FRUITS OF PROGRESSpdf.wri.org/fruits_of_progress.pdf · WRI: FRUITS OF PROGRESS ELAINE LIPSON EDITOR HYACINTH BILLINGS PRODUCTION MANAGER MAGGIE POWELL LAYOUT CLEMENS KALISCHER COVER

i

WRI: FRUITS OF PROGRESS

12

FRUITS OF PROGRESS

GROWING SUSTAINABLE FARMINGAND FOOD SYSTEMS

W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E

A P R I L 2 0 0 2

LORI ANN THRUPP

ii


ELAINE LIPSONEDITOR

HYACINTH BILLINGSPRODUCTION MANAGER

MAGGIE POWELLLAYOUT

CLEMENS KALISCHERCOVER PHOTO

Each World Resources Institute report represents a timely, scholarly treat-ment of a subject of public concern. WRI takes responsibility for choosingthe study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedom of

inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance of advisory panels andexpert reviewers. Unless otherwise stated, however, all the interpretation andfindings set forth in WRI publications are those of the authors.

Copyright © 2002 World Resources Institute. All rights reserved.

ISBN 1-56973-472-0

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. _______________

Printed in the United States of America on chlorine-free paper withrecycled content of 50%, 20% of which is post-consumer.

iii


CONTENTS

PART II: Case StudiesDel Cabo ........................................................... 56

Durst Farmers .................................................. 58

Fetzer Vineyards ............................................... 60

Frog’s Leap ....................................................... 62

Full Belly Farm ................................................. 64

Lagier Ranches ................................................. 66

Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission .... 68

Lundberg Family Farms .................................. 70

Natural Selection Foods ................................... 72

Robert Mondavi Winery ................................... 74

Sherman Thomas Ranch ................................. 76

Small Planet Foods .......................................... 78

References ................................................ 81

AppendixPeople interviewed andconsulted for the study .................................... 85

Acknowledgments ................................... v

Executive Summary ....................................... vii

PART I: Overview of Lessons LearnedChapter 1.Introduction to the Fruits of Progress ............ 1

Chapter 2.Characteristics and Motivations ofSustainable Food and AgricultureEnterprises ........................................................ 5

Chapter 3.Main Ingredients and Strategiesfor Greening the Food System ........................ 21

Chapter 4.Effective Practices Used in SustainableFood Production and Marketing ..................... 31

Chapter 5.Challenges and ActionsTo Expand Progress ......................................... 4343434343

iv


v


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Fred Kirchenmann, Karen Ross, and JamesTischer, whose comments and suggestions wereextremely helpful. Special thanks to many otherpeople who provided insights, support, and/orinformation, including Michael Abelman, MiguelAltieri, Susan Clark, DeWitt Garlock, CathyGreene, Bruce Hirsch, Bruce Jennings, WalterKnausenberger, Tim LaSalle, Mark Lipson, CraigMcNamara, Stephen Pavich, Judith Redmond,Mark Ritchie, Bob Scowcroft, Sean Swezey, andmany additional colleagues whose names I mighthave overlooked unintentionally.

We greatly appreciate the generous supportand patience of the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency’s Policy, Economics and InnovationProgram, Swedish International DevelopmentAgency, the Great Valley Center, and the U.S.Agency for International Development, whichhelped to fund the project. I also am thankful toElaine Lipson for her editorial expertise, Hya-cinth Billings and Maggie Powell for valuablework on graphics, editing and production, andCristina Balboa, Cecilia Blasco, and Anne MarieDeRose for program assistance on this project.

Last but not least, I thank the innovativegrowers and enterprises who are boldly cultivat-ing sustainable approaches and developingsocially-responsible “green” growth in the foodand agriculture sector. They provide inspirationand hope for the global society, the economy,and for future generations.

The creation of this report was made possiblethrough the collaboration of many organizationsand individuals. I am grateful to all of the innova-tive enterprises and people involved in theprofiles of sustainable agriculture and foodsystems in this report. These cases and the maincontacts for each include Del Cabo (Larry Jacobs),Durst Farms (James Durst), Fetzer Vineyards(Paul Dolan), Frogs Leap (John Williams, FullBelly Farm (Judith Redmond), Lagier Ranches(John Lagier), Lodi Woodbridge WinegrapeCommission (Mark Chandler, President and CliffOhmart), Lundberg Family Farms (BryceLundberg), Natural Selection Foods (Myra andDrew Goodman, CEOs), Robert Mondavi Winery(Tim Mondavi and DeWitt Garlock), ShermanThomas Ranch (Mike Braga), and Small PlanetFoods (Gene Kahn, CEO). I appreciate the addedassistance of David Runsten and Cliff Ohmart inproviding background details for the cases of DelCabo and Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commis-sion respectively.

I thank Arthur Getz, Associate at World Re-sources Institute, for his valuable work, insights,and camaraderie throughout the entire project. Iappreciate the excellent input, support andfeedback of WRI reviewers and colleagues, DonDoering, Paul Faeth, Thomas Fox (formerly WRIVice President), Tony Janetos, Nels Johnson, TonyLaVina, Patricia Londono, and Don Reed. I amalso indebted to external reviewers, Jill Auburn,Jenny Broome, John Ikerd, Richard Kashmanian,

vii


Executive Summary

FRUITS OF PROGRESS:

GREENING THE FOOD SYSTEM

produced in environmentally responsible or‘natural’ ways. They are using environmentalstewardship practices, and forging a new ‘stateof the art’ in food systems, setting an importanttrend and leadership for the agriculture andfood sector in the twenty-first century. Evenlarge conventional foods corporations andventure capitalists are increasingly investing inthe natural foods business, drawn by attractivemarket opportunities. This ‘green’ transition isspreading worldwide, with internationalimplications for how foods are produced andmarketed.

In this report, we’ve identified this remarkablegrowth of environmental stewardship in thefood and agriculture industry as ‘greening thefood system.’ ‘Green’ refers broadly to a range ofapproaches that are interpreted to be ‘sustain-able,’ meaning methods that are environmen-tally sound as well as socially responsible andeconomically viable. The term “sustainable”farming may include certified organic practices,and also encompasses other ecological andintegrated practices.

Fruits of Progress identifies the drivers behindthe changes taking place, and some of the mainelements and strategies for developing sustain-

A “green” transformation is sprouting in thefood and agriculture industry. Growing numbersof farmers, food manufacturers, and distributorsin many parts of the world are adopting environ-mental stewardship approaches and othermethods to protect public health and naturalresources. For a variety of economic, social, andenvironmental reasons, businesses are integrat-ing ecological considerations into farmingpractices, food factory operations, and groceryshelves, just as individuals are addressing theseconcerns in their daily food selections. Thisreport will demonstrate that this approach holdsmulti-faceted benefits for these businesses andfor society.

Although organic and ecological farmingbudded during the late 1960s as a relativelysmall counter-culture movement in the UnitedStates and Europe, it has grown and changeddramatically since then, blossoming globallyinto a multi-billion-dollar mainstream business.This ‘green’ sector in the food and agricultureindustry (including producers, manufacturers,and distributors) is now expanding at an unprec-edented rate.

These innovators are responding strategicallyto rising consumer demand for foods that are

viii


able food and agriculture approaches. The reportidentifies salient common features of innovatorsinvolved in the green transformation, basedlargely on case studies. It shows how ecologi-cally based practices can generate profits, whilecontributing to broader goals of sustainabledevelopment.

We also identify challenges and barriers toprogress including lack of information, researchand policy support for sustainable farmingpractices, and the growing concentration of theindustry. We propose actions and identifyingopportunities for continued growth of sustainableand organic food systems. The lessons andguidelines presented here are intended to beuseful for decision-makers in the food andagriculture industry, and for policy-makers andgovernment agencies that influence this industry.It is also relevant for economic analysts andconsumers interested in food and farming issues.

GREEN GROWTH TRENDS

Although this report does not focus on theorganic sector alone, the organic market offers agood illustration of this fast-paced change.During the 1990s, the certified organic foodmarket grew very rapidly, at an annual averagerate of about 20 percent internationally, and 25percent in the United States. The growth rate ofthe more mature conventional food industryduring this same time was less than 5 percentper year. The total global retail sales of organicfoods was estimated at $21.5 billion in 2000while sales in the U.S. organic market reachedan estimated $7.8 billion in 2000, a 20 percentincrease over 1999 figures.

