I face the difficult task of trying to put to paper a talk that was based on a number of slides which contained quotes and quips, which used a few words to state what takes a paragraph to write. Fortunately I had the luxury of listening to the morning speakers, to get a sense of where they see things in their areas, and compare what, if anything we have done different in Ontario. In essence I tried to put some perspective on our initiative to get a sense of what others, whether they be different farm sectors, geographic areas, or initiatives instigated outside the farming community, have done, to determine if there are common threads which either eased or facilitated the process. I should note that our initiative is in fact a regional one, which fits in well with many of the other presentations which tended to be regional in nature. One of the key points I would identify is, how does a successful regionally oriented program, whether it be a marketing, environmental initiative, or quality assurance program, expand to a broader of larger audience whether it be national or international?

One key point I would identify is the following: If the farm community through its leadership of both commodity groups and general farm organizations, is not willing to "drive" the initiative, the chance for success is remote. With the best of intentions, many good ideas, programs, or initiatives, failed due to the fact that they were the agenda, however well intentioned, of groups or individuals outside of farming or agriculture.

The question may be asked "how does one spark the farming community into action on the environmental front?" If one pays attention to events in a given area usually something happens to galvanize the farm community and their leadership to action. Here in Ontario back in the early 90’s we elected on a whim, a socialist government. When they took power they appointed a minister of environment, who while an urbanite, had a clear vision and philosophy of what agriculture should entail in regards to responsibilities. We, as farm leadership quickly determined that the very future of agriculture was at stake, if we ignored this train of thought. On a stoke of good luck however the government appointed a minister of agriculture who, had very little background in practical agriculture, but was open-minded to reality, willing to consider practical solutions to issues raised, and willing to run interference with the minister of environment.

The logical conclusion we arrived at was to play ball with our minister of agriculture, take the high road, and arrive at solutions that not only worked but had a degree of public acceptability as well. Hence, what is now the Environmental Farm Plan. What this also allowed us to do was to interject our agenda into the public forum. A side benefit of this process was the discovery, not only our minister of environment had an agenda for agriculture, but apparently everyone else did as well. This was a watershed point. We went public with our perspective on environmental improvement, and have led the pack ever since. We also discovered that successive governments, after the demise of the government that instigated the process, have bought into the idea of the farm community as full partners in environmental initiatives. This is starting to serve us well on issues such as nutrient management, water quality, water taking or usage, and environmental management systems, where we are integral to the solutions and hence policy.

Being at the cutting edge of the environmental front, we have accepted a responsibility for action and leadership, but that has been offset by the ability to formulate workable policy on behalf of our farmers for a win-win situation. This is time well spent as opposed to fighting government and others every step along the way. The current debate surrounding genetically modified crops, has allowed us a seat at the table, regarding input and perspective, something we question farmers in other areas have not been privy to.

Having said all this, it would be easy to say "okay the Ontario folks lucked out, the right place, right time…" but are there common points that are transferable to other areas or jurisdictions? All farmers recognize they have a responsibility to minimize their impact on the environment. By engaging the farm community, especially their leadership, to get them onside, would be time well spent. Rightly or wrongly we feel well intentioned people preach solutions to us without taking the time to properly put those solutions into perspective, regarding the impact. Reasonable people will usually come up with reasonable solutions. If I haven’t used every cliché in the book to describe that a simple practical approach is a good first step, then I haven’t served my purpose. No one has ever been accused of too much communication, especially at the initial stages. Assumptions, especially without dialogue, can often lead us down the wrong path. Is the future not worth taking that extra bit of time to do it right?

Contact:
Jeff Wilson
Birbank Farms
RR 3
Orton, Ontarion LON 1NO
Canada
Tel: 519-855-6519
Fax:519-855-6061

The Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association is a grower co-operative with 32 members. Based in Simcoe, Ontario, the group deals with the storing, packing, and marketing of apples. Empire is the predominant variety grown and is marketed mainly in the United Kingdom.

Recently, retailers in the UK are exerting influences on produce growers and packers to develop quality management systems. In response to these demands, the Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association is working towards registration for ISO 14001, an international environmental standard.

By implementing ISO 14001 there are many benefits and rewards. There has become an awareness of the environmental impacts our activities and services can have. By completion, we will be able to show that all due care to the environment was taken. It is also predicted that ISO 14001 will be beneficial to our marketing abilities, and may even give us an advantage in the marketplace.

To date, our experiences with this project have been positive. Although writing the manual has been time consuming, the experience has been worthwhile. A third party audit was completed to verify environmental compliance with the legislation. This audit gave a good base for establishing significant environmental impacts. Presently, the manual is still being written and the date of completion is November 15, 1999. At that time a pre-audit will be completed and the written procedures will start to be implemented. Any more necessary changes will be made between that time and the final audit in March 2000.

1. UNFI Introduction

United Natural Foods, Inc. was created when Michael Funk and Norman Cloutier decided to merge their respective regionally powerful distribution networks in 1995-1996. The conception of United Natural Foods Inc> (UNFI) instantly made UNFI the nations dominant Natural Foods distributor. Since then, UNFI has acquired and merged with key competitors and related companies. With no exception, UNFI is the largest distributor of organic and natural products in the United States. UNFI services mainly natural food retailers, cross over mass markets, and conventional mass-market grocery stores respectively.

2. Supply Relations With UNFI

UNFI is always looking for new supplier and producer based relations. Major areas of interest are in branded organic and natural retail products, private labeling of organic and natural products, and organic and natural bulk commodities.

