IndexOrganic Farming ProposalResearchCause for Policy ChangeMethodConclusionOrganic Farming ProposalSince organic products are such an important part of the U.S. food industry , it's important to take steps to ensure that consumers get what they pay for and can trust the purchasing process. In ancient times, organic farming was the only way to practice agriculture, but in the recent past, conventional methods have taken over, destroying the fertility of American soil and using harmful pesticides. When organic farming returned to the forefront in the 1950s, rules and regulations were introduced to ensure that quality, certified organic foods were placed on shelves. However, the regulations are difficult to apply to foreign countries such as China, which exports supposedly organic products to the United States. We designed a method to test consumer confidence in the USDA Organic seal placed on purportedly qualified organic foods and hypothesized that a large number of consumers who purchase organic foods are unaware of the lack of controls on these foods before they are allowed on store shelves. grocery stores. Understanding the percentage of consumers who trust this food based solely on the seal will help generate evidence to pursue policy change. In an industry where the ethics for financial gain are lacking, many producers will stop at nothing, but when the health of humanity is at stake, things can get very dangerous. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayResearch Organic food sales in the United States reached $35.1 billion in 2013, making the United States the largest organic market in the world. This means that 5% of food sales in the United States come from organic products (Mosier). Due to the large impact that organic products have on the market and on consumers, this is an industry that should be heavily regulated, “however, the organic food market is in a unique position because its supply chain is interdependent with policies of organic certification managed by state and federal policy makers” (Mosier). These certification policies have proven less than satisfactory in the past, causing products that aren't actually organic to go unnoticed. In this essay, scientific articles about organic products, the processes they go through to obtain certification, and issues related to the organic certification systems of the United States and China will be critically analyzed, and a new research method on this topic will be shown. When it comes to something as important as food, regulations are necessary, but some industries go to great lengths to make extra money regardless of the health consequences, resulting in misleading labels on products at your local grocery store. The pioneer of the organic movement in the United States is called Jerome Rodale. “In 1942, Rodale published Organic Farming Magazine, which provided a platform to spread his belief in organic food and his distaste for chemically induced agriculture” (Liu). Rodale analyzed the ways in which modern agriculture was destroying soil fertility and producing unhealthy products. “Organic agriculture can be broadly defined as a “holistic production management system that promotes and improves the health of the agroecosystem,including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity” (Mosier). Rodale “vividly compared chemical fertilizers to whipping a horse, accelerating growth but accelerating fatigue” (Liu). Rodale's push for organic processes in the United States paid off as the government began to understand the consequences of infertile soil due to continued conventional agriculture. Soon after, organic methods began to become normalized in the United States, and consumers were willing to pay higher prices for pesticide-free fruits and vegetables. Without a doubt, farmers began to fraudulently pass off conventionally grown produce as organic, since conventional production costs were lower. Organic methods are more expensive because “organic producers may face a shortage of organic seeds, pesticides, and other inputs or may face higher prices for these inputs, and because of the relatively intensive use of labor, specialized equipment, and other substitutes for synthetic chemical products” (Veldstra). In the 1970s, local and state governments knew they needed to take action against this fraudulent activity to regulate the market. Most states created regulations, but over time they noticed that each state had different standards. This caused a disruption in the market that the federal government took notice of. “The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was passed by Congress as Title XXI of the Farm Bill of 1990” (Mosier). This law introduced national rules on what can and cannot be labeled “organic.” The goal was to assist consumers in choosing what they wanted to eat and assure them that they would get what they paid for. The Farm Bill also led to the National Organic Program (NOP) and the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which were administered by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. “The NOP is responsible for setting standards for organic production, handling and processing. Additionally, the NOP oversees organic certification to ensure compliance with established standards. As another key element of the legislation, the NOSB is an advisory committee to establish the standards under which the NOP operates” (Mosier). Certification was now required in order to display the USDA Organic seal on products in stores. Many farmers wanted to get certified, but the process wasn't easy, so some farmers, even those producing organic products, chose not