hours of labor.” 

Who makes sure “organic” is really organic?

There are two main methods of certifying the food you eat is organic. The first is with a reciprocity agreement. The United States has an organic equivalent agreement with several countries, including Canada, Japan and the European Union. If a food product is labeled as organic in one of these countries, then it will also meet the standards within the US, and the food can be imported and exported between the countries. 

The second, and more common method, is through inspections. The NOP oversees the certifications of all the organic farms and producers in the country, and it works with accredited agencies around the world that follow USDA guidelines. “We go to the certification agencies and we literally watch them do the inspections. We review all of their systems to make sure that they are effectively certifying and overseeing those farms,” says Jennifer Tucker, deputy administrator of the National Organic Program. “It’s actually a very robust and very rich network of oversight professionals…It’s one of the most regulated food systems in the United States.” 

But the system has changed in recent years, geared more towards large commercial operations. Small producers, like Eaton, say many parts of the process don’t scale down to small producers, especially within questions about their supply chain. “We just grow vegetables and sell them in our farm store…What are we going to find here?”

Lagueux agrees, saying that the certification and testing process might make sense for commercial farmers selling in large venues, such as grocery stores and supermarkets. But on a smaller scale, the strictures can be harder to work with. “With my honey, I couldn’t put ‘organic’ on it, because I couldn’t prove that my bees were going to certified organic flowers on my property,” says Lagueux. 

What makes it more frustrating for producers like Lagueux and Eaton is that the organic certification system, for all its bureaucracy and rules, can be worked around—and people do that often. “There’s definitely an incentive for people to go out and just say ‘oh yeah, we’re certified organic,’” says Lagueux, noting that producers can charge a premium on organic products. “Nobody takes a carrot or a potato and tests it to see if there’s any chemicals on it. It’s only by numbers and your word. You can have two businesses side by side and have sales from one company mix into the other and falsify the system. It’s pretty simple.” People have faked organic crops, including corn and soybeans, making millions of dollars. 

For USDA inspectors, the severity of the fraud boils down to one thing: willfulness. According to Tucker, accidental fraud—or fraud that is not “willful”—happens all the time. Maybe there’s a vendor at a local farmers market selling “organic” blueberries, unaware that she’s not certified. She’s committing fraud, but unintentionally. “When we detect that there’s been a problem, operations are given a chance to explain what happened and what they’re going to do to correct the system,” says Tucker. From there, punishments range from small fines to legal action, depending on the scale and scope of the fraud. 

It’s the intentional, or willful violations, where we often see the most egregious fraud. Take mass balance fraud: A producer gets an organic certificate for 100 acres of grain and begins selling grain for those 100 acres. But inspectors look at the books and realize the yield sold is much closer to 200 acres. While the producer is certified organic, they are only certified for a portion of the goods they’re selling. That’s why Eaton has to walk his garden plots every year, justifying each batch of carrot seeds. 

Additionally, there are many large agricultural countries that do not have reciprocity agreements with the US, including China and Brazil. It’s not to say that any one particular country or region is responsible for flouting regulations or inherently setting out to commit fraud—but simply that there are more opportunities. “It’s a little bit harder to have strong oversight” in other countries, says Carolyn Dimitri, an associate professor at NYU and a member of the federal advisory committee to the NOP. “If I were going to increase the number of certifying bodies, I would think that the global markets would be a place you would want to look…It’s partly that the countries are big, the farms are small and the practices and norms are different. ”

But, ultimately, says Dimitri, the difficulty is that there’s no great way to test many of these crops at the point of sale. What does an organic tomato look like or a conventionally grown soybean? Without clear ways to distinguish between the crops, both inspectors and consumers are always one step behind. 

Are there enough inspectors?

There are more than 17,000 organic farms within the US and thousands more worldwide, so thousands of people are needed for yearly inspections and enforcement. 

From the NOP’s perspective, its public-private partnership is a good thing. By partnering with accredited agencies, the agencies can be flexible and bring on more staff as needed, shrinking or swelling the number of inspectors according to trends in the market.