The best way to develop relations with UNFI on the supply side is to find or create a niche market or product that has favorable appeal to our customer base. The main key to your success with product development is to create products or brands that will meet the specification requirements of the natural retail sector and be appealing to both the natural foods customer and the conventional customer.

Please feel free to use myself as an initial contact at UNFI and I will either be able to further work with you or point you in the appropriate direction.

3. UNFI and Eco Labels

UNFI’s main focus of support for eco labeled products is in organics. Our directive really comes from our customer base. The largest demand in the natural foods marketplace is with organic products. We would be interested in looking at and exploring other eco labeling options, especially if the retail demand is generated.

4. GMO’s

UNFI has extremely limited tolerance for GMO activity. "Limited tolerance" because some of our industry's top selling products are likely to be impacted by GMO’s. Ideally, it would be zero tolerance. Still, UNFI is working diligently to greatly decrease the presence of GMO’s in out industry. We are working with our suppliers and strongly requesting that they make the appropriate efforts. We are also working outside our direct supply chain in hopes of establishing more definitive policies regarding GMO’s.

Long term, UNFI would like to move away from distributing all products known to be GMO contaminated.

5. Trends In The Marketplace

The most substantial trend in the marketplace is the growth in organics. Organic agriculture and the marketing of organic products depicts what the foundation of the natural foods industry is all about. It gives the veterans and the newcomers something to strive for and a "sustainable" common bond.

Organic products are just starting to infiltrate the conventional market sectors and that is an area of almost infinite growth potential. With "organic" becoming more of an acceptable term, look for significant growth over the next decade of organic products in the cross over and conventional mass markets. Look for organic products to continue to be the backbone for growth within the natural foods sector through the next decade.

Organic products are also rapidly growing in popularity overseas and are already a mainstay in the EU.

6. Research and Development in Eco Labels

One of the largest areas for Research and Development to focus on is to determine what amount of consumer acceptance is in the marketplace for eco labels. And what amount of that is satisfied by intermediary eco-labels or non-organic eco labels. If that percentage is significant, then we need to further exploit the potential of eco labeling products. It needs to be determined if "organic" will fill a majority of that need for eco labels in the marketplace. If organic does fill a majority of the consumer demand for eco labels, then it gives us a clear and definitive task at hand: to focus and build upon the national and global successes of organics.

As far as actually labeling goes, it is critical that labels be developed to have appeal to both the "natural" customer base and the "mass" customer base. Some of the greatest forthcoming success will achieve this task in their labeling.

Deborah J. Kane
Executive Director, The Food Alliance (TFA)

The Food Alliance (TFA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting expanded use of sustainable agricultural practices. We do this by recognizing and rewarding farmers who produce food in an environmentally and socially responsible way, while simultaneously educating consumers about sustainable agriculture practices.

To us, sustainable agriculture represents a long-term goal to make farming more environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially equitable. Farmers who practice sustainable agriculture produce healthy food, protect clean drinking water, conserve soil, reduce pesticide use, and care for the well being of farm workers and rural communities.

While increased regulations and growing environmental awareness are changing the face of agriculture, consumer habits and age-old farming techniques are slow to change. Yet, given the critical environmental and economic issues at stake, a new approach is imperative – one in which regulators, farmers and consumers work together to build a food system in which sustainable practices are encouraged not only by increasing regulation, but by support and incentives in the marketplace.

The Food Alliance has designed just such an approach. In partnership with producers, researchers, consumers, retailers, and others, TFA has developed a farm evaluation and approval program. Farmers practicing sustainable agriculture who meet our strict eligibility criteria label their products with the TFA seal of approval: TFA-Approved. Consumers look for the TFA-Approved seal when they shop, and buy with the knowledge that they are supporting environmentally friendly and socially responsible farming practices.

The Food Alliance’s role in the community is threefold. We’ve yet to fully satisfy consumer desire for environmentally friendly and socially just products, while responsible farmers lack the resources to differentiate their products in the marketplace. The TFA-Approved program provides farmers with increased market share, retailers with a broader range of environmentally friendly products to offer their customers, and consumers greater access to healthy food and information about how it was produced.

Originally designed on a regional scale, today the TFA-Approved program connects farmers, ranchers, retailers and consumers across the Northwest. From lush row crops in the Willamette Valley, dry-land farms and ranches in Eastern Oregon and Washington, to cranberry bogs and dairies scattered along the coast – it is our intent to reinforce the principles of sustainable agriculture in communities throughout the Northwest. TFA-Approved products are increasingly accessible across the region, from Portland, Oregon grocery stores and rural farmers markets, to Holiday Inns in Montana and four-star restaurants in Seattle, Washington. TFA-Approved farmers, consumer members and supporters are spread across the Northwest and beyond.

In the past year and a half the TFA-Approved label has generated tremendous consumer support, as well as significant marketplace returns for TFA farmers. We believe we are now poised to grow our program significantly, delivering value to increasing numbers of farmers, retailers, manufacturers, and consumers. Our work is guided by four broad goals:

1. Increase the number and type of farmers who qualify for the TFA seal of approval.
2. Increase the number of farm stands, restaurants and grocery stores that carry TFA products.
3. Increase consumer awareness of and demand for TFA-Approved products.
4. Share lessons learned from our project so that the model can be replicated.

