In 2010, 20% of organic produce tested by the CDFA in CA markets had excess pesticide residue - compared with 3% of produce tested from conventional agriculture.

One of the serious issues this article points out is the involvement of government in attempting detailed regulation of growing organic. In my experience, this involvement has lead to more problems than it has solved. I consider myself an organic grower, and those who eat my produce are not concerned that I don't have a certification; they appreciate my quality. I use some methods and materials that the certification process prohibits. I do use what I consider best practices, and do not fertilize or treat pests in an inappropriate manner. I am happy to tell folks what I do, and they can make up their own minds. I see quite a bit of produce in our local stores which is described in a similar manner: benign pest control, nature-friendly fertilization. The produce might be labeled as having no pesticides applied, or no excess fertilizer, for instance. I judge the produce by the producer's statements, and the quality of the finished product rather than a certification. For a number of years I would visit a couple farms in the Salinas Ca area; the certified farmers would show me many of the things they were doing. Several times I was amazed at the things they had to do to maintain certification. One of the most amazing actions related to supplying nitrogen for greens crops. There was no place in the planting schedule for cover crops to add nitrogen, and cover crops were clearly not economically viable. Instead, both farms would make compost and add pelleted urea to the compost. The resulting material would then be spread over the fields to provide the needed N. This huge amount of extra work was required to maintain organic certification; urea could not be added directly to the field. There was no other suitable source of N; we talked about many possibilities, but there clearly were none suitable for the crops and growing conditions. The farm bookkeeping was also significantly complicated by the organic certification. When people talk about the higher costs of certified organic, I can see the reasons: extra labor, more expensive materials, and more bookkeeping. Perhaps the pendulum will start to swing the other direction now as the problems with the current system manifest themselves more. Instead of a burdonsome certification, perhaps the regulations will lean more toward common sense again.
Renais

That's going to be an unpleasant nut to crack for some, federal scale regulation regardless of the industry can be complicated and difficult to create and implement as well as enforce uniformly. I guess it makes some sense for the organic label as so many folks have a definite expectation of what should come with the promise of it.

The main issue with "organic" is that their are so many definitions to choose from. The USDA and the state of California chose to provide definitions based on the effect to the environment, and thus use existing regulatory agencies such as the EPA and CDPR. In stark contrast to this are expectations of consumers that it has something to do with human health. For this latter approach to move forward, consumer groups need to fund research that stands peer-review muster showing efficacy for their definition of organic. At that point, federal and state agencies will listen -- especially when pressed by legal action. Until then, the USDA will continue to classify "certified organic" as a marketing term.

This post was edited by Hermitian on Sat, Dec 13, 14 at 0:31

I approach gardening from a "pick and choose" approach. Many people wouldn't call the way I do it organic, and both casually + realistically it isn't...but my non-organic addition, pretty much the only one I use, is the few tablespoons of chemical fertilizer per year in my in-ground garden beds.

I know how/when to apply my fertilizer and I get my garden's soil tested every 2 years (I live in a state where it's "free" based on fertilizer taxes). I'm using fertilizer more responsibly than many people, organic or conventional...especially the "lawn people" out there who can get downright scary with over-application.

I take what's both useful and convenient to me...and for me that means a bit of chemical fertilizer. It also involves nearly daily scouting of my plants and taking care of issues ASAP, whether that involves clipping leaves or removing plants showing disease, breaking out the insecticide soap, or simply smooshing/washing issues away. I also have my compost and I mulch thickly with straw...straw which later becomes compost since it's very easy to replace it for free post-Halloween when people are getting rid of bales.

Yes, I could overcome that chemical fertilizer issue, but it's quite convenient, powerful, accurately stable in it's nutrient content, and if wisely used will lead to minimal runoff/leaching issues. Yes, that makes me not an organic gardener, but that doesn't mean I can't use aspects of organic systems to improve my garden. Some stuff simply works...*shrug*

Nc, well put. If only I could get a relatively high N organic fert to go through my drip tape system without plugging it. Drip in the arid areas helps greatly to improve nutrient application efficiency, you can apply what is needed in the amount needed, when it's needed and where it's needed.

Using synthetic fertilizers in any way, applied directly to soil or using very soluble types run through a watering system, says that is not an acceptable organic practice and the grower using such a product would no longer be an organic grower for several years.
There are a number of people that come here to an organic gardening forum that are not now and probably never have been organic growers offering advice that is contrary to all established organic growing principles.

The issue of supplying a high N fertilizer to crops is one of the most glaring examples of the failure of the government regulators to address reality vs abstract desires when it comes to certified organic growing. As I mentioned above, I have met growers who had to jump through some, in my opinion, quite unreasonable hoops in order to maintain their certified organic status and yet still be a commercially viable operation. I have looked for years and have not found any reasonable N fertilizer that I can use in my drip systems that would pass the government criteria. I have found quite a few that made environmental sense to me, achieve the N application I need, and were cost effective. I use these materials knowing I am following the spirit of organic growing as I understand and practice it: environmentally sensitive production leading to nutritional food produced without harmful residues. Perhaps the issues and dangers mentioned in the op article will help to spur the American consumer to push the regulators to better address consumer demands for a safe food supply, which was one of the goals of organic growing years ago.
Renais

kimmsr, what do you regard as a "synthetic fertilizer"?

"Using synthetic fertilizers in any way, applied directly to soil or using very soluble types run through a watering system, says that is not an acceptable organic practice"

Yeah, and no one said it was.

Kimm, I think it's worth noting that this forum is not the "certified" organic forum. It is explicitly about the philosophy. Attempts from some to shush or censor people who one doesn't agree with are not appropriate, IMO.

I get a bit of grief from some (thankfully, not a huge amount) of Permaculture practitioners because I don't stress going all-in where it's not feasible without an extreme amount of work or cost. I'm a certified Permaculturalist, btw.

Part of making a good gardening setup in Permaculture is the use of design as well as the physical additions/alterations. That said, sometimes I (and others) can't design a good setup for everything desired and the "system" goes from a fully self-feeding ideal setup to a hybrid setup.

The system still uses a huge amount of self-feeding systems, but it's not 100% self-sustaining.

Saying that someone who's using 80-90-95%+ of a desired system might as well be using 0% is both backwards and self-defeating. 100% would be nice, but it's not always going to be worth it to the person actually doing the work and paying the bills (both in money cost, and time/opportunity cost).

Btw, anyone who's getting really deep into organic farming might want to at least check out a few books on Permaculture...or even get certified. The design aspect is especially helpful stuff. Even if making a nearly-100% self-sustaining system isn't a goal, there's a lot of really useful things to learn about controlling water+nutrient+sun use via good design and plant choice.

"Attempts from some to shush or censor people who one doesn't agree with are not appropriate, IMO"
I am not "shushing or censoring" anyone. I am simply pointing out there are people that come here offering advice that is contrary to accepted organic growing practices while implying they are organic growers.
Synthetic fertilizers are those that are processed beyond what is necessary to make the nutrients available. Urea, super Phosphate, Muriate of Potash are some of those, but are not limited to that small list.

I would much rather have the local market growers around here use half their land to make compost, and fortify it with a little urea, than keep all of their land in row crops and import tons and tons of dehydrated chicken manure as they do now (while pretending to be more-or-less "organic").