Europeans have experienced the highestgrowth rate of organic production and market-ing in the world. At the same time, NorthAmerican and Japanese organic markets arerapidly catching up, and organic markets aregaining ground in developing countries as well.The organic sector is being transformed from avery small niche segment and a movement ofmostly small farmers, to a mainstream industry.Experts expect this dynamic growth to continuein the future, especially with the advent ofnational organic standards for the United States,overseen by the National Organic Program ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In addition to the organic approach, a growingnumber of agricultural producers and manufac-turers are using diverse environmental steward-ship practices, ranging from soil conservationmethods to integrated pest and crop manage-ment and recycling of materials, in some areasand crops. The adoption of these practices andthe expansion of markets for organic andsustainably produced foods are likely to con-tinue, as consumer demand grows and ecologi-cal innovations spread globally.

MAIN LESSONS FROM EXPERIENCES

We conducted case studies for this report on agroup of diverse food and agriculture innovatorsthat are developing sustainable and/or organicapproaches. These are relatively well-knownoperations in the fruit and vegetable industry,based in the western United States - primarilyCalifornia, where there has been remarkableprogress in innovative ecological approaches toagriculture. These innovators in the case studies

ix


are integrated operations; each does production,manufacturing, and/or marketing — and nearlyall do business both domestically and interna-tionally, so their influence extends widely.

These cases were chosen to represent a diver-sity of features, including different sizes andscales of production, within a general sustain-able agriculture approach. Despite their differ-ences, each case study shares important com-mon features. The Western region of the U.S.was chosen as a focus of case studies due tolimitations in the scope and resources of theproject. Many additional cases and other regionscould have been included in this report, sincethere is widespread progress in greening thefood system.

Innovators in the greening process are on thecutting edge of contemporary agriculture. Thesecase studies and other similar experiences inthis mode share some common motivations andkey ingredients (noted in Box 1 and Box 2) thatenable progress in greening the food andagriculture sector.

The innovative producers are incorporatingbasic ecological principles, such as enhance-ment of diversity (of crops, varieties, soil biota,etc.), recycling and conservation of resourcesand nutrients, and reduction or elimination ofchemical inputs. Most of the innovators in thecase studies, and their contracted growers, arealso using certified organic methods in at leastpart of their production, following private orgovernment certification rules. (All U.S. organiccrops will be certified under a national organicstandard as of late 2002.)

BOX 1 COMPELLING CAUSES BEHINDADOPTING SUSTAINABLEAPPROACHES

We identified the following factors as importantdriving forces for implementing sustainablepractices:

Caring for the land. Pioneers in sustainablefarming have deep concerns about landstewardship and environmental responsibility,and strive to maintain the health of soil andresources.

Consumer demand for environmentally soundpractices. Public opinion about foodincreasingly impacts farmers’ choices.

Competitive advantages. Innovators in thesustainable agriculture/food industry realizethat they can gain competitive advantages andnew business opportunities by going green.

Cost reduction. Use of green practices oftenenables companies to reduce costs, risks, andliabilities of certain conventional practices,particularly from intensive chemical use.

Concern about social responsibility. Companieswish to avoid adverse impacts on health, society,and resources; for them, social and ecologicalconcerns are part of business success.

Compliance with regulations. Laws affectingenvironmental conditions in agriculture havebecome more strict, inducing change.....

x


All of these innovators are actively involved inacquiring new information, as well as providinginformation and services to other growers aboutsustainable and organic practices. At the sametime, they are developing creative and integratedapproaches to market their products and meetconsumer demands. Some have chosen to scale-up significantly, which creates new challengesand opportunities, whereas others remainrelatively small.

BOX 2 KEY INGREDIENTS OR STRATEGIES OF SUCCESS

PROMISING RESULTS

Green production and marketing strategiesoften result in multiple benefits and advantagesfor participating companies in both large andsmall scales. These methods generally help tomitigate and prevent risks or costs of heavychemical use, and avoid erosion and degradationof resources. Likewise, they help lessen healthrisks by reducing chemical exposures anddecreasing the chemicals present in the environ-ment. Some innovative techniques make moreefficient and effective use of natural processes,and others help to build the natural functions

Leadership with creativity, vision, commitment, anddedication to principles of sustainability andstewardship that can build team spirit and work hardfor change.

Commitment to sustainability and the “triple bottomline” - upholding the three interlinked goals ofeconomic profitability, social responsibility, andenvironmental soundness.

Innovation and creativity in ecologically sound andeconomically viable methods for production,processing, packaging, and marketing, to set newtrends and try new approaches.

Knowledge-intensity in management of farming andfood systems, entailing continual learning, andunderstanding of complex information beyondchemical inputs.

Adaptability and diversity, including adjustment ofdiverse methods to local ecological conditions,enhancing diversity in varieties and crops,diversifying marketing strategies.

Gaining value from nature, taking advantage ofnatural processes, such as biological functions andorganic material, and conserving and recyclingresources, to produce high quality.

Doing more with less, by enhancing resourceefficiency, increasing recycling, and minimizingwaste in the food system to increase productivity.

Forming linkages and partnerships amongcompanies in the food system, including effectiveintegration between production, processing, andmarketing functions, and consumers.

xi


and capacities of organic soils and the durabilityof productivity.

Sustainable methods also often pay off eco-nomically, and in these case studies, they havegenerally proven to be equally or more produc-tive and profitable than conventional methodsover time. In several cases, the annual growthrate of the company’s total sales values hasexceeded 20 percent in recent years. The overallrapid growth of the national and internationalorganic market — exceeding 20 percent annualgrowth in the 1990s — is another indicator ofeconomic promise, though growth rates maydecrease and stabilize in time as the industrymatures.

OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Despite this optimistic outlook, there are majorimpediments to the continued growth of thisgreen trend in the food and agriculture system.Though the adoption of organic and sustainablepractices has expanded rapidly, the total acreage,value, and percentage of sustainably producedfood is still very small compared to the values ofconventional food and agriculture. Moreover,some of these innovative businesses and particu-larly small-scale farmers have faced majorchallenges and downturns from market compe-tition and consolidation of the industry.

Certified organic products, for example,represent only about 2 percent to 3 percent ofthe total food market in the United States, andgenerally under 5 percent of market share inwestern European countries. Why? The reportexplains that the growth of sustainable and

organic systems is thwarted by influentialeconomic, informational, technical, and politicalfactors, as identified below in Box 3.

BOX 3 MAIN BARRIERS TO EXPANSION OFSUSTAINABLE FOOD ANDAGRICULTURE SYSTEMS

The main impediments identified in the study are:

Lack of information, research, and institutionalsupport available to producers and otherbusinesses about sustainable practices;

Economic constraints, such as added costs intransitioning from conventional to sustainablepractices, coupled with low food prices andmarket competition that tend to discouragefarmers from trying alternatives;

Continued influence of the chemical-intensivemodel of agriculture;

Inconsistent policy support includingcontradictory policies that support conventionalfarming approaches, and lack of policy incentivesfor sustainable practices.

Equity challenges in the organic industry,including growing market concentration bylarge-scale corporations, displacement of small-scale businesses, and narrowness in the scope ofthe organic market, i.e., limited organic foodconsumption by lower- and middle-incomeconsumers due to higher prices.

Misleading claims about “green” practices bysome operations which are actually makingminimal modifications.

xii


Still, the outlook is promising for expandingsustainable food and agriculture worldwide.Green approaches offer great opportunities forbusinesses and for society. However, manystakeholders must take action to overcomeobstacles and to accelerate positive trends byincreasing adoption of sustainable practices,market opportunities, distribution, relevantresearch and information access.

Food producers and distributors must realizethat the public wants and needs “green” growthor sustainable praces in the food system. Policy-makers also must implement changes, givinggreater policy support for sustainable agriculture.In particular, support is needed for sustainableapproaches within the U.S. Farm Bill and relatedlegislation. In the United States, decision-makersin the public and private sectors can also learnlessons from Europe about policies that encour-age and reward the use of green approaches infarming and food marketing.

