Bridging the organic divide

Katherine DiMatteo is on a mission. A mission to persuade more people around the world of the benefits of organic.

But if not exactly mission impossible, it’s not an easy one. The recently elected president of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) not only has a powerful anti-organic lobby to contend with but the not insignificant matter of division within the organic movement itself.

“There is real disagreement and there are two main sides I can see,” she says. “Those who really believe that organic is the best way to farm and that if every farm converts to organic then there will be more organic products for retailers to sell. This side argues that fresh food is not enough to make organic sustainable. It doesn’t say you can do anything you want, but that you need to work with different types of companies, producers, retailers etc.”

Then there are those with a more political and social viewpoint. “They believe that organic is more than just the farming; it’s about social justice, small farms, about the corporate and global structure and changing global food cartels that have ruined the world. They want to keep out (of the organic movement) those who are a corporation, are mainstream, or who might make conventional products as well as organic. They argue organic should be about eating wholefood, not processed, whether it’s organic or not.”

Local movement

This split has resulted in a new movement in the United States (although it is also evident elsewhere) – the local movement; a campaign to buy local, support local producers, eat wholefood and reduce food miles.

While Katherine believes the movement is not a bad thing, as a long-time supporter of all things organic she is somewhat incredulous that it has been on the receiving end of so much money. “A number of foundations and NGOs have given a lot of money to persuade people to buy local or sustainable and change the way they eat – to the tune of millions and millions of dollars,” she says. “Millions have never been spent on organic, no-one ever wanted to fund organic. The funding for organic has come directly from those involved and only from outside when it’s related to other issues.”

Katherine  probably understands the different points of view better than most. She came to organic through the political and social movement of the late 60s and early 70s, a movement that was asking questions about the way we lived and was looking for alternatives. These “alternatives” included going back to the land, embracing wholefoods and shunning anything produced with synthetic fertilisers.

“Reading Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was a turning point for me,” she says. (Poetically, among Katherine’s innumerable awards is the Rachel Carson Environmental Achievement Award for outstanding contributions to the protection of the environment.)

Rise of organic

Like many in the academic world, Katherine abandoned her chosen profession (education) and moved to a rural area in Massachusetts.  She bought her food from a co-op, one she eventually ended up working for. So began a long journey down the path to a sustainable future, a journey that has seen her head up the influential Organic Trade Association (OTA), as well as help others bring their projects to fruition through the consulting company Wolf DiMatteo & Associates.

Although it might seem like a more recent development, she says there was a real awareness of organic issues when she first “went back to nature”. Life magazine even devoted a cover story to it.

But it took some time for it to take hold in the public conscience, building slowly through the 90s and really gaining momentum when the US Department of Agriculture implemented national standards for organic in 2002. “This was a critical point in the movement’s ability to go mainstream. It meant that organic wasn’t just the choice of a certain group of people and that it wasn’t unrealistic to believe organic was a practical way to farm.”

Of course, as organic produce started to find favour with the “ordinary person” in the street, more corporate heavy hitters moved into the game. And this is where the debate about what organic really means and who has the right to use the term took off.

As a former head of the OTA and now taking the helm at IFOAM, how does she straddle the organic divide? “We allow and encourage discussion to try to encourage the differing sides to reach agreement… to reach a middle ground. When an organisation can’t take a position on something it’s not a good thing, but at the end of the day if members don’t like that position, they will leave.”

Broad approach

Personally, she doesn’t believe that organic can survive without a broad approach. “If we don’t then we’re not really going to have major change, and that’s not just for the environment,” she says. “But the environment is my top priority, although that does not mean I dismiss the other values of organic.”

These values include:

• Good livelihoods for everyone, be they farmers, retailers or processors;
• Equal access to market opportunities;
• Equal access to the healthiest food possible;
• Adequate food supplies for everyone;
• A marketplace, banking and government policy that encourages entrepreneurial farms and individuals;
• Acknowledges the importance of cooperatives.

“Organic can partner with all these other values. But the different principles don’t have to become part of the same rules,” she says. “Indeed I would argue you don’t want governments to start legislating on the principles.”

Katherine argues it is even more important for the diverging groups to work together because of the power of the anti-organic lobby. “We’re trying to change how resources are used and who distributes those resources and the naysayers against organic are the ones who have all those resources. They are the ones saying ‘organic is fine for a small segment but that’s all, it won’t feed everyone’. It’s very difficult for grass-roots run organisations that don’t have the financial resources or even the science and, to a certain degree, media, behind them. It’s hard when you have to keep proving your point in the face of such powerful opposition.”

Strong appeal

Two things the organic movement does have in its favour might initially seem poles apart. “Basically what has kept us in the game is emotion, we have much more emotional appeal,” Katherine says. “And logic – logically we have appeal because it makes sense not to treat food with pesticides or damage the environment. Even people who don’t farm organically or who don’t buy much organic recognise it has very strong appeal.”

The biggest challenge for IFOAM is to maintain and grow awareness about organic globally. “We need to build awareness among farmers about the benefits of organic methods, to raise consumer awareness about the benefits of organic farming and all products that use organic ingredients, and work together with key organisations – those with whom we share values, be they farm or advocacy groups,” Katherine says.

“We also need to ensure we’re part of international policy to help direct the agricultural sector. We already work with FAO (the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization) and WHO (World Health Organization) and it’s important to be at their table and work with them for the future.”

Then, perhaps, organic can not just be a way of life, but the way of life.