Presentation summary
If we focus on the choices and challenges that arise when examining the Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) and ISO 14000 in the environmental marketing context it is useful to isolate: GOALS, GEOGRAPHY and GUARANTEES for the purposes of comparison. For the Environmental Farm Plan:

GOALS
The Farm Plan was instituted to meet 2 main goals:

1. demonstrate that the agriculture community is pro-active in terms of environmental management and therefore reduces need for government regulation
2. raise awareness about and improve environmental conditions in rural communities
• note economic marketing was not a founding objective
• to date has been very successful with meeting both these goals

GEOGRAPHY
Farm Plan began in Ontario based on ideas from Farm*A*Syst,

• created in conjunction with Ontario based farm and rural community groups
• suited Ontario conditions and farming types.
• note EFP versions now in place in maritimes/Atlantic region and future emphasis on becoming more national

GUARANTEES
EFP is essentially based on TRUST both within the agriculture community (peer review) and between agriculture community and immediate neighbors in rural/urban community.

Fast forward a few years from 1993-94 and arrive at 1996, when an international standard for Environmental Management Systems was published and has been gaining popularity in the non-farm industrial sector. In 1997, the possibility of adopting ISO 14001 in agricultural operations arose (Australian cotton producer and some Danish farms get certifications) and continues to be an important consideration. We can compare ISO with respect to the 3 dimensions used for the EFP:

ISO 14001 comes out of the ISO organization. By adding an environmental angle to its main goal we get:

to encourage free flow of goods and services in global markets through standardizing environmental management systems so that barriers to trade are minimized by inconsistent national standards. (note this is economic not environmental focus)

GEOGRAPHY
ISO designs all its standards and standardizing schemes to be global and uses the same approach and certification process in all countries and regions

GUARANTEES
Third Party certification/registration with regular audits and checks, based on rational-legal relations

The similarities and differences in ISO and the EFP are obvious when comparing them in terms of the 3 dimensions we have been highlighting.

Goals: EFP focuses on environmental improvement while ISO concentrates on economics; both are aimed at limiting the need for government rules and regulations.

Geography: EFP is centered on regional or local conditions while ISO is oriented to the global scene

Guarantees: EFP relies on trust based on tradition while ISO is in essence a performance contract with legal implications

It is quite understandable then that difficulties arise when we try to use EFP in ISO realm and/ or ISO in EFP realm; it is clear that their fundamentals are not fully compatible. Yet the Ontario agricultural community is interested in moving the EFP goal toward an environmental marketing model which is something that New Zealand, Sweden among other countries and/or regions have done with their EFP's.

The Environmental Quality Initiative, Inc., is a collaboration of diverse educational and environmental agencies and organizations. Formerly the Dairy Network Partnership, this newly incorporated non-profit has been created to provide voluntary, non-regulatory incentives for environmental protection. The Initiative has been designed to create a link between the farmers who produce our food and the consumers who purchase it.

EQI, Inc. is currently evaluating the feasibility of an eco-label, the EQI mark, through a one-year test market. The mark alerts consumers that a portion of their purchase price will be returned to participating farmers. The EQI mark was designed to be transferable to other geographic regions and commodities if the test market is successful.

In order to launch the EQI mark, the partner organizations developed Chesapeake Milk™. Through the Chesapeake Milk™ program, cooperating processors package and distribute a premium-priced milk product. This fluid milk product, available in whole, 2%, and fat free, is not qualitatively different from other shelved products, but is environmentally labeled. A price premium of $0.05 per half gallon is allocated to the "stewardship fund". This fund pays participating farmers a premium as an incentive for environmental performance.

Eligibility for the EQ premium is based on the Environmental Farmstead Evaluation, adapted from the national Farm*A*Syst program. A comprehensive set of site conditions is assessed, identifying both management weakness and stewardship excellence. All cooperating farmers are scored upon signing up, then annually. The Farmstead Evaluation score qualifies farmers for the EQ premium and prioritizes farms for EQI cost-share programs.

The EQI program is distinguished from other incentive programs in several ways. Farmers are recognized for their performance and prioritized for cost share funding based on their site-specific environmental management practices. They can earn an "environmental budget" to justify implementation of new practices. The program is completely voluntary, non-regulatory, and not tax-based. The program offers advantages to all stakeholders.

The Chesapeake Milk project is currently completing the one-year test market. The milk has, so far, been sold exclusively in Fresh Fields/Whole Foods Markets in the Chesapeake Bay region. The project has received considerable media coverage and political recognition.

Through the EQI, the partnership has reached several significant industry-related goals. Within the food industry, it has forged a link between a set of diverse educational/environmental interests and established commercial corporations. The partnership succeeded in developing and trade marking the eco-label and a new product. Many contacts have been established with retail chains and processors, creating the bridge for shared communications. The EQI succeeded in getting product placed on the retail shelf. And, focus group and retail surveys have resulted in data that can be shared and combined with other eco-label efforts.

On-farm accomplishments of the project are also significant. The program received active participation by most eligible farmers. This was an interesting response considering the number of Amish participants who do not accept tax-based cost share money for environmental improvements. Participating farmers did receive premiums on their milk checks. Annual Farmstead Evaluations and farmer surveys were completed on all farms. Over 70% of farmers participating made environmental quality improvements, even though several of these farmers already qualified for the premium. The program also funded two demonstration projects that featured field events and on-farm demonstration sessions of farmstead enhancements.

