So the farmers desperately need the equivalent of maybe 25 cents more per gallon—modest increases. But the companies by and large—even the good companies out there—feel that they can’t pass that on, because the marketing players that own or buy from factory farms are suppressing the pricing. They’re holding the price down. So all these private-label brands that are associated with Aurora or dairies like this 7,200-cow National Prairie in Texas that used to be a supplier to Organic Valley, they sell direct. For example, one of their largest customers is the HEB supermarket chain in Texas, and they have another brand called Community Market, which competes with Whole Foods. They can artificially hold their price down so that other competitors in the marketplace are pinched. And so this is one of the sad, current stories, and one of the reasons that we hope consumers and Gourmet readers will partner with us in using that scorecard to shift their purchases. Because our goal overall is either to force those companies to change their practices, or to force them out of business.
DT: You guys do more than just the dairy scorecard?
MK: We’re involved in all organic issues and commodities. And dairy is a phenomenal percentage of the organic industry overall. One of the reasons that dairy products are expensive is the infrastructure that goes into them. We’re not only talking about dairy farms, we’re talking about processing plants. But we’re talking about lots of acreage of production that goes into the feed; each dairy farmer is supporting other farmers that grow corn or oats or soybeans or hay, so it has a wide impact. The other reason dairy is so important is that it’s what we refer to as a gateway product. For many families it’s the first organic product that they bring into the household. So often families that are concerned with the health and well-being of their children are driven to look more critically at their food choices. So as their kids begin to discontinue breastfeeding they start to look at organic baby foods and organic milk. And I’ve talked to mothers who say, “I don’t eat organically, but my young child [eats] all organic food.” But after feeding these foods to their children, maybe trying a little themselves, more and more families then exclusively buy organic foods for the rest of the family. So it’s a very heartwarming experience to see that transition take place.
DT: Is that why you think you’ve gotten the most attention for your dairy work?
MK: Oh, it’s a very emotional area, yeah. I mean, moms and milk—they’re very connected. But we work in many areas. We now see a great threat to almost all fresh and local foods. Because of the food contamination issues, the government is starting to look at requiring things like toxic chemical treatment of almonds, or radiation in fruits and vegetables—very rigorous testing that could force smaller, high-quality farms out of business. It’s ironic. The farms that are the answer, not the problem, could be economically jeopardized. And some people have suggested it’s basically a conspiracy by large industrial agriculture to get rid of some of their competition.
One of the rules the USDA has considered is requiring farmers to test each crop for pathogens when they harvest them. I’ll give you two scenarios: Let’s say you’re in California and you’re growing 150 acres of spinach, and because of the climate you can grow two crops per year. What if a test costs $30? That’d be $30 twice a year. Well, you could say, that multimillion dollar operation, they can probably handle that. [But] what if you’re a CSA farmer in Northern Illinois by Rockford, or in the Finger Lakes in New York or out by San Francisco? Let’s say you harvest crops 20 or 30 weeks a year. And you have to test each one of those. And let’s say because you’re very diversified you aren’t just growing one crop—you’re growing many crops. You could have to do multiple tests 20 or 30 times a year. That can just bust those people. Plus the amount of bookkeeping that would have to track that, they might have to add employees in addition to the cost of the test. And again, these are the people that are owner-operated, hands-on, high-level craftsmen. If anybody can make sure that our food is picked at its flavor and nutritional peak, and then make sure that its actually safe, it’s these folks. And so we’re going to dumb down the whole system. If somebody with 9,000 acres of almonds—that’s where one of the problems with almonds is traced back to—and hundreds of employees doesn’t have the management control to make sure our food is safe, well then we’re going to create some sort of technological band-aid so they can continue to operate, we’re going to injure all the other good farms in the United States? We will not stand for that at The Cornucopia Institute. We’re in business to make sure that those farmers aren’t discriminated against, the good farmers, and that consumers who want to choose [good] food have that option in the marketplace.
DT: What you’re saying is that big corporations may support these tests and regulations because they know they can afford it and the smaller farmers can’t?
MK: Well, that’s part of it. I think their main incentive is they want to insulate themselves from liability. You know, when you put out a shoddy product, whether it’s an infant car seat that doesn’t work or meat that’s been contaminated with poison, if you put out a shoddy product and people die, we as citizens have the right to come after you. And it scares [these corporations] to death. So either it’s liability in terms of monetary damage to their organization, or to the image of their brands. It could put you out of business. One of the last big meat recalls literally put one of the largest meat packers in the country out of business. So I think that’s their main incentive. The fact that there would be collateral damage and that some of their highest-quality competitors could be injured or put out of business—that’s just icing on the cake.
Pinterest
