Demand for Organic Food Outstrips Supply in U.S.

[ComandanteCero]

interesting article..........hopefully, this will encourage more local organic food production.....

Big appetite: Demand for organic food outstrips supply in U.S.

By Libby Quaid
ASSOCIATED PRESS

12:04 p.m. July 6, 2006

WASHINGTON – No almonds. Big problem.

The makers of the high-energy, eat-and-run Clif Bar needed 85,000 pounds of almonds, and they had to be organic. But the nation's organic almond crop was spoken for.

Eventually, Clif Bar found the almonds – in Spain. But more shortages have popped up: apricots and blueberries, cashews and hazelnuts, brown rice syrup and oats.

America's appetite for organic food is so strong that supply just can't keep up with demand. Organic means food is grown without bug killer, fertilizer, hormones, antibiotics or biotechnology.

“We're doing a lot of scrambling,â€

[nota]

Organic is still really in its infancy. Many things that are certified organic are still not as good as the regular stuff. Others are wonderful. More trial and error.

I have a family member who has taken over a few acres of his farm to grow organic tomatoes, tomatillos and peppers for a few Mexican restaurants. It is a several year and very labor intensive proposition. I don't know whether or not he will stick with it.

I dont' buy organic over regular stuff often-only when it looks better. And sometimes stuff that says it is organic is really not. Such as stuff displayed beside the organic sections not labeled, but given to the assumption that it too is organic.

[KCMax]

I noticed Wal Mart is beginning a huge Organics campaign. Kudos to them for at least trying.

[nota]

I noticed Wal Mart is beginning a huge Organics campaign. Kudos to them for at least trying.

Just never forget that it is all about image and business for Walmart. Has nothing at all to do with any altruistic motives at all.

[bbqboy]

I noticed Wal Mart is beginning a huge Organics campaign. Kudos to them for at least trying.

what NOTA said.

[KCMax]

Who cares? If they can provide healthier food to more people at a cheaper price, I'm for it.

[bbqboy]

Organic is still really in its infancy. Many things that are certified organic are still not as good as the regular stuff. Others are wonderful. More trial and error.

I have a family member who has taken over a few acres of his farm to grow organic tomatoes, tomatillos and peppers for a few Mexican restaurants. It is a several year and very labor intensive proposition. I don't know whether or not he will stick with it.

I dont' buy organic over regular stuff often-only when it looks better. And sometimes stuff that says it is organic is really not. Such as stuff displayed beside the organic sections not labeled, but given to the assumption that it too is organic.

Organic almost never looks as good, but almost always tastes better.
Here in Southern Oregon, we have many Family Organic  Farms + Chicken, Lamb, Beef, and Buffalo operations. (and Wines)
We also have an Amy's Kitchen Plant opening soon. They have contracted with several of the above mentioned to ensure a steady supply of raw product to make into various pre-packaged retail items.
I think this is  the way it'll work out.
Someone needs to guarantee the efforts of folks like NOTA's  family member, or it's an iffy and $$$ transition from Chemicals to Certified Organic.
Here's our Organic Junk:
    http://www.tilth.org/certification/index.html

[warwickland]

Who cares? If they can provide healthier food to more people at a cheaper price, I'm for it.

it's still walmart with all of its hidden costs...doesnt matter if it is organics or healthier food they are marketing or bouncier rubber balls...

[leaf]

organic food, assuming it is pretty fresh, "looks" better in my opinion, because it looks like a real, true to life piece of whatever it is.  the shiny, spotless, perfectly colored fruits are what "looks bad" to me.  they look like props in a model home. 

there is a HUGE disparity in quality amongst organic products, however, mostly a result of large corporations buying up organic companies and controlling organic farms.  even more troubling, the food lobby is constantly lobbying congress to lower the standards for what can be considered "organic."  they have been successful so far, therefore some products labeled "organic" may not be what you think they are. 

the great organic products are still out there.  they are just being crowded out by big corporations with lots of marketing/inventory muscle. 

for more on this issue, here is a link to a NY Times article about it.  you might need a password and user ID, but it's free and quick to set up.  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/magaz ... nted=print

[beccanator]

I have a family member who has taken over a few acres of his farm to grow organic tomatoes, tomatillos and peppers for a few Mexican restaurants. It is a several year and very labor intensive proposition. I don't know whether or not he will stick with it.

you are right, it is difficult and not everyone is cut out for it, but the best way to insure his success is to provide moral support and constant encouragement.

one of my family members is an organic farmer and he had difficulty keeping things "in stock". Eggs are such a hot commodity that there is always a waiting list or they get "auctioned" off.

Way to support sustainalble farming practices, local economies and a healthier lifestyle, America!

[Slappy the Wang]

I love Cliff Bars and I'm glad they found the almonds in Spain....probably for 1/4 the cost of amerikan almonds.

[nota]

I love Cliff Bars and I'm glad they found the almonds in Spain....probably for 1/4 the cost of amerikan almonds.

Yeah. I wonder what they pay the little guy who picks them. Maybe not unlike shoes in Indonesia.

[MidtownGrrl]

I've been reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma" for the past couple weeks. It's been very educational with regards to organic meat production and agriculture. I'd recommend the book to anyone interested in organic food and food production in general. There is a lot of discussion about the benefits (or lack thereof) of organic foods and production methods. 

[nota]

I've been reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma" for the past couple weeks. It's been very educational with regards to organic meat production and agriculture. I'd recommend the book to anyone interested in organic food and food production in general. There is a lot of discussion about the benefits (or lack thereof) of organic foods and production methods. 

That is one of the things I see. Sometimes there is no clear benefit of organic over regular. But it's the darling right now.