There were several challenges that the EQI faced in implementing the eco-label program. First, convincing retailers that there was opportunity in a consumer-funded environmental initiative was difficult. Second, and maybe most imposing, was the inability to control shelf price. Chesapeake Milk™ was, in some stores, priced as much as $0.60 per half gallon over other conventionally produced milk. Since consumers were aware that $0.05 of the purchase price was going to the stewardship fund, the price discrepancy turned many consumers off. Pre-order requirement from the distributor resulted in inconsistent availability. And finally, consumer confusion about the relationship to organic and new brand name recognition also posed difficulties.

Through this work, the EQI partners learned some valuable lessons. We learned that farmers are willing to participate in environmental audits with the prospect of a positive incentive, even a small one. We found that farmers made changes based on site-specific information and their own resources as a result of the audits and the intentions of the program. It was confirmed that consumers would not buy large volumes of eco-labeled products with high premiums, and that work needs to be done with retailers, distributors and processors to establish the final price to the consumer. These products must be promoted to result in sales, and consumer education is critical (although not well defined). For success, an eco-label program must have cooperative efforts from the whole chain in the food system.

Future plans for the EQI include expansion beyond the milk industry, and extension of the program to include other geographic regions. We wish to develop the EQI mark as a recognized eco-label for consumer support of environmentally protective products and production practices. The newly established non-profit will strive to be self-sustaining. Above all, EQI, Inc. hopes to partner with other organizations, agencies and corporations to leverage consumer support for environmental protection.

We’ve heard a lot about IPM today, do we really understand what IPM is all about?

IPM is a way to successfully address challenges by learning all we can about pests, letting the natural process take its course whenever possible, when we do need to act, choosing the least disruptive, lowest risk option at the right time.

Whenever possible, we want to focus our efforts on avoiding pest problems, before they occur, rather than responding after the fact.

IPM has entered the marketplace. A number of regionally and nationally active programs are marketing food grown using IPM to minimize impacts on the environment.

Our goals are very much the same as these organizations.

The IPM Institute is a non-profit organization formed a year ago to encourage broader adoption of IPM to improve the economic and environmental outcomes of food production.

What might we do to support the work of others and accelerate progress towards our mutual goals?

Lesson # 1. Writing requirements for participation in IPM-based programs is a big job. They need to be crop and region specific, updated annually based on input from producers, University and other experts, consumers, and environmental groups.

After many years of hard work, the industry is finally on the threshold of developing unified requirements for organic producers. We can head off this onerous task for IPM-based programs by creating and maintaining crop and region-specific standards for any organization to use. Your product might wear a Food Alliance, or a Core Values label for example, but you may be following very similar standards your program has adapted from the IPM Institute.

We will also develop a network of inspectors who can verify producer compliance with those standards.

This model is in place in Europe, where the International Organization for Biological Control has served this role, drafting an overarching set of standards for Integrated Tree Fruit Production, for example, standards that are adapted and used by a large portion of the fruit growers throughout Europe.

We will work to harmonize our Standards with others internationally, so that a producer exporting fruit to Europe might gain easier entry into markets looking for IPM product.

About these Standards. What are they? Why are they needed?

Lesson #2. Many producers use IPM. It’s easy to use IPM. For example, "scouting" is an IPM technique that many, many producers use. You go out and walk the fields looking for pest problems and respond accordingly. But if you do this once or twice a year, but do not use any other IPM techniques, what kind of IPM producer are you?

The marketplace wants to know how much IPM went into that IPM-identified product, just like it wants to know how much real fruit juice is in that can of juice "drink".

We can classify IPM practices into three levels - Low, Medium, and High Level IPM:

Low Level IPM is basic IPM. Treat only when you need to, based on monitoring pests and conditions. Certainly it is an improvement over regularly scheduled pesticide applications without regard to need.

We can do better than that.

Medium Level IPM producers, when they need to use a fungicide to control disease, producers will choose one that won’t harm natural enemies of insect pests, and one that represents the least risk to applicators. Medium Level IPM producers will treat only the portion of the crop that needs it, not the entire crop, when possible, reducing the overall pesticide load on the environment.

High Level IPM producers plan ahead. They choose crops that do well in their region without a lot of interventions. Crops that are naturally resistant to pests. Managing the soil to keep plants as healthy as possible.

How does this Low, Medium, High system work in practice? We use these levels as the basis for the Standards.

For example, apple growers need to deal with codling moth, a pest that results in wormy fruit. Depending on the level of IPM this producer practices, she can earn 6, 12 or 18 points towards IPM Certification. We make the producers job easier, by providing preassigned ranks for pest control options. The most highly toxic, most environmentally disruptive pest controls go in the Red List. The least risk, lower impact pest controls are on the Green List.

Similarly, a school can earn more Certification points by implementing high level IPM.

The IPM Standards then become a list of these low, medium and high levels for all of the insect, disease, weed and other pests a producer, or a school pest manager, has to deal with. Plus all the other key issues that impact pests and ensure a safe, successful outcome.

The Standards we produce can be used for Education, Self-evaluation, or Certification. To become Certified requires a minimum score, verification by an approved inspector and submission of pesticide application records.

Why might anyone want to take this step? Here are some of the benefits the Institute can work to deliver for producers, and that other organizations which can use Institute-produced and maintained Standards are already delivering.

Lesson #3. Market recognition. Consumer recognition of IPM is low. How might we increase recognition? Our first major project is IPM certification for schools. Schools are under increasing pressure to develop and implement IPM-based programs for the pests they deal with in buildings and on grounds. We can help them solve their problem by laying out clearly in a set of Standards for IPM in Schools. A certified school will have a much easier time communicating to people who want to know what they are doing to reduce pesticide risks.