But critics of that public-private system say that inspectors are incentivized to look the other way as middle-men in this system. They aren’t government employees, and if their jobs are at the whims of the market, why not ensure there is an ongoing need for their services by making sure as many organic productions as possible pass through the system? Tucker refutes this, saying that the NOP audits the certifiers and pays attention to the enforcement actions they dole out to their farms. “Most years, an organic farmer or business will get kicked out [of the system] at a rate of about one per day, because they’ve not been able to come into compliance. I think that shows the system works, because those certifiers are taking enforcement actions against their own clients to protect all the farms [that] are playing by the rules.” 

Not everyone agrees that the current system is working well, however. Dimitri, for instance, thinks the inspector positions should be higher-paid, professional designations, although she acknowledges this isn’t the most popular opinion. “You actually make so much more money as an inspector if you work in a gluten-free factory, for example. So, in that sense, it’s hard to keep people in the inspection business, because you have to be very committed to the process.” If the NOP increased the cost of the organic certification for farmers, Dimitri says inspectors could be paid more, the agencies could retain more staff and it could increase the rates of inspection for each farm—ideally cutting down on fraud.

“The fact that the system is built on being able to shrink and expand the labor force as you need it, it just puts it in the same old problem that agriculture already has. Everything is on this thin margin, and people aren’t always very well paid unless you’re in one of the food companies. I would like organic to be better than the rest of agriculture.”

Do people trust the organic label?

For farmers such as Lagueux, fraud in the system has eaten away at the integrity of the organic designation. Rather than representing a higher ideal, organic certification is now, for Lagueux, merely another logo to put on packaging. “I think it’s losing credibility in the industry, because there are ways of screwing with the system…There’s always going to be greedy people in the world,” he says. “You don’t start by stealing $100, you start with $2. And you get away with it. And then the next week it’s $20. And then you justify what you’ve done, and you go ‘fuck the certification, it doesn’t even matter.’” It was that realization, along with the higher costs, that led to Lagueux giving up his official organic status after just two years. 

In Maine, Eaton is considering doing the same thing. Darthia Farm has been certified since the late 1970s, when Eaton says the organic label carried a certain cache. But now, he’s not sure it’s worth it to maintain it anymore. For one thing, his customers don’t really care one way or another if the food is certified, as they sell hyper locally to people who get to know the farm and how it operates. 

Plus, Eaton is concerned about how much harder it could become to maintain his certification. He currently uses horse power in his fields, but the horses aren’t fed a certified organic diet. What happens if their manure comes under scrutiny? “You can’t take your tractor into a conventional field, and then drive it into [your organic] garden…It’s only a matter of time before they see the horses the same way.”

In January of this year, the NOP introduced the Strengthening Organic Enforcement amendment, intended to shore up some of those loopholes and ensure stronger checks throughout the supply chain. The Organic Trade Association (OTA) calls the new rules “the biggest change to organic regulations since the creation of the National Organic Program” in 1990. 

The updates have been long awaited, with many hoping they can curb fraud in the system. But there will still be pressures put on smaller producers. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association says it’s mostly pleased with the final version, but it worries that additional strictures could impact smaller certifying bodies, which may not have the staffing to fully implement the changes. “The NOP assumes that certifiers will increase fees to cover the additional expenses, which shifts the burden to small producers—who are largely not the cause of the fraud taking place,” writes Chris Grigsby, director of MOFGA’s certification, in a press release. He says that, because the NOP is a federal program, the additional costs should be borne by appropriations from Congress, rather than the producers themselves. 

Consumers of organic food aren’t just buying the food itself. They’re buying a promise that they can trust the label and certifications. “The consumer can’t be out there on the farm, they can’t be reviewing all these papers. So, they trust us to do that,” says Tucker. Full implementation of the Strengthening Organic Enforcement amendment will come in March of 2024. Once it’s in full swing, producers and officials hope that the new regulations can indeed lower fraud in the organic food system—both for consumer trust and for their own bottom line.

This story is part of ‘Phonies, Fakes and Food Fraud’, a special Modern Farmer series. See the full series here.

The post Can You Trust the Organic Food Label? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Customers who buy their eggs at the farmer’s market in downtown Hamilton or who swing through their farm store can pick up a carton with a very simple design. It displays the SweetRoot Farm logo—a beet sticking out of a row of dirt—and the text “Pastured eggs. Organic, GMO-free feed and whole grains, moved to fresh pasture regularly. Available for farm pickup at the farmhouse. Noah & Mary.” The label then tells you where to find them by listing their address and phone number. 