to get certified and simply relied on their close relationships with local consumers to drive their business . “There were multiple barriers to organic certification, including the three-year transition period, the financial and time costs of certification, and the paperwork” (Veldstra). Farmers had to debate whether or not it was worth getting certified to get more revenue for organic produce. Many factors influenced this decision for farmers. While market forces have driven organic dispersal and policies, “less direct financial support for the transition, the perceived cost of certification, and other marketing opportunities that do not require certification have led to interesting dynamics in determining what producers choose to certify” (Mosier). To obtain organic certification, farmers had to ensure their products were grown organically three years before receiving certification. Despite not being able to obtain certification before the three-year waiting period expired, some farmers were able toraise prices by marketing their products as “transitional.” Some farmers did not become certified because they did not believe that the profit from organic certification would outweigh the costs, and some simply did not have access to consumers willing to pay extra for organic produce. Since the market drives US policy regarding organic products, “there is some financial support for organic certification; US producers are eligible to receive a reimbursement of their share of the cost of organic certification up to 75%, but not to exceed $750 per year (Veldstra). This differs in Europe, where the European Common Agricultural Policy guarantees organic farmers large subsidies, which allow them to more easily obtain certification. Some manufacturers in the United States do not obtain certification because they do not believe that certifiers are sufficiently trained in their tasks. “The same manufacturers who strongly agree that the certification process is confusing also say that interacting with the certifier is a major barrier. This suggests that some certifiers may be adding to the confusion” (Veldstra). One solution to this problem would be to train certifiers in a way that allows them to be more helpful in conveying information to manufacturers about how the process works and training them to complete the process quickly and effectively. In research conducted by Michael D. Veldstra, smaller farms were more likely to produce organic crops “motivated primarily by their philosophical beliefs than none of those growing more than 50 acres.” While philosophical beliefs are strong on some farms, others are more concerned with financial gain, forcing some of them to hide under the umbrella of the term “local.” In places like farmers markets, where consumers have a direct relationship with farmers, farmers are able to charge more for their products by enticing consumers with the term “local,” which many consumers assume means “organic.” . Furthermore, this lack of consumer awareness may allow producers to “pick and choose” which organic practices to follow, while still marketing their products as organic” (Veldstra). This is a problem because this is deceptive marketing and the consumer is not getting what they paid for. While this may seem unacceptable, even greater measures are being taken in China to deceive consumers into thinking they are buying organic products, to the point where some measures are deadly. In 2008 the US organic industry became a $21.1 billion industry, and like many other, other products, manufacturers were unable to keep up with demand, so they began making reliance on imports to satiate hungry consumers. “As much as 40% of organic foods consumed in the United States are imported from over 100 countries” (Liu). USDA agents have been assigned to travel to these foreign countries, like China, for example, and certify producers to grow organic foods and allow them to use the USDA organic seal and import them into the United States (Liu) . With the demand for organic produce so high, these agents knew they had to return home after accrediting a large number of farmers. "(Liu). The goal was to hold these international producers to the same standards as U.S. organic farmers, meaning no pesticide use was allowed three years before selling theproducts in stores. While these rules seemed effective, beneath all the regulations lies the truth, that some pesticides are actually authorized by OFPA to be used on organic produce. This means that when consumers go to the store to purchase organic products under the guise that no pesticides were used in the production of these products, they are deceived by the USDA Organic label. "As William J. Friedman, former vice president of the US National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), explained, "organic labels are not statements regarding the healthiness, nutritional value, or overall safety of consuming such products" (Liu) . Since China is so out of reach for regularly scheduled NOP (National Organic Program) site visits, it is easy for Chinese products to be passed off as organic in the United States even when they are not crucial to preserving farmers' honesty, but in one case, “the inspector general found that the NOP Office failed to conduct initial on-site assessments for five foreign certifying agents for as long as seven years after the Office conditionally accredited the agents” (Liu) However, this left a lot of room for error and seven whole years of deception within the foreign organic industry. Agents occasionally travel to China to monitor production processes and test residues on products to ensure