Certified schools can provide educational materials to help build recognition for IPM in the marketplace.

This program will be expanded into other areas, and expand consumer recognition of IPM.

Q. Tom Green’s program is the only program that I recollect seeing anything about water resources management and with the safe drinking water act being implemented in every state and people beginning to develop source water protection plans farmers, especially in Ohio, are going to be targeted as contamination sources of our public drinking water supplies. I am wondering how any of your programs address that and can be incorporated into source water protection and can it be found in any of the ISO 14000’s or any of the management plans that any of you are working on?

A. Sandman: Our program does give points for having fully implemented NRCS conservation plans although they are mandated. Many folks do not have them completely implemented. We go out and look at those and the farm study evaluation, which is a score card targeted more for water quality. Those, in conjunction with the conservation plans can be looked at and evaluated for the impact on water quality specifically. So we can also track the improvements by looking at the score over time and looking to see that improvements are made and that changes are being put in place to protect water quality.

A. Wilson: Our environmental farm plan that I focused on is just one of three major initiatives that the coalition in Ontario is involved with. The other one is a water quality working group which has a water taking sub-group and a nutrient management group as well. But, there is only so much time to talk about these things. In our farm plan and in the evaluation there is probably a third of it would be around the issue of water quality, in terms of its self analysis. And then we would lead into ... if there is a problem—where do you go to find solutions?

A. Kane: Water issues are a third of what The Food Alliance is evaluating.

Q. Two questions relating to sustainability on the national and global level, first question directed to Ron. For example, Whole Foods Market sells food products that are processed down in Texas and they sell them up here in Wisconsin, so these food products are traveling long distances to get here and I am wondering why isn't there some support for processing food locally here within Wisconsin versus transporting food from Texas? What are we doing to support sustainable economic development in food? And then on a global level, question for Dan, I know that cereal is a new idea in the former Soviet Union, I imagine that cereal produced in the U.S. is being transported over there on jets and I am wondering what we can do to help farmers in the Soviet Union grow the grains to produce their own cereal.

A. Lautrop: What we are looking at is a food production system that is no longer based on local or regional inputs. We are looking at a production system both in conventional, natural and organic foods that are based on national and international abilities. And I don’t want to burst the bubble but Whole Foods Market has a significant amount of overseas projects also. What the question is, where can companies like Whole Foods—and others that are packaging products—where can they 1) most efficiently pack their products and 2) most cost effectively pack their products and 3) where are the highest quality ingredients going to come from? You look at that as an equation, you analyze it and merge it, and you come up with your answer. Now actually in Whole Foods case, I do not think most of their products are processed in Texas. What they do is—its just a disclaimer that they use that as their corporate address, distributed and/or manufactured by Whole Foods, Austin, Texas. Much as United Naturals will say distributed and/or manufactured by United Naturals, Dayville, Connecticut. Sometimes that might be tuna fish from overseas or pasta from Italy or oats from North Dakota. So if that answers your question its just a continuum of national and global economies, basically. And if you really want to achieve that regional connection, its there for you but you really have to make it happen—there are farmers markets, local bakeries ... you have to go out of the way to make it happen. If you are going to go to the conventional grocery store for products, you are going to be getting products that are nationally and internationally targeted.

A. Burke: I think another thing that begins to happen and also happens in the organic industry is that we begin to have an economy of scale. And as the percentage of product in Madison for example rises, for example from whatever it is today (3 or 4 percent) in organic foods rises to 10 or 20 percent—if it does then you will have more local manufacturing, because there will be a greater market opportunity. Relative to the question you had about cereal in Moscow, I really can’t address, but will say generally speaking in Western Europe there is a great deal of cereal type products consumed, not the kind we know, but of a more substantial hardy nature which is muslei. And going further, talking about some of the Eastern European countries, many of the countries in the former Soviet block are becoming major suppliers of certified organic grains, nuts, dried fruit, etc. and also processed fruits and vegetables that are going to western European countries. And as an example, we are involved in a project that we are just starting with an associated company that we do some business with—another trader, based in Europe. We are doing a small organic soybean project in one of the eastern European countries. Again, it makes more sense to transport that product more locally when it is possible.

Q. Thanks Ron that was a good explanation of how we deal with sourcing products and labeling. My question is to Tom, I know the organization is only a year old but do you have any projected timing on the development of standards for crops and who is going to develop them; and also, if you are an inspectors network, what will be the criteria for developing that?

A. Tom Green [conference organizer]: Our first major project we are starting will be IPM in schools and our process has been to create a technical review committee of IPM experts from around the country who have been working on the school issue with environmental representatives and school administrator representatives. We have just formed this past month this technical review committee. We’ll be doing a similar thing for our crop and region specific requirements as well. We expect that we will be doing the grunt work in-house in terms of drafting these things from the materials that are available and out there already. And, there are some excellent materials available from the land grants and in every crop and region of the country that allow you to draft these things—as I did personally for The Food Alliance—and get them in pretty good shape for someone to look at them from that region ... and they can say, "you're off here," "we need to fix this". ... We expect to have the schools program available this spring in April or May, 2000 at the latest. It will have multiple reviews of these standards both for structural and for exterior. We are working with some regional programs now and are talking with The Food Alliance about potential collaborating. We are talking to Food Choices which is a program here [Minnesota] and the [IPM] Institute has actually drafted some base standards for that program to take and then adapt to their own needs. So I think you’ll be seeing them come out in dribs and drabs as people request them. And they will be posted on the website when each item is completed. In terms of the verifiers ... –we will have to have some verifiers in place once the IPM in schools rolls out but those verifiers would not necessarily be qualified for crops. We will be looking at late next year before we would have any verifiers in place for crops, although there are people out there now doing that work for Wegman’s, for example, and we will be working with them to develop this program. We can also certify pest control operators so that their yellow page advertisement could have this IPM logo on it and show that they are qualified by a third party saying that they do IPM.