Decision-makers are urged to take the neces-sary actions to expand the sustainable food andagriculture industry, and to overcome theconstraints and threats that are being confrontedin this sector. Below in Box 4 are five importantstrategies that must be undertaken by policy-

BOX 4 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES:

� Increase adoption of sustainable farming policiesand practices

� Build markets and marketing opportunities inthe green food system

� Increase agroecology research and flow ofinformation about sustainable methods

� Prevent the use of environmentally harmfulpractices

� Improve equity and distribution to enable allconsumers to have greater access to sustainablyproduced foods, to protect survival of small farms,and to prevent extreme concentration in themarket

makers, consumers, and producers and otherenterprises in the food system.

All actors in the food system can work togetheron these strategies, and must act now in order tobuild a truly sustainable food and agricultureindustry. The great promise and full potential ofthis “green” sector can only be realized if barri-ers and constraints are boldly addressed andovercome.

43


5

chemical-intensive agriculture still dominatesthe landscape.

Why, when sustainable agriculture seems sopromising, is the transition still limited? Thischapter summarizes influential barriers to theadoption and spread of sustainable agriculture,clarifying major economic, political, and techno-logical impediments and challenges, which wereidentified in the case studies and by otherexperts interviewed in this field. (See Appendix 1.)

1. Economic Barriers and Risks Perceived byGrowers. In general, decision-makers in thefarming business logically perceive economicfactors as priorities. They must be concernedabout their economic situation to ensuresurvival of their enterprise. Conventionalfarmers may be reluctant to adopt ecologicalinnovations because they perceive that theeconomic risks and uncertainties are too high.In particular, they tend to worry about greaterlabor costs for non-chemical pest controlmethods, possible losses from pests, andpotential sacrifices in crop quality or yields.

Many growers have recently faced seriouseconomic challenges from internationalcompetitors, particularly from foreign grow-

CHALLENGES AND ACTIONSTO EXPAND PROGRESS

BARRIERS TO PROGRESS

The story is not all rosy. In spite of the remark-able progress and promising efforts described inprevious chapters, there are major barriers tothe development of sustainable approaches inthe agriculture and food industry. A smallminority of the nation’s growers has made aserious transition to truly sustainable farmingpractices. Total acreage, value, and percentage offood produced by sustainable practices are stillsmall compared to the value of conventionalfood production.

For example, although the organic food markethas very high growth rates (averaging about20% in recent years)—that far exceed theconventional food market’s growth — its valueis still only about 2 percent to 3 percent of thetotal food market in the United States. Further-more, although many growers are adoptingreduced-risk and integrated pest managementmethods that prove to be effective and economi-cal, some studies indicate an increase in totalpesticide use in recent years (e.g., GAO, 2001;Liebman, 1997). Many mainstream businessesremain reluctant to change the status quo, andsome companies currently using sustainablepractices have run into hurdles. Conventional

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM43

44


ers who are exporting low-cost food productsto the US. These kinds of pressures aggravaterisks and aversion to change by many conven-tional enterprises.

Growers also face pressures to fulfillmarketing standards, government regula-tions, and food quality and quantity demandsfrom food buyers and packers. Marketingrequirements often emphasize cosmeticattributes of food, obligating growers tofollow conventional practices to produceuniform results. These marketing standardsoften prevent farmers from trying alternativepractices that they fear might jeopardize theirability to fulfill requirements (Ikerd, 2000).

In many areas, growers also have strongpeer pressure from other growers and neigh-bors to conform to the conventional statusquo. For example, farmers are pressured toeliminate all grasses and vegetation in thefarm. If they allow natural vegetation to growbetween crop rows, and/or plant cover crops,they may be criticized for being messy or lazyby neighbors, though this criticism is un-founded.

Given these economic and social pressuresand constraints, fears of economic risk fromchange are understandable, especially ifgrowers have little previous experience usingecological methods. However, some fearsabout farming alternatives are inaccurate orexaggerated, due partly to a lack of informa-tion on the practices and actual costs andbenefits of sustainable and organic agricul-ture.

Growers who have already made a transi-tion to sustainable and/or organic productiongenerally report satisfaction with the results,as illustrated by the cases in this report. Theysometimes face new economic challenges,shifts in costs, and difficulties in findingreliable markets during the transitional years.These initial transition costs are often over-come after two to four years, as growers gainnew skills (case study interviews; NAS 1989;SARE, 2000; Corselius, 2001). Beyond this,however, many organic and sustainablegrowers still face broader economic pressuresfrom market competition, and depression offood prices (Buck et al., 1997). Some alsoreport occasional gaps in the crop supplyfrom contracted growers to fulfill marketdemand, leading some companies to expandtheir own production areas. Although organicgrowers have generally reaped benefits fromgrowing consumer demand, the organicmarket demand fluctuates for some products,and the organic market could become satu-rated, some believe.

There are also economic barriers to theexpansion of the organic sector from theconsumer perspective. Higher prices fororganic foods (or for other food marketedwith an eco-label) can be a barrier for manyconsumers who are unable or unwilling topay extra premiums for food. Although recentconsumer surveys show increasing consumerinterest in and willingness to pay for organicfoods in the United States (reaching 47percent of consumers, according toHartmann Group, 2000), a large portion ofthe population will nevertheless not buy

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM44

45


organic foods because of the expense. Mostconsumers in the U.S. expect to buy cheapfood, even though the low prices do notreflect the actual full production costs, andconventional food prices have been keptartificially low through subsidies. (See num-ber 4 below.) Many consumers are unaware ofthe impacts of their food spending habits andchoices on food production and the environ-ment, although their awareness appears to begrowing.

2. Continuing Chemical Dependence. Thecontinued dependence of the majority offarmers on chemical-based approaches to pestand soil management, and on crop adviserswho promote this approach, is a constraint tothe spread of sustainable agriculture (Inter-views, 1999). Most conventional farmers havebecome increasingly dependent on agro-chemicals over the last four decades, becausethese chemicals have worked rapidly tocontrol pests and/or boost yields, and becausethey have been aggressively and widelymarketed by their manufacturers and bymany pest control advisers. Though there hasbeen growing public recognition and scien-tific documentation of unexpected high costsand health risks from use of many types ofpesticides (NRC, 2000), the chemical-depen-dent approach has predominated. A combina-tion of factors therefore makes it difficult forproducers to alleviate their dependence onchemicals.

In recent years, the pesticide industry hasbecome increasingly involved in research anddevelopment of agricultural biotechnology,including genetically modified organisms

(GMOs). Growing sales and applications ofcertain biotechnology innovations in agricul-ture have created controversy worldwide, andpresent dilemmas for sustainable and organicagriculture, which are addressed only brieflyhere. Biotechnology manufacturers, and somefarmers and scientists believe that biotechnol-ogy offers significant benefits for agriculture,enabling productivity increases and otherimprovements. Others, including manyconsumers and scientists, point out that someGMO technologies have ecological and healthrisks and potentially adverse impacts forfarmers and society (see e.g., www.biotech-info.net; www.ucsusa.org; www.purefood.org;pewagbiotech.org; www.rafi.org). Moreover,some GMOs, such as herbicide-resistantcrops, have been developed to purposefullyincrease the use of certain proprietary herbi-cides. Although certain GMOs such as Btcorn and Bt soybeans can potentially helpgrowers reduce standard pesticide sprays,scientists do not fully understand the ecologi-cal impacts these Bt varieties and Bt pollen inthe environment. Growing numbers ofscientists, consumers groups, food retailcompanies, and some government leaders,particularly in Europe, have recognized thatthere is still limited knowledge of the long-term impacts of GMOs. (See Benbrook,2000; Ervin and Batie, 2000; ESRC, 1999;and websites noted above).

Some farmers and analysts are also con-cerned that the proprietary nature of GMOsincreases the manufacturer’s control ofproduction and decreases options for farmers,exacerbating farmer dependency on uniform

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM45

46


technologies. Public agencies in most Euro-pean countries have been more cautious andconcerned about GMOs than their Americancounterparts. These concerns are reflected inrestrictions on the sales of GMOs by bothretail food companies and governmentagencies in Europe. In the United States, thedevelopment and use of GMOs continues inspite of controversy. However, USDA’snational organic standards, in full effect inlate 2002, do not allow the use of GMOs incertified organic foods. This regulatorysituation as well as public concern overGMOs can potentially increase growth oforganic farming and markets.