[leaf]

if a specimen of "organic" food is truly organic (and of decent quality), then there is no reason to suggest that its non-organic brethren possesses equal or greater quality.  all other things being equal, a piece of fruit or a vegetable that is free from GMO, chemicals, etc. is better than one slathered in all that stuff. 

it's also not the "darling" right now, though it is a key market for giant producers to move into.  it's a "darling" growth area, but not a darling "area" of the industry generally.  Kraft will continue to produce disgusting fake foods AND move into the organic market if it thinks it can make a buck.  these mass producers and industrial farmers are essentially bent on stripping the true value out of organic.

[beccanator]

the limited environmental impact of organic agriculture is a big enough selling point for me. let us not forget that the majority of the chemicals that go into producing the "pretty" fruits and vegetables, to which most of us have become accustomed, wind up in agricultural runoff and therefore in our streams/rivers and in our drinking water, as well as in the soil and all surrounding plant fibers. the use of heavy machinery and the size of the agricultural operation is generally smaller, therefore also limiting the negative ecological impacts.

[MidtownGrrl]

That is one of the things I see. Sometimes there is no clear benefit of organic over regular. But it's the darling right now.

To be clear, in the book, Pollan is critical of the industrialization of organic food production and the standards implemented by the USDA.  He does make a case for differences in nutrional value based on the production method.  It absolutely makes sense to me that the types of inputs affect the outputs.  We as a society are not developing food for nutritional impact, we are generally developing it for marketability (convenience, constant availability, quick turnaround of product, consistency).

[nota]

To be clear, in the book, Pollan is critical of the industrialization of organic food production and the standards implemented by the USDA.  He does make a case for differences in nutrional value based on the production method.  It absolutely makes sense to me that the types of inputs affect the outputs.  We as a society are not developing food for nutritional impact, we are generally developing it for marketability (convenience, constant availability, quick turnaround of product, consistency).

It really really depends upon where one eats in the food chain.

I prefer FACT before I change any habits I may or may not have regarding my lifestyle. So far many of the FACTS are somewhat in the "iffy" stages.

So far, there have been no FACTS in this thread. Just assumption and generalization. Yep, those can turn a whole gang of people's opinions in a different direction but there is not much ACTUAL EVIDENCE that organic food is that much better for people. So far, I've seen nothing to tell me that the actual nutrients in an apple for instance are not the same no matter how it is grown.

So far, to this Kansas farm girl, organic needs to prove itself more for me to just blindly say that organic is better.

Here's a little "difference of opinion" site with a lot of research done that states pretty much how I think about me making a whole lot of effort to change to organic foods. Yes, of course there is benefit in eating some organic foods, but it often isn't enough to offset the costs nor the efforts made to grow it.

[leaf]

sounds to me like someone is just rationalizing not spending the extra few bucks at the checkout counter. 

which do you think is better for you:

apple one:  contains all the nutrients and taste of an apple, but is soaked in 20 chemicals that not only appear in the fruit, but leach into the groundwater, nearby habitats, etc., poisoning the environment year by year.

apple two:  contains all the nutrients and taste of an apple, but is comparatively free of those chemicals that harm the consumer as well as the environment.



the only reason organic has such high "costs" is that it is different than industrial farming which is focused on nothing but yield and low costs and that's about it.  if some good old-fashioned american (or whatever) ingenuity was applied and some resources allocated, i am sure that organic farming could become much cheaper. 

also, there is a lot more that goes into the terms "cheap" and "expensive" than monetary input/output that people seem to like to forget.  there are a zillion hidden costs (and benefits, surely) of each system, but i think that people like to point out the faults w/organic farming/prduce as an excuse for why they support status quo farming that has even more costs.  consider the social, environmental, and cultural costs of Big Ag and it's pretty clear to me which way to go.  unfortunately, the things that make Big Ag evil are seeping into the "organic" market due to these same players getting into that market and exerting its considerable pressure on Congress to loosen the standards so those companies can do what they do best:  lower expectations and meet them.

[nota]

Sounds to me like someone who has swallowed all the organic propaganda hook line and sinker without their own research. But to each his own.

Although I offered a different view backed up with research and FACT, you chose not to read it so I bow to your superior knowledge and impeccable rationalization since you so far have presented no FACTS to support your claims.

I'm not into "which do you think is better for you:" unless there are some FACTS behind it. But go ahead and wallow in your superiority.

BTW-where did I say that I support "status quo farming?" Or "Big Ag" farming?

sounds to me like someone is just rationalizing not spending the extra few bucks at the checkout counter. 

which do you think is better for you:

apple one:  contains all the nutrients and taste of an apple, but is soaked in 20 chemicals that not only appear in the fruit, but leach into the groundwater, nearby habitats, etc., poisoning the environment year by year.

apple two:  contains all the nutrients and taste of an apple, but is comparatively free of those chemicals that harm the consumer as well as the environment.



the only reason organic has such high "costs" is that it is different than industrial farming which is focused on nothing but yield and low costs and that's about it.  if some good old-fashioned american (or whatever) ingenuity was applied and some resources allocated, i am sure that organic farming could become much cheaper. 

also, there is a lot more that goes into the terms "cheap" and "expensive" than monetary input/output that people seem to like to forget.  there are a zillion hidden costs (and benefits, surely) of each system, but i think that people like to point out the faults w/organic farming/prduce as an excuse for why they support status quo farming that has even more costs.  consider the social, environmental, and cultural costs of Big Ag and it's pretty clear to me which way to go.  unfortunately, the things that make Big Ag evil are seeping into the "organic" market due to these same players getting into that market and exerting its considerable pressure on Congress to loosen the standards so those companies can do what they do best:  lower expectations and meet them.