The label describes their feed, which Jackson has recently started buying from a ranch a few miles north. It emphasizes the use of pasture, sections of which the hens are rotated through every 15 days or so during the summer. The part about the lack of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the feed was added after input from customers.

“We get a lot of questions about that,” says Jackson. “So, that’s why we put that additional label on there.” 

Food labels tell a story through words, images and designs on the packaging and even the size of the font and shades of the colors used. Some of those stories are truthful, and some are certainly less so. For visitors who pull into Jackson’s farm store in Hamilton, what they see on their egg label matches what they see on the farm—right down to the beet leaves popping out of the earth. But when consumers can’t see the source for themselves, they can be led astray by misleading packaging.

Regulated terms

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates some of what you see on your food labels. There are common phrases you might see on everything from produce to egg cartons to pork chops that reference earned certifications, such as “USDA certified organic” and “grassfed.” 

Other certifications, such as  “Fair Trade” or “Certified Humane,” are administered by organizations dedicated to a specific cause such as animal treatment or farming standards. Some certification programs are more rigorous than others, requiring more proof, more frequent updates and in-person inspection. Others are relatively lax. But where there’s a certification, there’s usually also a website where you can learn more about who regulates it and what their evaluation standards are.

Legally, standards are not static. In June of this year, the USDA announced it would launch a review process to determine if it needed to establish more thorough regulations for producers claiming to sell beef raised without antibiotics. The Food Labeling Modernization Act is a Senate bill that would push for stricter monitoring of words such as  “natural” and “local” on labels. In September, the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against the USDA for a lack of clear GMO labeling. 

As confusing as evolving legal standards are, things get even murkier once you look at labels that are legal but not standardized, such as “all-natural,” “locally grown” and “eco-friendly.” (To learn more about these terms, review our starter guide here.) There can be an economic incentive to add these words and phrases to food labels. For example, a joint study between McKinsey and NielsenIQ found that many consumers will pay more for items they perceive as sustainable. In another study published in 2022, a survey administered to 1,000 people revealed that 89 percent of the participants who purchased an item with an animal-welfare-related claim on it consciously did so because they thought it implied higher animal welfare standards—whether the claim was regulated or not. 

Fake farms vs. real farms

In 2016, popular British grocery store chain Tesco made the news when it was determined that some products it depicted as coming from local, smallholder farms were, in fact, imported. With names like Woodside Farms and Boswell Farms, the branding conjured up the image of a fresh, single-source and local product, sparking criticism that the grocer was misleading consumers.  

Dr. Alison Barnes, a senior lecturer at Western Sydney University, examined this phenomenon, known as Tesco’s “fake farms,” and how terms such as  “premium,” “local” and “authentic” convey confusing messages to customers. 

“Language is quite slippery, generally,” says Barnes. “Language is never a stable thing.”

The meaning of different words evolves over time, shifting in what they mean to customers. She points to the word “local” as an example. 

“I think it is enshrined in law in quite a few places,” says Barnes. “But then the constraints as to what that enshrines or what you can and can’t do with that, or what it actually means, varies quite a lot.”

In the US, that’s true—the USDA defines local as within the state where the food is produced or within 400 miles of its production point. Depending on how someone has interpreted that word, the product you’re buying could be from down the street or from hundreds of miles away.

The consumer brings meaning to the label as well, through interpretations and associations they have with certain words.

“I think both the law and our differing perceptions of the meaning of certain words, in certain contexts, leaves a bit of a space for designers to explore the power of those words to tell certain stories,” says Barnes.

Storytelling is an effective way to market products, as emotional connections, even subliminal ones, can sway buying decisions.

“We can’t help but do that—we read things into things. Designers understand that. And that’s what designers work with, and they try and tell the story of a brand in a way that will resonate with people.”

For Tesco’s fake farms, the imagery had clearly been created digitally. But the design evoked a handmade style that felt reminiscent of a traditional farmhouse, creating an idea of a personal connection between the producer and the consumer, although there never was one. This isn’t illegal, and in fact, Tesco still sells these brands.

In Beavercreek, Oregon, Chase’n Eggs Farm sells goose and duck eggs directly to customers, either through delivery or farm pick-up. Aimee Chase, who started the business, hired a designer to help with their logo. 

“My family and I were trying to come up with some creative logo that featured a duck and a goose because we sell both eggs,” says Chase. “But also that reflects our property. We have so many trees on our property.”