3. Information and Institutional Constraints.Another constraint is the lack of appropriateinformation, research, and institutionalsupport, by government agencies and byother organizations, for development ofsustainable agriculture. Although growingnumbers of organizations are becominginvolved in sustainable agriculture includingorganic farming, and a great deal of relevantliterature has been published, there are stillsignificant information gaps and institutionalweaknesses (Lipson, 1997; Walz, 1999;Sooby, 2001; interviews with growers andother case study representatives, 1999).

Growers and other experts in the fieldlament a lack of support, research, andinformation for sustainable agriculture fromuniversities (interviews in case studies andexperts noted in Appendix 1). Althoughuniversities throughout the United States andabroad have large agriculture departments,

numerous research programs, scientists, andextension agents, most of these resources andactivities focus on conventional agriculture,and highly specialized disciplines, rarelyusing systems approaches.

In addition, agricultural research programsand scientists in most American universitieshave concentrated mainly on chemical formsof pest control, giving relatively little attentionto alternative integrated and biologically basedpest management methods (Perkins, 1982;Lipson, 1999; Sooby, 2001). Likewise, univer-sity and state extension services have usuallygiven relatively little attention to sustainableand organic approaches in their work withfarmers (case study interviews, 1999). Thereward system for university scientists andextensionists has tended to discourage themulti-disciplinary and integrated systemsresearch approaches preferred in sustainableagriculture. It has also tended to discourageresearchers from working with growers(particularly organic growers) on farms.Usually, innovative growers must thereforefind independent advisors or alternativeinformation sources.

In recent years, some universities havemade some notable changes by establishingprograms dedicated to sustainable agricul-ture, such as SAREP in the University ofCalifornia and the Leopold Center in IowaState University. Non-profit organizationssuch as Appropriate Technology Transfer forRural Areas (ATTRA), the Organic FarmingResearch Foundation, the Rodale Institute,and the Ecological Farming Association.

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM46

47


Together, these kinds of programs haveincreased research and development activitiesin this field. Such programs have slowlyincreased the acceptance of sustainableagriculture in university systems, whilehelping to provide critical information tofarmers. However, these programs and thescientists working in them have experiencedfunding limitations. Additionally, the pro-grams and agroecological principles are oftenpoorly integrated with mainstream agricul-ture departments.

Federal government agencies with man-dates to work on agriculture and naturalresources also exhibit institutional weak-nesses in this field. For example, the USDA,as well as many state agriculture and environ-ment departments, are relatively weak in theirprograms and resources dedicated to sustain-able forms of agriculture, according to ana-lysts, scientists, and farmers (Youngberg et.al, 1993, Schaller, 1993, interviewees inAppendix 1). For example, organic agricultureresearch projects received less than 0.1percent of the total research funding fromUSDA over a decade of total research funding(Lipson, 1999). Land grant universities havedevoted only 0.02 percent (151 acres) of theirtotal research land area for organic experi-ments (Sooby, 2001).

Recently, some changes have been made bythese agencies. USDA, for example, hasrecently increased its resources and programsin organic and sustainable agriculture. TheSustainable Agriculture Research and Educa-tion (SARE) program of USDA is an example

of an effective program that supports sustain-able farming systems, including some or-ganic research; and SARE is gaining increas-ing attention within USDA. Yet these effortsare not fully mainstreamed into the parentinstitution, and they receive minimal fundingrelative to other programs.

The inadequate distribution of informationabout sustainable agriculture has contributedto myths and misunderstandings. For ex-ample, largely due to misinformation orignorance, many people (including farmers)believe that environmental stewardshipinterests and agriculture production interestsare inevitably in conflict or oppose each other,though experience proves otherwise. Conven-tional agribusinesses often do not havesufficient knowledge about the potentialprofitability of environmentally sound farm-ing practices. This lack of information canexacerbate tensions or perpetuate myths.

4. Policy Constraints. Agricultural policies havealso presented roadblocks to sustainableagriculture, historically and currently. Over thepast four decades, many federal agriculturepolicies strongly supported and subsidizedconventional chemical-intensive agriculturetechnologies and practices, and impededfarmers from trying alternatives (Young, 1989;Schaller, 1993; Youngberg et al., 1993). Federalprograms established in farm bills over 20years have favored conventional crop produc-tion systems using uniform monoculturalchemically dependent practices.

For example, the commodity programs ofUSDA, which existed for over two decades,

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM47

48


provided subsidies only for monoculturalproduction of cotton, corn, and other grains,but not for vegetables and fruits (Young,1989). The 1985 Farm Bill prohibited farmersfrom rotating crops if they wished to qualityfor funding. This obligation to practicemonoculture restricts flexibility, thwartsadaptation to local conditions, increasespotential for weeds, pests, and diseases, andhas contributed to heavy pesticide use. Fed-eral and state water policies also have contrib-uted to unsustainable water use patterns byproviding subsidies or greatly discountedrates for intensive water use in agriculture(Reisner, 1993).

Moreover, America’s food policy andcommodity programs are largely dominatedby measures to keep retail food prices low—sometimes known as the “cheap food” policy.These policies perpetuate the continuedperception by farmers that chemical-intensivemethods are necessary to meet market de-mands (Youngberg et al., 1993). In addition,common marketing standards, mentionedabove, are set partly by regulatory agenciesand partly by food buyers and distributors,and tend to thwart innovation by farmers.

Some agricultural policies and programshave been recently changed or rescinded, afterstudies proved that high costs, inefficiencies,and/or risks in resource use resulted. But theenforcement of such conventional policies formany years has ingrained certain habits,expectations, and outcomes that have beendifficult to modify. Though some state andfederal agencies have recently established

policies that support sustainable agricultureand resource management programs, asdescribed in Chapter 1, these programs andpolicies have minimal funding and littleinfluence in relation to the support formainstream policies.

Although numerous pesticide regulationsexist on paper, designed to protect health andthe environment and to reduce risks and coststo farmers, policy implementation has beenweak and often uncoordinated for many ofthose laws, according to some policy analystsand policy makers (see list in Appendix 1). Forexample, the Food Quality Protection Act waspassed in 1996 with the intention of restrictingpesticides that pose significant health risks, butthe implementation process has been thwartedby lack of resources, by opposition fromspecial interest groups, and by scientific com-plexities in the reassessment of the pesticides.

5. Equity and Consolidation Challenges. Thegrowth of the sustainable and organic agricul-ture and food sector is characterized byseveral inequities or imbalances, in terms ofincreasing concentration in the organicmarket, limited geographical distribution anda narrow consumer base for organic produce,and farmworker issues explained below.Inequities also exist in conventional agricul-ture, but they present special challenges tosustainable agriculture proponents since theconcept of sustainability is meant to includeequity and justice.

In recent years, organic food productionand markets have become consolidated andconcentrated among a small number of large

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM48

49


companies, as mentioned in Chapter 1 (Bucket al., 1997; Dmitri and Richmond, 2000;Ikerd, 2000; Myers and Rorie, 2000; White,2000a, and 2000b; Lipson, 2000). Theconsolidation trend is following the pattern inthe conventional agriculture industry(Heffernan, 1999; Hendrickson, 2000), andis therefore perceived by some to be inevitablefor organic foods as well. Several of the casestudies (e.g., Small Planet Foods and NaturalSelection Foods) have grown from smallfamily farms to very large companies, andsome have benefited from the mainstreamingof organic foods. The managers in these casesgenerally view this change as an appropriateand dynamic transformation.

Small Planet Foods has gone to the point ofmerging with a major transnational foodcorporation, as noted previously. The direc-tors of Small Planet Foods see this merger asan opportunity to improve efficiency andlower the price of organic production, to getmore organic produce into mass supermar-kets, and to influence mainstream corpora-tions to embrace organic farming. Someretailers and business analysts also feel thatlarge-scale production and mass marketing isa positive trend, spreading organic andnatural food more widely in society, andpossibly bringing organic food prices downfor consumers.