farmers were compliant. These visits were scarce. This is due to budget and limited numbers of agents and is simply not sufficient to ensure that organic imports are regulated and held to sufficiently high standards. “In the most egregious cases, the USDA has granted foreign certifying agents conditional accreditations based only on paper applications and not verified their compliance for up to seven years” (Liu). Dishonest growers not only negatively impact consumers, but they drive compliant growers out of stores due to their low prices. Some specific cases of deception involving organic products have been reported in large supermarkets in the United States. In one case, Whole Foods marketed one of its organic snacks as “California” on the front of the package, but in very small print on the back it said “imported from China” (Liu). This marketing by Whole Foods misleads consumers into thinking the product comes from California, which is arguably more tightly regulated than China when it comes to organic produce. “In its rebuttal to the 2008 ABC news story discussed above, Whole Foods attempted to convince consumers that it was irrelevant whether their organic products came from Chinese or domestic manufacturers because both were subject to the same regulations and oversight. However, it turned out that certification agents working in China don't even understand the NOP regulations” (Liu). This misconception stems from the USDA's lack of training of certifiers, which in turn causes confusion for producers when untrained certifiers come in and share incorrect or inadequate information. “In 2006, Wal-Mart stores in China had to remove fresh organic produce from their shelves because a surprise inspection revealed that produce from a trusted Beijing-based farm was actually treated with pesticides” (Liu ). Numerous Chinese producers have claimed to follow production rules while being deceptive and using conventional farming techniques to gain more revenue. This is harmful to consumers as they may have health problems related to pesticides and other chemicals used by manufacturersconventional, and this is also bad for their wallets, as they are shelling out more money for a product that they think is of a higher standard, but isn't. Reasons for a Policy Change When the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was introduced, there were high hopes for the regulation of organic products in the United States. Perhaps consumers could now feel confident that the food they were purchasing and eating was free of harmful pesticides, GMOs and chemicals. This act proposed a national list of chemicals and pesticides not allowed in the production of organic produce, and certifiers were sent to organic farms to make sure the regulations were followed. “Currently the National List allows the use of over sixty synthetic substances in organic agricultural production” (Liu). In addition to national visits to organic producers, international visits must also be carried out. This section of the essay will discuss the three ways in which internationally imported products can be sold on U.S. grocery store shelves, as well as the shortcomings of this certification process and the ways in which the certification policy should be improved in the future. to put an end to the problems associated with non-organic products that go unnoticed. Consumers should not have to worry about whether or not their money will go towards certifiable foods and whether they are consuming safe products. The first way foreign producers are able to sell organic products in the United States is to obtain certification from a USDA agent. “Currently, there are ninety-four USDA accredited agents, of which fifty-three are domestic agents and forty-one are foreign agents” (Liu). These agents should then perform routine checks at these locations to ensure they continue to follow USDA regulations to produce honest imports for the United States. “In 2007, USDA-accredited certifying agents certified 27,000 producers and handlers to U.S. organic standards: “approximately 16,000 in the United States and 11,000 in more than 100 foreign countries” (Liu). The second way foreign producers can access the US organic market is by making use of a Recognition Agreement in accordance with State Organic Program (SOP) regulations. This allows the products to display the USDA seal on them when they are placed on shelves. “Currently, USDA has recognition agreements with Denmark, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom” (Liu). The third way, used by Canada, uses an equivalence agreement which is fundamentally based on trust that the Canadian organic regulatory system is robust enough to allow their products to enter the United States without national testing and vice versa. Chenglin Liu's research was published in the Stanford Journal of International Law titled "Is 'USDA Organic' a Seal of Deception? The Pitfalls of USDA-Certified Organic Products Produced in the United States, China and Beyond" provided a wealth of insights used in this essay. Liu's article “Is 'USDA Organic' a Seal of Deception? The Pitfalls of USDA-Certified Organic Products Produced in the United States, China and Elsewhere” concludes that the current regulatory framework is not only inadequate to the task of regulating the domestic organic products, but is also unable to guarantee the integrity of imported organic products.” The OFPA of 1990 was passed to guide consumers and end confusion when it comes to organic products in grocery stores USDA on food should have ensured consumers that they consume quality food, free of pesticides and chemicals. However, this,.