The resulting image, a duck and a goose, framed by evergreens, conjures up a small family farm, just like the Tesco brand label. The difference is, for Chase’n Eggs farm, this picture is an accurate reflection. 

Designing for truth

Dr. Rick Schifferstein is the director of the Food & Eating Design Lab at the Delft University of Technology. He works with other researchers and designers to improve people’s interactions with their food. Schifferstein’s research into food labels has included one study that found that meat labels linking meat consumption with poor animal welfare discouraged customers from buying the product. But, in general, it doesn’t need to be an explicit claim to sway a customer. Even the feel of the packaging, he says, can inform the associations the consumer makes with the product. In the supermarket, consumers might not even realize how the words, designs, colors and textures used in the design are influencing their buying decisions, especially when confronted with multiple options on the shelf. Decision-making in the supermarket is very fast, says Schifferstein. 

Angela Larisch, strategy director for Murmur Creative in Portland, Oregon, says that often what she sees with the brands she works with is not intentional deception but a lack of clarity.

Murmur Creative designs branding and packaging for its  clients, many of which are food and beverage companies. Part of what it  does is help companies cut through buzzwords to get specific about the information they want to convey. For example, when food companies describe their product as “clean,” Murmur Creative will dig into what that actually means to them and how to communicate that to consumers.

“Even though they’re saying, ‘oh, it’s a clean product,’ and they’re not meaning to mislead anyone, they might be doing it just because there’s so much ambiguity to these terms,” says Larisch.

Being specific, says Larisch, conveys more information about the product, which adds value for both the brand and the consumer. When they do focus groups, they consistently see people gravitate towards specificity.

“‘Only five ingredients’ is generally a stronger claim than ‘clean,’ which people don’t know what it means,” says Larisch. “People gravitate to things they understand.”  

The graphics or design can be more misleading than the actual words, says Larisch. For example, if the design of an item is green or has plant leaves on it, “people will assume that it’s organic, they will assume that it’s natural,” says Larisch. “You’ve never made any claim. But that would be very misleading. And it happens all the time.” In one study, the inclusion of nature imagery in advertising made consumers more likely to accept false environmental claims that they wouldn’t believe otherwise.

But while design can be used, either intentionally or unintentionally, to convey misleading messages, it can also be used to communicate accurate information truthfully about the brand or product. One of the brands Larisch and Murmur Creative have been working with is called Scratch and Peck Feeds, a chicken feed brand.

“They are a company that’s been around for a little while, they’re very natural and homegrown, they started in somebody’s garage, I think. And so they’ve got this kind of wood blocky feel, it feels a little bit homemade, but it also feels really premium,” says Larisch. “You could assume or infer the story of the brand from the logo without knowing anything about them.”

Back at SweetRoot Farm in Hamilton, Noah Jackson says that when people want more information about what’s on his egg label, they just call him at the number on the carton and ask. He encourages it, because the sense of community it fosters benefits the farm, too.

“We get lots of questions and lots of emails, and lots of people showing up,” says Jackson. “We’re grateful for that.” 

This story is part of ‘Phonies, Fakes and Food Fraud’, a special Modern Farmer series. See the full series here.

The post When Labels Lie appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Some of the terms used on food labels are official certifications, enforced by the USDA or a nonprofit entity, and the presence of the certification means that the farming operation has been verified in some way for compliance. Other common terms or phrases refer to qualities that are not regulated at all. This means that companies can use these phrases on their packaging whether they conform to a consumer’s understanding of what that label means or not. To make things even more complicated, many certifications require a lot of labor, effort and expense on the producer’s behalf, meaning that small farms can be at a disadvantage when it comes to garnering these certifications, even if they meet the requirements. 

As a consumer, it can help to understand what you are looking at and what it means. Below is a list of definitions for common phrases on food labels. But there are many more beyond the ones we have listed. 

To help you evaluate their meaning, ask yourself these questions: If it’s a certification, who is the governing body and how do they verify compliance? If it’s not a certification, does the company clarify what it means by the term? Can I find additional information about the product separate from the words used on the label?

Certified and/or regulated

USDA Organic: You can find this certification on meats, dairy products and produce. This certification prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are also not considered organic. For meats with this label, synthetic growth hormones are not permitted, and the animals must have been fed a diet that is 100 percent organically grown. This certification requires inspection to verify that standards are being met. After certification has been granted, the operation must be inspected annually to maintain compliance.