On the other hand, this trend towardconsolidation and take-overs by large corpora-tions creates controversies and adverseimpacts among smaller-scale businesses andraises concerns about inequities in the food

system. Many small-scale businesses inorganic farming, including pioneers, havebeen unable to compete effectively as largebusinesses have moved in, and many havebeen purchased or become bankrupt. Due toethical, economic, and other reasons, manypeople generally oppose the increasing buy-outs and concentration by large-scale corpora-tions in organic agriculture, believing thatsmall-scale operations are preferable andnecessary for sustainability and for fairness inthe marketplace. Some are concerned notabout the size increase alone, but rather, thatcorporations will alter organic farming to fitan industrial, standardized, input-intensivemodel that is neither diverse, integrated, norgenuinely organic (Ikerd, 2000; OFRFSCOAR conference, January 2001, Asilomar,CA). Similarly, there is a concern that currentconsolidation and industrialization changesin the organic industry are eliminating thephilosophy and values behind an alternativeecological agriculture system.

The future of small-scale, truly organicoperations may be jeopardized in the UnitedStates, given these market forces and industri-alization trends (Ikerd, 2000; OFRF SCOARconference, January 2001). Some smallergrowers may be able to remain economicallycompetitive in niche markets if they haveunique marketing strategies, work in coopera-tive groups, or if they gain appropriate protec-tion from government agencies or tradeassociations.

In addition to market inequities, theorganic foods market has a relatively uneven

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM49

50


geographical spread. Retail outlets anddistribution channels are concentrated mainlyin large cities in coastal states in the easternand western United States, and in a fewmajor cities in other regions. The distributionand consumption of organic foods is muchless prevalent (or even non-existent) in ruralregions and in smaller cities. Although thisgeographical distribution has expandedrecently as supermarkets begin selling moreorganic foods, significant gaps remain.

Studies also indicate that the consumerbase of organic and ecolabeled food is stillrelatively narrow. Organic consumers areprimarily middle-to-high-income and peoplewho have higher levels of education (NaturalFoods Merchandiser reports; Hartman, 1997-98). Lower-income groups and ethnic minori-ties tend to be less likely to purchase organicproducts, in part because of higher prices,lack of access to marketplaces where organicsare sold, and/or lack of education and knowl-edge about organic food. Consequently, manyconsumers perceive organic and sustainablyproduced foods as “yuppie” or exclusively forhigh- and middle-income people. This reputa-tion could potentially be changed if organicfood were made accessible to more peoplethrough the expansion of direct farmer-to-consumer marketing channels such asfarmers’ markets, and through changes intargeted marketing and pricing strategies.

In another example of inequity,farmworkers’ rights and labor conditionshave sometimes been overlooked in organicand sustainable farming, just as in the con-

ventional agriculture industry, according toexperts in this field. Although the companiesfeatured in this report have measures andprograms aimed to protect worker rights,health, and safety, as noted in the profiles,these aspects have sometimes been givenminimal attention by other green growersand food companies. Continued diligence isneeded to protect the rights and health ofworkers as key aspects of ensuring socialresponsibility and sustainability.

Overcoming and mitigating these imbal-ances is both a challenge to and a valuableopportunity for the sustainable/organicagriculture industry. Progressive enterprisesare already taking steps to address theseissues, showing how the meaning ofsustainability can be expanded to includesocial responsibility.

6. Misleading Green Claims. Some companieshave used green environmental claims oradopted ecological and sustainable terminol-ogy, as a public relations strategy, whileactually still using conventional approaches.These enterprises may use this“greenwashing” tactic as an attempt to paint afavorable image to consumers or local com-munities. However, when these superficialassertions are not accompanied by actualsignificant changes in practices, they aredeceptive and can be challenged by consum-ers or organizations. These misleading claimscan also be detrimental to overall greeningtrend in the food system, and can impair theintegrity of those who are pursuing genuinesustainable approaches in the food system.

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM50

51


REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDEDACTIONS TO BUILD FUTUREOPPORTUNITIES

Experiences in sustainable agriculture by agrowing number of growers and food businessesreveal promising results. The innovators respon-sible for these inspiring changes are respondingto growing consumer demands for food pro-duced in environmentally sound ways. Compa-nies pursuing a direction of sustainable foodproduction and agriculture systems are likely tocontinue profiting and flourishing, leading thetrend and performing on the cutting edge.

These examples show that it is possible tosimultaneously fulfill interests of environmentaland social responsibility, as well as economicprofitability. Even though the cases have varia-tions in their pace, specific styles, and extent ofadopting green sustainable methods, thisdiversity is to be expected among the innovators.Overall, these companies are forging a newsustainable direction in our food system, anddeveloping a new promising business paradigmwhich includes values that go beyond profit asthe exclusive bottom line.

This transition is global, opening up tradeopportunities around the world and contributingto the wider distribution of organic and naturalfoods to diverse consumers. This story of greentransition in the food system shows greatprospects for future expansion. Undoubtedly,consumers and public organizations will con-tinue to show interest in ecologically responsibleproduction practices and protection of health, aswell as affordable and good quality, safe food.Food retailers are likewise responding to this

ever-growing demand. Government agencies arealso increasing implementation of environmen-tal regulations. This means that food andagriculture companies would be wise to makeappropriate changes now in order to respondpositively to these trends in the future.

Yet, major obstacles still must be overcome toachieve a broad transition to sustainable agricul-ture. The great promise and full potential of thissector can only be realized if the barriers areboldly addressed and overcome, and if newalliances and changes are developed. Both thepublic and private sectors must take concertedactions, explained below, by increasing: (1) wideradoption of sustainable agriculture innovationsand policies, (2) marketing opportunities, (3)information access, (4) prevention of environ-mentally harmful practices, and (5) widerdistribution of sustainably produced foods.

1. Increase adoption of sustainable farmingpractices and policies. This is one of the mostimportant and critical challenges. Thisrequires reducing farmer risks (and riskperceptions) in using alternatives to conven-tional methods. Recommended responses tothis challenge are the following:

Public sector: Increase incentives throughsubsidies, grants, and educational programsto support the adoption of conservationmeasures and other sustainable practices byproducers, including support to the proposedconservation legislation in the Farm Bill of2002. One possibility is to require farmers touse sustainable practices in order to receivefarm payments or loans. Increase regulationsand law enforcement to prevent and penalize

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM51

52


the use of environmentally harmful agricul-tural practices.

Private sector: Increase investments in testingand adopting sustainable practices, particularlynatural resource conservation, pollution preven-tion, pesticide risk/use reduction.

Consumers: Increase purchase and con-sumption of foods that are producedsustainably or organically, and urge groceriesand markets to sell more of these foods.

2. Increase stable market opportunities in thegreen food system, ensuring that new as wellas established companies are assured ofmarkets for sustainably produced goods.Recommendations include:

Public Sector: Increase incentives, grants, orloans to protect and encourage small busi-nesses and new entrepreneurs in the organicand sustainable foods business, and helpthem gain access to capital for this purpose.

Private Sector: Increase investments inactivities and enterprises for marketing,distribution, and sales of sustainably pro-duced foods; and encourage private banks tofinance growers’ investments in developingsustainable practices, giving attention tomeeting financial needs of small businesseswho are making a transition. To gain access togreen market opportunities, smaller busi-nesses need to use creative ideas, includingcollaborating with other growers by formingstrategic marketing alliances and coopera-tives, and direct niche marketing.

Consumers: Advocate for greater choice andaccess to sustainably produced foods insupermarkets and other stores, and raisemarket demand by increasing purchases ofthese foods.

3. Increase agroecology research and the flow ofpractical information for growers, and ensuremore widely spread and easier access toinformation on sustainable practices andagroecology. Recommendations include:

Public sector: Increase investments inagroecology research and information diffu-sion to growers and food companies, andincrease information flow on sustainableagriculture from universities, extensionsystems, and other institutions.

Private Sector: Invest in on-farm researchand documentation of results from sustain-able methods, and increase the exchange andsharing of information among farmers andbusinesses, through farmer-to-farmer discus-sions and other information media. Experi-ence shows the importance of acquiring andtracking new information continuously.