Q. Ellen, this question is about ISO 14000. My perception of it from doing a little bit of investigating is that they are very process oriented standards as distinct from having a real basis in the substance of what needs to be done, which is quite different in that sense from environmental farm plans which have both process and substance involved in them. So I know there is a debate in some circles about, internationally, the use of ISO processes actually a way of weakening and undermining environmental standards. Could you please comment on any of that in the context of agricultural situations?

A. Ellen Wall: ISO is very objectable in the sense that the standards a grower has to meet are standards that he/she have set. They are not rules and regulations—other than meeting the minimal legal requirements from the jurisdiction that they are in. So a grower could decide to have a standard and to put some very concrete goals and objectives in place in terms of lowering parts per million of nitrate that wash into a neighboring stream. Or, in the case of Mike Logan, his farm workers have blood and urine samples taken annually to see what happen to pesticides, metals, and he has demonstrated lowering them. This was his choice, he did not have to monitor these levels. So yes, on the one hand, ISO is very process and management system orientated; and on the other hand, it is open enough that you can introduce whatever substantial concrete measures you want to into it.

Q. I wanted to bring up the issue again of regional marketing. Are we trying to market a regional label as opposed to a national label? Many of you market yourself from a region and I am wondering what your perceptions about this are and whether the Hartman group has ever asked consumers whether eating locally is something that they care about.

A. Lautrup: I would just like to reiterate what I was trying to state—the national presence of processing and branding. But in no way shape or form was I discrediting or saying that regional production and/or consumption had application and it actually has the most application and personally I shop and do most of my acquiring regionally. I just wanted to make sure before the question was answered that I was understood. I am totally pro-regional and pro-local food procurement.

A. Kane: From The Food Alliance’s perspective, it's an issue we are still really grappling with. Originally, it was the Northwest Food Alliance and WFA, and then it became The Food Alliance for the sole purpose that we wanted to grow the program beyond the Northwest region. Right now we are a regional program and indorse farmers from Oregon and Washington. The other day we received our first application from California and expect to receive others from Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks. We did some focus groups with consumers ... and it wasn’t something we added into the Hartman report questions—we were not really thinking about "local" back then in 1997. But since then, we have done some consumer focus groups and we ask them what does "local" mean to you. In the Northwest it means everything from Oregon and Washington to including Idaho and Montana, but definitely not California! (laughter) So for our program and our group of growers who are producing crops in OR and WA, when those crops are sold in OR and WA retail outlets, those retailers tell their consumers that these are locally-grown products. But, its not a pre-qualifier for Food Alliance approval—much like Katherine was saying, we have no limitations on geographic scope and it becomes complicated because the best thing I can do to preserve Gary Well’s operation in Hoodriver, Oregon—an apple grower on 400 acres, is find for him markets outside of the Northwest. The best way to preserve that family farm is to take his product outside of the Northwest.

The breakout sessions served as a facilitated opportunity to examine the issues common to specific food production chains, as well as to make connections with other decision-makers and explore opportunities to create ongoing relationships. The breakout sessions included the following food production chains: Feed Grains, Meat and Dairy Products; Processed Food Grains and Sugar; and Potatoes, Fresh and Processed Fruit and Vegetables. Each session met twice.

A special "thank you" to the designated listeners for contributing summaries on key issues that were raised during the conference and breakout sessions. Please note that the listener's comments and summaries reflect not only the breakout sessions but also the conference as a whole.

I was asked to be a listener at the recent environmental labeling conference in Madison and then report on major messages I could hear in the conference. I found that what was of greater importance was what was not being said.

First, I'll start with something we already know. The inherent structure of the food system (and I'm trying not to sound like a Marxist here!) works to support the profitability and growth of the large players in it. The small players get marginalized in the large system. To a great extent, the small players are the consumers and the family farmers. Every other point along the distribution chain is populated by large players (getting larger) and with smaller players existing only to fill niches that the large players can't or don't want to bother with. As we know, that is also happening at the farm end.

The response we need to consider is how to counteract the push toward consolidation of food system control in large players that exist primarily in the center of the food distribution chain. The organic food system was not structured to counteract this push and is now beginning to follow in the footsteps of the conventional food system with consolidation of control at the center and in big players. The sustainable agriculture movement is just now on the verge of becoming a food system as labeling initiatives begin to become successful. What can we institutionalize structurally in the sustainable agriculture food system from the beginning that can keep the power balanced throughout the distribution chain?

What if, ..., we institutionalize counterbalancing structures or mechanisms at the two ends of the chain, which are currently marginalized--consumers and farmers. For consumers, this could be putting in place a powerful consumer organization committed to the conscious consumption of food. There are no really strong consumer organizations in existence, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't work or aren't needed. Consumers' Union could be a powerful partner for this. For farmers, developing the environmental labels so that ownership and profitability is maintained with the farmers, including value-added production. This could mean co-ops, franchises, and marketing associations.