Cage Free: This term refers to poultry that live indoors without cages and have access to food and water. The USDA does not define how big this indoor space must be. Verification of these parameters varies widely, according to the USDA. The Quality Assessment Division of the USDA will verify a cage-free operation during paid grade and certification services.

Free Range: This means that the animal spends part of its time outside, uncaged. However, there is no regulation of the amount of time that the animal may actually spend outside, nor how big the outdoor space is. The outdoor space can be fenced or netted in. Farms must provide proof to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service of free-range conditions.

Naturally Grown: This certification is an alternative to the “USDA Organic” label. The process to be certified “USDA Organic” can be cumbersome for farmers, so the “Certified Naturally Grown” label uses the same requirements but is verified by a team of CNG farmers, not the USDA. Be aware—this is different than when the word “natural” or “all-natural” appears alone on a label. See the list of items not backed by certification or regulation for more information. 

Fair Trade: The Fair Trade USA certification was developed to help ensure fair working conditions for farmers and growers on some commonly imported products such as chocolate, tea, coffee, honey, bananas and more. Fair Trade USA checks for things such as fair wages, safe working conditions, lack of child labor and ability to unionize. However, there have been multiple documented instances of companies achieving this certification without meeting labor standards.

Animal Welfare Approved: This certification is not administered by a governmental body but by the nonprofit A Greener World. Farms that receive this certification raise their animals in pasture or on range and allow the animals to behave and move in a way that supports their well-being.

Certified Regenerative: A Greener World also provides a certification regarding regenerative practices—farming intended to be better for the environment. But it is also worth noting that this is not the only certification program evaluating regenerative standards, and there is some debate in the industry about what exactly being certified “regenerative” should mean. 

American Humane Certified: This certification is granted by American Humane to practitioners of animal agriculture. It claims to use a scientifically informed set of criteria to evaluate whether animals are being raised in suitable and healthy living conditions—everything from enough space to access to shade. However, animal welfare advocates have called the certification an example of humane washing because it still allows for practices such as caged confinement. 

Grassfed: For grazing animals such as cows, the USDA defines “grassfed” as animals that have access to grass or other pasture forage during the growing season and derive the majority of their nutrients from this source. It does not set parameters for pesticides, growth hormones or antibiotics.

Non-GMO Project Certified: This certification is run by nonprofit organization the Non-GMO Project. It is granted to products that do not use genetic engineering.

Pasture-raised: This does not require third-party verification, so it’s hard to know what it means to the producer. It is best if you can find additional information to verify that the animal does indeed spend a significant amount of time in the pasture. If you’re looking at meat from a ruminant animal, “certified grassfed” will mean more than “pasture-raised.”

Raised Without Hormones: This term is mostly for cattle, which are sometimes supplemented with growth hormones such as rBGH to make them grow bigger and faster. Operations must submit documentation to the USDA to show that they do not use hormones. The USDA does not allow hormones to be used for poultry or pork, so don’t associate this with a mark of quality on these items. 

Raised Without Antibiotics/No Antibiotics: This term is used in animal agriculture to denote that the animal has not been raised with antibiotics, something that can help animals to grow bigger and faster. However, earlier in 2023, the USDA announced that it will begin an evaluation process to determine if more intensive verification is necessary.

Not backed by certification and/or regulation

All-natural: The term “natural” on egg, poultry and meat products means that they are “minimally processed and contain no artificial ingredients,” per the USDA. However, many other items carry this term that do not fall under the USDA category of meat, poultry or eggs. There is no standard definition of “all-natural.” Look for further explanation on the rest of the label or company website to find out what this means to the company. Seeing this phrase on a food label does not inherently convey meaning or guarantee anything. 

Eco-friendly/Climate Positive: Many labels claim that their product is environmentally friendly, but these are not quantifiable terms. Look for additional information about how the product benefits the environment or sustainability in general.

Local: The USDA defines local as within the state of provenance or within 400 miles of its production point. But this is a widely interpreted term and different producers/companies may have varying definitions of what this means.

This story is part of ‘Phonies, Fakes and Food Fraud’, a special Modern Farmer series. See the full series here.

The post What’s in a Name? Food Labels, Explained appeared first on Modern Farmer.