Consumers: Facilitate and build the ex-change of information on the meaning ofsustainable agriculture among consumers,and urge public agencies and private compa-nies to be transparent and expose full infor-mation about agricultural practices.

4. Prevent the use of environmentally harmfulpractices in agriculture

Public sector: Strengthen and coordinate lawenforcement measures to prevent the use of

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM52

53


environmentally harmful methods; and ceasecontradictory policies that subsidize orsupport unsustainable practices.

Private sector: Increase corporate account-ability to ensure sustainability and greenpractices, recognizing that this can improvethe bottom line of business, and can addvalue for marketing; and ensure legitimacy ofenvironmental claims.

Consumers: Call for corporate responsibilityby food producers; buy from those who areresponsible.

5. Improve equity and distribution in the sus-tainable agriculture/food sector, to ensure thatconsumers have greater choice and access tosuch products, to protect survival of smallfarms, and prevent extreme market concen-tration. This requires:

Public Sector: Increase education andmarketing programs (e.g., through USDA) toexpand distribution and access to sustainablyproduced foods by all consumers in allincome levels, e.g., in schools, hospitals,other institutions and workplaces. Establishsupportive policies or subsidies to ensureequitable opportunities for small businesses,and apply strict regulations to prevent oli-gopoly or monopoly of markets by particularcorporations in the food system.

Private Sector: Develop and invest in newmarket channels, and increase sales ofsustainably produced food to consumers at allincome levels as well as to public institutionssuch as schools and hospitals. Develop

strategies to protect opportunities and com-petitiveness of small businesses, such asforming cooperatives and alliances and/orother support systems.

Consumers: Help increase consumerknowledge and consumption of sustainablyproduced foods by supporting farmers’markets, community supported agriculture(CSAs), school programs, and exchanges ofinformation between consumer groups indifferent regions.

In sum, policy changes, educational programs,and strong proactive efforts by the private sector,public agencies, and consumers are needed tospread the use of “green” approaches, and tosupport this transformation to sustainableagriculture. All of the above urgent strategies aresummarized in Table 5. All actors in the foodsystem, from businesses to consumers, mustunderstand that sustainable practices haveadvantages for them individually and for thebroader society and economy.

Promising results are on the horizon, particu-larly if these kinds of actions are undertaken.Implementing such transformations widelythroughout the economy poses a difficult chal-lenge for the food and agriculture industry andfor public sector agencies. Yet the experiencesdocumented in this report show that people andcompanies working hard and using innovativeapproaches can be successful and truly make adifference, achieving extraordinary economic,ecological, and social goals. The expansion ofthese efforts in sustainable agriculture and“green” business in the food industry can createvaluable opportunities in the years to come.

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM53

54


TAB L E 5 .

R E C O M M E N D E D A C T I O N S F O R E X P A N D I N G S U S T A I N A B L E F O O D S Y S T E M S

PPPPuuuurrrrppppoooosssseeee PPPPrrrriiiivvvvaaaatttteeee SSSSeeeeccccttttoooorrrr PPPPuuuubbbbllll iiiicccc AAAAggggeeeennnncccciiiieeeessss CCCCoooonnnnssssuuuummmmeeeerrrrssss////CCCCiiii tttt iiiizzzzeeeennnnssss

1. Increase aaaaddddoooopppptttt iiiioooonnnn of sustainable farming practices

Increase investments in sustainable practices, particularly resource conservation and pollution prevention

Expand incentives, grants, and education programs to support the adoption of sustainable & organic practices; support the Conservation Security Act of the 2002 Farm Bill

Increase consumption, knowledge, and purchases of food produced with sustainable and organic methods, and request grocers to sell more of this kind of food

2. Build markets and mmmmaaaarrrrkkkkeeeetttt iiiinnnngggg ooooppppppppoooorrrrttttuuuunnnniiii tttt iiiieeeessss in “green” food system

Increase marketing, distribution, sales and promotion of sustainably-produced foods; link with the natural food business

Enhance incentives and/or grants programs to protect & encourage small businesses/entrepreneurs in the organic, sustainable & natural food business

Expand market demand by increasing purchases of food grown sustainably; advocate for greater choice and access to this food in grocery stores

3. Expand agroecology research and flow of ttttoooo iiiinnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaatttt iiiioooonnnn about sustainable methods

Invest in on-farm research and documentation of results on sustainable methods; and increase exchange of information among farmers on the info

Increase public funding to research and information-diffusion on sustainable methods, by major agencies, especially in USDA, EPA, FDA

Facilitate and build the exchange and diffusion of information on the meaning of sustainable and organic agriculture among consumers

4. PPPPrrrreeeevvvveeeennnntttt eeeennnnvvvviiiirrrroooonnnnmmmmeeeennnnttttaaaallll llllyyyy hhhhaaaarrrrmmmmffffuuuullll practices

Increase corporate accountability for sustainability and green practices, recognizing that this can improve the bottom line

Strengthen law enforce-ment to stop environ-mentally harmful methods

Call for corporate responsibility by food producers; buy from those who are responsible.

5. Improve equity and ddddiiiissssttttrrrriiiibbbbuuuutttt iiiioooonnnn to enable all consumers to have greater access to sustainably produced food products; and to prevent extreme market concentration

Develop new markets and increase distribution to all consumers, and to public institutions such as schools and hospitals; develop support for small businesses, form alliances.

Through education and subsidy programs (eg., in USDA), expand access to sustainably-produced foods by all consumers in all income levels; apply regulations to prevent market monopoly; build opportunities for small businesses.

Increase purchase of sustainably produced foods, and support farmers markets, school programs, and consumer education about sustainable farming and food systems.

Untitled-5 8/8/2002, 10:48 AM54

55


PART II: CASE STUDIES

PROFILES OF INNOVATORS

variations are logically expected and respected amonginnovators.

The group of cases profiled here is not intended asa complete or inclusive account of all companiesinvolved in developing sustainable green approachesin the food system. Many additional cases could havebeen included, since there are numerous othersinvolved in this transformation throughout theUnited States and the world.1 However, resourceconstraints and geographical scope limited the studyto these few, to provide illustrations of broader greentrends in this sector. We appreciate the collaborationof the following innovators for their participation inthis study.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROFILES

This section consists of brief profiles from the casestudies that were undertaken for this report. Thesesummaries provide highlights of the selected innova-tors who are involved in greening the food system. Asnoted in Part 1, these twelve cases have been selectedto represent a diversity of products, approaches, andscales of integrated agriculture and food operations. Ingeneral, they are committed to a sustainable path.They all are achieving progress by effectively applyingecologically and socially responsible and economicallyviable practices in crop production, processing, andmarketing. They are based in the Western region ofthe United States, primarily in California, as a geo-graphical focus.

These diverse cases were chosen partly to show theways in which agriculture and food marketing can besustainable and successful in many crops and con-texts. In spite of distinctions, these cases share someimportant common features that have been describedin this report. Although some of the cases may seemto be further “ahead” than others in terms of achiev-ing truly green and sustainable approaches, they arenot being evaluated or judged in that way. Rather,

Del CaboDurst GrowersFetzer VineyardsFrog’s LeapFull Belly FarmLagier Ranches

Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape CommissionLundberg Family FarmsNatural Selection FoodsRobert Mondavi WinerySherman Thomas RanchSmall Planet Foods

Dairy operations have not been included in the examples, due to lack of resources, and more difficulty to make comparisons withcrops. Nevertheless, there are also growing numbers of dairy operations that are using “green” and organic practices.

56


PROFILE

Del Cabo

“Del Cabo was established with the objective ofassisting small farmers to improve their economicwell-being by teaching them organic agriculturaltechniques, how to produce specialty crops, and howto administer an organization that would allow themto take advantage of niche export markets in thewinter,” Jacobs says.

The success of Del Cabo for growers and manage-ment alike required more than good intentions.Because members of the cooperative had littleexperience with either the types of crops Jacobswanted or the specific methods required for organiccertification, the company has conducted a great dealof on-farm training and education. It has taken timeto disseminate information on and bring farmersaround to the techniques of soil building,composting, use of cover crops, crop rotation, andjudicious use of approved inputs. Continued monoc-ulture of tomato crops even under organic certifica-tion led to problems with pests and disease that hadto be managed carefully.