What if, ..., we in the sustainable agriculture movement not only work with farm practices and identification of product to consumers, but also dig our fingers in more deeply to deal with the underlying structural aspects and power dynamics of the food system and work to remold parts of them to truly support a sustainable food supply. Staying very regional and small is one answer because we bypass the current system to a great extent. But to become truly impactful, we need to mainstream and do so consciously. And NOW is when we must think of these things.

This is just a twist of logic on things we already know. But I think it has some importance.

1. Better understandings of the environmental impacts of IPM farming systems

We need much better landscape level data to respond to Laura Doliner’s concern about the relationship between acreage changes in IPM and changes in the impacts on the biotic and natural resource base (whether pesticide infusions or soil health). Unless "green marketing" is just hype, we need to be far clearer than we currently are with regard to our claims about environmental impact and regeneration.

2. Better understandings of the distributional effects of ecolabeling

I second Deborah Kane’s call for better measurement and evaluation of the benefits (and downsides) of ecolabeling for key groups in the food system: farmers, consumers, manufacturers, and retailers. I would be particularly interested in looking at the level and the distribution of economic benefits from these new food systems we are inventing, particularly whether or not farmers and small/midsize processors gain a higher percentage of the consumer food dollar than is gained under conventional food systems.

3. Better understandings of the "social" dimensions of "green" food systems

Discussions of production and economic dimensions tend to dominate our discussions. Ann Woods and Genevieve Carruthers offered several important observations regarding social dimensions. I would add the following:

1. Better information regarding consumer attitudes and values regarding such issues as: labor conditions and practices in food production; fair trade and fair prices; local production and regional foodsheds; enterprise scale and ownership structure of food businesses, from farms to retail stores.
2. Better understandings of the roles played in the development of alternative food systems by such "middle organizations" as the Organic Alliance, the Food Alliance, or Wegman’s supermarkets.
3. Better understandings of markets as "educational space" in addition to "commercial space."
4. Better understandings of the roles played in farmers’ adoption of IPM systems by such groups as agricultural supply enterprises (pesticide and fertilizer dealers), agriprofessionals (private crop consultants or university Extension staff), and institutional customers (e.g., Wegman’s).
4. More rigorous examination of our assumptions

I was personally troubled by several of the assumptions undergirding much of the conference and would urge us to more rigorously examine them. Examples include the following two associated with Harvey Hartman’s presentation:

1. That our planet’s collective good (including that of non-human species) will be maximized by growing the "life style choices" of relatively affluent consumers in the industrialized world.
2. That we should be proud to push ahead with selling people "community and wellness"? (What kinds of assumptions regarding the nature of community building are embedded here? What kind of community is achieved through primarily consumption behavior? What is changed and what new is engaged when eaters define their activity as food citizenship rather than food consumption?)

When asked to be a "listener" for research needs during the conference, I tried to keep myself as unbiased and open to the full range of comments both in sessions and in extemporaneous conversations. Filtered through a marketer’s mindset, most of the information seemed consistent with traditional market research. I shared the following outline from a standard marketing plan, which included the market research section, during one of the brainstorming sessions. It has subsequently been asked for by a number of attendees. The first phase, the Situation Assessment, is where market research is conducted, and where many of the questions heard at the conference are usually answered. As you will note, in some instances, the information is specific to the client, but for the majority of the assessment, general overarching trend and consumer data is sought. (The Problems Definition/Opportunities Analysis, Strategies and Evaluation sections are standard plan development and are not applicable to this discussion.)

Specific examples of research questions/topics voiced at the conference include how large scale trends factor into the lives of customers. Will globalization and international trade play enough of a role in the U.S. that growers should place more consideration on ISO 14000 standards? Will diversity trends continue at the projected pace throughout the country or in specific urban areas and, subsequently, will new product introductions be necessary to fill the needs of the Hispanic or Asian communities? Will consumers look to the Internet for purchasing food or will it remain primarily an information source?

One of the values of the conference often mentioned during the two days was the ability to share what I would label "industry trends." Labeling, production standards, and policy trends are communicated at these events as well as in newsletters, such as the IATP (International Agriculture and Trade Policy) LABELS email bulletin, via list serves, such as the IFFS (Integrated Food and Farming System) list and from advocacy groups such as the regional SAWGs (Sustainable Agriculture Working Groups.) Although the industry has been providing this information, there was a great deal of enthusiasm expressed for more face-to-face opportunities with others working specifically on "environmental marketing."

Understanding consumer behavior was clearly the most often stated need I heard within the two days. Harvey Hartmann shared early in the conference his research on the natural products consumer. There was a great deal of conversation after the session about the need for more. A myriad of other consumer questions emanated from that session, specifically about the current environmentally focused buyer.

Participants voiced great concern over a couple of specific questions. First, do consumers really change their perception of non-environmentally grown products when environmentally grown products are promoted? Second, can consumers truly decipher between production methods or are they simply becoming confused and overwhelmed?

Finally, other target markets were mentioned. For example, NGO brand builders asked, what strategies meet the needs of farmers? What about needs of retail buyers in the US versus those in, for example, the European Union?

Not many specific questions fell into this category. During side conversations, however, participants mentioned the need for grower groups and processors to better understand their competitors’ strategies, particular multi-nationals that are beginning to enter new "environmentally grown" categories.

One question which was alluded to on a variety of occasions was the need to understand more clearly the economic return (actual vs. projected) of environmental production. Whether or not economic return is considered a "competitive analysis" question, the need for more information as a basis to better inform the pricing and positioning processes was articulated.