At the same time, both the cooperative membersand Del Cabo’s founders and partners in the UnitedStates learned by doing, and by making consciousand creative decisions to “turn obstacles into oppor-tunities,” in Jacobs’ words. Rapid growth wasn’t theproblem—at times, in the early years, productionexceeded the company’s ability to distribute. In the1990s, the company grew at about 20 percent eachyear, in keeping with the impressive growth of thestill-young natural and organic market.

Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo offers a unique modelof cooperative organic farming in onecountry in partnership with management

and marketing operations in another, wheremost of the product is sold.

The company was founded in 1986 by Larry Jacobsand Sandy Belin of Jacobs Farm, a 150-acre familyfarm in Pescadero, California. A visit to Mexicoinspired Jacobs and Belin to help seed a cooperativeof farmers there in San Jose del Cabo. FollowingJacobs and Belin’s vision, the members begangrowing organic produce and, through Jacobs Farm’smarketing and distribution efforts, exported and soldit in the United States during the winter monthswhere those crops were not available as seasonalproduce.

From an initial group of eight farmers, the coopera-tive grew to more than 141 in 1998 and by 2001 hada total of 250 farms, many smaller than five acres.Growing high-quality crops—primarily tomatoes andbasil—using certified organic methods and exportingthem to United States consumers hungry for freshflavor in the winter months proved to be a winningstrategy. Del Cabo’s progressive social mission andorganic appeal also created marketing advantages inniche markets.

The company’s social mission of building incomeopportunities for small farmers in poor regions, inaddition to using environmentally sound farmingmethods, was fundamental to achieving this vision.

57


Challenges lay in managing transport of theproduct, packaging, saturation of the basil market,increased competition, export regulations, and highlocal labor costs in the Del Cabo region. By creatingsystems to share risk and guarantee prices forcooperative members each season, Del Cabo hasbeen able to grow and thrive even through someyears of torrential rains or hurricanes. The companyhas expanded its production of a broad diversity ofherbs, which have become an increasingly importantpart of its current business.

The family farmers who make up the cooperativeand grow produce for the company earned anaverage annual income of more than US$20,000 in2001, compared to $3,000 at the company’s start in1986 (Runsten, personal communication, 2001).This certainly appears to fulfill the objective of DelCabo’s founders to create income opportunities in adeveloping region. At the same time, the overallbusiness has prospered economically, and theircontinued adherence to organic standards hasensured environmental integrity.

Del Cabo’s experience offers valuable lessons aboutthe achievement of remarkable accomplishmentsthrough innovation, perseverance, and creative abilityto create unique market opportunities while holdingto fundamental principles. By giving serious atten-tion to social, environmental, and financial concerns,Del Cabo offers a model for sustainable developmentand alternative agriculture and food production.

Information sources for this case study included interviews withLarry Jacobs, John Graham, David Runsten and other staff andgrowers in Cabo Mexico, and Diana Friedman, 1989, “The DelCabo Project,” Whole Earth Review, Spring. David Runsten’scollaboration is greatly appreciated.

58


PROFILE

Durst Growers

help our crops…” Jim believes in the principle: “feedthe soil, and the soil will feed the plants.” One of themain practices that they have used since the 1980s iscover crops, which have given them multiple ben-efits, such as adding “biomass to the soil… improvedsoil structure, water permeability, and a healthy soilfauna.” They also use crop rotation and othermethods to avoid soil disturbance and compaction.

The Dursts take steps to create what they call “ahealthy work environment” for people who work onthe farm. They have several full-time employees, andthey also hire more than 80 workers during theharvest periods. To these seasonal employees, theyalso offer a retirement plan and provide workertraining opportunities. The employees are engaged inmultiple aspects of the farm work, gaining skills inmany jobs. The Dursts believe it is useful for theindividual employees and for the entire team to havea better understanding of how the whole farm worksin order to improve judgement and versatility.

The Dursts market their vegetables under thebrand name Hungry Hollow to wholesale and retailoutlets in the San Francisco Bay area and to manycities in the United States and in Canada. Startingabout two years ago, they began using an agent called“Organic Harvest Network” which helps them marketand promote their fresh produce nationwide towholesalers and retailers. The Dursts also partnerwith several other growers in their area whoseproduce they buy and market under the HungryHollow label. The volume of produce that they buy

Durst Organic Growers, located in YoloCounty, California, illustrates a well-established diversified organic operation

that has been recognized by colleagues for leadershipand integrity in this field. On their their fourth-generation 550-acre farm, Jim and Deborah Durstorganically grow a variety of crops which they sell asfresh produce. Their certified organic produceincludes fresh market tomatoes (on about 70 acres),mixed melons, winter squash, summer squash,asparagus, and about half of their acreage is plantedin alfalfa hay that is grown for organic dairy feed.

For several decades, Jim Durst’s father and grand-father farmed row crops conventionally and alsograzed sheep on this farm. After Jim Durst becameinvolved in the operation, he was interested inreducing or avoiding the use of chemicals, so hestarted farming organically in the early 1980s,beginning with organic wheat. But he faced signifi-cant marketing challenges selling the wheat at apremium, due to low demand for organic grains atthe time, so they began to convert some of theiracreage to vegetables. The company improved itsskills in organic farming, and became successful inproducing organic vegetables as well as alfalfa. By1991, they had fully transformed the farm into acertified organic operation.

Central to the Dursts’ farming practices is buildingsoil fertility and balancing insect ecology. Jim Durstsays he focuses on improving soil conditions “tocreate a healthy environment for the organisms that

59


from these growers varies year by year, depending onmarket conditions and quality of produce. TheDursts want to ensure their buyers the best qualityproducts, and work with their growers to try toachieve this result.

The Dursts also participated for several years in aresearch project with the Sustainable FarmingSystems (SAFS) project at the University of Califor-nia at Davis. In this project, Jim Durst cooperatedclosely with scientists who analyzed several kinds offarming systems, and did detailed on-farm measure-ments of crop yields, soil quality, economic returns,and overall sustainability. The project team ofscientists and growers met fairly often to shareknowledge about the results, hold field days, and alsodistribute the findings to the agriculture communityin Yolo county and beyond. Durst andothers involved in this project feel thatthis kind of research and information-exchange from the on-farm experi-ments are very useful for growers, andalso helps to spread positive changeover time.

The Durst Growers have chosen apath of slow and steady growth in theirbusiness. They deliberately have notexpanded their own land area, remain-ing at 550 acres, and they don’t intend

to buy more land, since they prefer to remain solidand sustainable at the current size. However, theyhave also focused on improving the quality of theirproducts and increasing the efficiency and extent oftheir marketing. The Durst Growers will continue toprovide exemplary leadership for other growers inthe area who are pursuing sustainable and organicmethods.

Information sources for this case study included: Interviewswith Jim and Deborah Durst; Dr. Stephen Temple, U.C. Davis;Organic Harvest website; and secondary sources, includingsummary in Western SARE, 2000, “Sustainable Agriculture…Continuing to Grow,” Western Region Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education Program, with Sustainable Northwest,Portland, OR, pp. 44-45.

60


PROFILE

Fetzer Vineyards

Kentucky-based Brown Foreman Corporation in 1992.Today, Fetzer farms about 700 acres of land, andcontracts with approximately 300 growers. About 80percent of the company’s land is certified organic,with more in transition from conventional to organic.The company employs about 300 people. Fetzer sellsabout 3 million cases of wine per year in all 50 statesand in 25 other countries. Sales of the Bonterra brandconstitute about 3 percent of Fetzer’s total salesvolume and have been growing at a fast rate in recentyears.

Fetzer’s commitment to organic and environmentalpractices began in earnest in the mid-1980s, whenthe company established a five-acre vegetable andherb teaching garden for culinary classes and forcatered events and visitors. The garden’s manager,Michael Maltas, applied his knowledge of biodynamicand organic farming practices. Positive results in thegarden led vineyard managers to begin incorporatingorganic practices in the vineyards. They continuallyexpanded the vineyard area under organic methods,and convinced by growing successful outcomes, theysoon became certified by CCOF. They use diversecover crops and compost as key practices to build soilhealth which Fetzer views as a critical basis of ahealthy and productive organic system.