Listening for research needs was an extremely informative role, albeit with a bit of a predisposition. Market research is something I strongly believe in and advocate for the food and farming movement.

The industry trends information currently available is very useful to growers and processors. However, in general, the large companies who are moving in come with extensive dedication to more specific market research. They invest significantly in consumer data collection and rarely make a decision without it. Research being done by the Hartmann Group has been extremely beneficial to environmental growers and processors, but it is the large players who now seek Harvey’s expertise. The types of research needs heard most often at the conference were those very questions multi-nationals invest so heavily in answering.

Some of the marketing leaders in food and farming, such as The Food Alliance, Mothers & Others and the Organic Alliance, have modeled considerable investment in consumer research. Whether individual growers or processors choose to emulate that level of commitment or whether service providers expand market research information collection and dissemination, the need for market research was clearly and loudly, articulated at the conference.

1. Concerns about the tension between regional/local and international marketing. Each will have a different strategy. How do you resolve the differences? Is one preferable to the other?

2. Definition of terms. There is a need for clear designations regarding what constitutes organic, IPM, and so on; also, need to investigate the significant differences between "brand" and "label".

3. The connection between human health and the environment needs to be established for marketing purposes. What are the implications here?

4. Demographic reality has to be taken into account. Are the values and needs of different groups being taken into account? Or, is the well-educated white middle class assumed to represent all North America?

5. Concerns about the notion of "freedom to choose" and meeting consumer demands in the market place. Need to recognize the manner in which consuming publics "needs" are subject to manipulation through marketing.

6. The role of the Internet and information networks will become increasingly important. What do we know about the issues related to cyberspace and environmental marketing/labeling?

7. What is the role of public institutions in marketing? Should they be developing markets? Sticking to regulation? Incorporating marketing in extension services?

8. Eventually "green" producers/marketers will be in heavy competition. How can business tactics be reconciled with loftier goals for environmental improvement?

9. How can food safety and environmental quality issues be merged? Are they significantly different?

10. What does this all mean for agricultural producers/growers?

The following are notes that I presented at the closing plenary session based on observations at the conference. I should clarify that the following are simply impressions I had, based on what I heard, with all the bias I carry. I apologize if I took any comments out of context--it was not intentional. I would hope to instill some thought regarding the applicability of the suggestions.

As a fly on the wall:

• is the issue an abundant supply of agricultural products, by a shrinking number of farmers to a shrinking number of buyers?
• is there an inherent conflict of interest with groups who want to put forth an agenda and farmers who need to sell the crop?
• is the role of vested interest groups, marketing, or education?
• if the initial focus is to superimpose a group's agenda on a product for marketing, then do we market the product or market the agenda?
• what about producers who may be leery of full-blown organic and are looking for ways of addressing the accountability of what they do?
• conversely, what about organic producers who appear concerned about potential erosion of their markets by conscientious consumers?
• do growers who are willing to consider some form of change, have access to information that can address or allay their fears surrounding that change?
• the criteria don't work
• fear of financial risk
• anomalies they may face
• does the loss of seasonality, especially in produce, add to the confusion in consumers' minds; can they relate to the environmental impact of getting that off-season item to them? do they care?
• conversely, does the seasonality in northern climate add to the difficulty?
• can there be common ground or trust built between current or past adversaries, as situations change?
• are we willing to ever admit we were or are wrong?-- witness the GMO debate!
• are producers worried about being pawns in a game where they carry most or all the financial risk?
• are we trying to accelerate the timelines around the baggage or barriers we all carry?
• regarding Eco labeling: what is it? Is it any different than the normal competitive nature of suppliers?
• does eco-labeling breed competition unto itself--the "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome?
• can we depoliticize the whole environmental/eco-labeling front?
• are we willing to consider internationally recognized standards?
• are we willing to consider one standard, internationally, for Integrated Pest Management?
• can we define or measure success? (for growers, marketers, consumers)
• can we define or incorporate local factors, especially if they revolve around a seasonal product in competition with a national year-round product from a variety of sources, or countries?
• how do we deal with political intervention?
• again, my eco-label is better than yours!
• finally, how do we fund the research and development that is required to move any of these issues forward? The one group that volunteered some figures being 1/4% of farm gate sales, strikes me as woefully inadequate to properly seek the information necessary.

That is the extent of the comments I wrote. Like it or not we have bought into a market driven economy, where the consumer votes with their dollars rather than their hearts or minds. Perhaps if we spent some time to find ways around that barrier we could achieve some progress. To take a successful regional initiative to a larger venue, requires a degree of compromise that I suspect few groups are willing to consider. Integrated Pest Management combined with some form of environmental farm planning could be a sound basis for an ISO 14000 type of approach. Do we give up too much individual or regional recognition to make that effort appealing? I can’t answer that, but I would suggest that in the long haul the consumer will not be able to keep track of all the local or regional initiatives and will tune out or find some sexy new bandwagon to jump onto. (GMO free?)

I hope we can continue to explore and debate these ideas. It would be a shame to let all the effort of the organizing committee end at this point in time. To instill a higher level of confidence in our overall food supply with a measurable increase in quality, strikes me as an approach that I would put my money on, rather than trying to increase my market share at the expense of my neighbor, whether they be local, national or international.

Contact:
Jeff Wilson
Birbank Farms
RR 3
Orton, Ontario LON 1NO
Canada
Tel: 519-855-6519
Fax:519-855-6061