At the same time, Fetzer began a dynamic recyclingprogram that has grown over time. Each year, thecompany recycles at least 70 tons of corrugatedcardboard, 75 cubic yards of paper board, 500 tons ofglass, 740 gallons of oil, and 392 cubic yards ofwooden pallets, according to their web site. In addi-

Fetzer Vineyards has been recognized as aleader in developing and implementingenvironmental innovations throughout its large-

scale enterprise. Based in Mendocino county, about 80percent of Fetzer’s own vineyards are certified organic.The company encourages similar practices among its300+ contract growers. In 1993, with its Bonterrabrand, Fetzer was the first major American winery todevelop a premium wine made from organically growngrapes.

Fetzer’s environmental stewardship goes far beyondits vineyards to include notable achievements inecologically sound building construction, a compre-hensive recycling and resource conservation program,and an emphasis on human values in the workplace.Under the leadership of CEO Paul Dolan, the com-pany is committed to three inter-linked goals ofeconomics, ecology, and equity that they call the “triplebottom line.” Fetzer’s staff has created an “E3 Team”to coordinate and help implement these triple goalsthat guide their sustainable business practices.Fetzer’s mission statement reads: “We are an environ-mentally and socially conscious grower, producer, andmarketer of wines of the highest quality and value.Working together in harmony and with respect for thehuman spirit, we are committed to sharing informa-tion about the enjoyment of wine and food in alifestyle of moderation and responsibility.”

Founded by the Fetzer family in 1968, the wineryand vineyards are located in a fertile valley at the baseof the coastal range foothills of Mendocino County innorthern California. The company was sold to the

61


tion, 12 cubic yards of cork and 10,000 tons ofgrape pomace are composted each year. Thecompany has reduced its discarded materialsby 93 percent between 1990 and 1997,eliminating dumping of 1,580 cubic yards oflandfill. Fetzer has won Waste ReductionAwards of the Year from the Waste Manage-ment Board of California’s EnvironmentalProtection Agency. In 1997, Fetzer was given aspecial Waste Reduction honor, acknowledgedas one of the ten best recycling companies inCalifornia.

CEO Paul Dolan, inspired by PaulHawken’s The Ecology of Commerce, beganlooking for more ways that the companycould address global ecological issues. During themid 1990s, they initiated construction of ecologicallysound winery offices using recycled building materi-als, enhanced energy and resource conservation, andother “green” building practices. Fetzer’swinemaking, storage, bottling, and labeling practicesalso use ecologically innovative methods. Thecompany also recycles and reuses water from thewinery. Water treatment ponds with electric aerationmechanisms, and a unique state-of-the-art biologicaltreatment pond uses natural vegetation, in whichcattails form a natural filtration mat in the water. Thesystem reduces energy input for the aeration systemwhile effectively treating water through the naturalmicrobial activity of plant and water bacteria. Also, inlate 1999, Fetzer began using “green” energy utilityservices based on renewable energy sources.

Fetzer also promotes a management style that isrelatively non-hierarchical, informal, open, andsupportive of staff. Dolan places a premium on goodcommunication and information flow. All employeesin the company are encouraged to set their personaljob performance goals in relation to the company’s“ecological, economic, and equity” mission. Vineyardmanagers stress that management of information

and knowledge is more important for organic produc-tion than for conventional farming, particularly formonitoring and evaluating variations in climateconditions, soils, pests and diseases, and for adjustingpractices to localized needs.

Fetzer’s challenges have included garnering theinterest, enthusiasm, and support of those who havenot yet embraced environmental and socialsustainability as a driving force of business. Althoughthe company’s volume of Bonterra wine is growingrapidly, organic wine is still a minor percentage of theoverall production. From growers to investors, manypeople still perceive organic or other ecologicalpractices as high-risk. Dolan says he will continue toimprove understanding about organic approachesthrough education. Fetzer’s future goals include furtherreduction of energy use in transportation and wineryoperations, expansion of organic practices amongtheir contracted growers, and strengthened stafftraining, diversity, and community involvement.

Information sources for this case study include: Interviews withPaul Dolan, Tom Piper, Scott Duncan, Mike Johnson, BillCascio and other staff from Fetzer; website information;discussions with green business collaborators; Kohn Propertiesstaff. Images on pages 61, 63, and 75 are courtesy of the WineInstitute.

62


PROFILE

Frog’s Leap

not certified. John Williams explains that the goal ofthe company is “to produce wines that deeply reflectthe soils and climate from which they emanate.”Frog’s Leap also has a special reputation due to theirsense of humor and fun spirit, reflected in theirclever labels and amusing promotional activities.

Williams emphasizes the importance of healthy soilin his organic system. The company uses a variety ofcover crops, which enhance the soil organic matterand microbial activity, improve soil structure andfertility, and can suppress weeds and attract benefi-cial insects. When leading tours, Williams shares hisexcitement about the natural qualities in the vineyardby encouraging visitors to “smell the soil ”– whichgenerates a complex aroma that is alive with organiclife. Another unique feature of Frog’s Leap’s ecologi-cal approach is that a large majority of the land theyfarm is “dry farmed,” meaning that it is rainfed, notirrigated. Frog’s Leap also incorporates other basicprinciples of “recycle, reuse, and renew” in theirvineyard operations.

The winery also uses natural principles inwinemaking--using natural yeasts, minimizing han-dling, and avoiding unnecessary filtrations of the wine.Williams has begun experimenting with biodynamicfarming principles, mainly in the landscaping and intheir mixed vegetable, herb, and fruit garden that isattractively located in front of the winery. (This entailsthe integration of natural cycles, rhythms and specialbiological treatments, understanding and managing thefarm as a complete living organism.)

Frog’s Leap, located in the heart of the NapaValley in California, produces premiumwines using ecological practices in grape-

growing and winemaking. Although Frog’s Leap ismuch smaller than some other companies in thisreport, it is notable as a pioneer in producing highquality wines from organically grown grapes, and forits unique niche and sustainability in the business.Frog’s Leap currently farms about 200 acres ofwinegrapes and operates a winery in Rutherford.

Frog’s Leap winery was started in 1981 by its CEOand winemaker John Williams, who initially pur-chased grapes from local growers to make wine. Inthe late 1980s, Frog’s Leap acquired 15 acres of landand began growing grapes. Williams began tryingecological practices in this vineyard because it madecommon sense to him. While experimenting withvarious methods, he discovered that the organicallygrown grapes generally produced better flavor and abetter quality wine, in his opinion. He continued todevelop this organic approach, and his land wascertified by CCOF in 1989. Through the 1990s,Frog’s Leap expanded the area they own and farm,and continued to refine ecological methods thatWilliams believes are best for “healthy wine growing”and for making high quality wines.

Today Frog’s Leap owns about 100 acres of certifiedorganic land, and they contract with other growers inanother 100 acres. About 75 percent of the total landthey farm is certified organic, and the remainingacreage is farmed ecologically or in transition, but is

63


Frog’s Leap’s production has remained steady inrecent years, at about 50,000 cases per year, whilethe marketing range has broadened, and theirprofitability and product diversity have increased overtime. The company has matured and grown inter-nally by increasing infrastructure, work force, and itsland ownership. Frog’s Leap niche markets theirwines mainly in fine restaurants and wine shops inCalifornia and in selected cities throughout theUnited States. The company also exports wine toEurope, Japan, and Canada. Although their exportsrepresent only about 8 percent of total revenues,sales abroad have grown steadily.

Frog’s Leap’s label does not indicate that the wine ismade from organically grown grapes, partly becausea small portion of the grapes they process are fromthe non-certified land of their growers. Williams alsobelieves that using the organic label currently doesnot generally give their wine a market advantage ora premium in the wine market. Some of theircustomers appreciate Frogs Leap’s ecologicalorientation, but other customers care most aboutthe fine quality or taste, and pay more for the winebased on that aspect alone. Yet Williams is con-vinced that the use of organic methods contributesdirectly to higher quality and flavors of their wine.

Frog’s Leap has 30 full time employees and hiresadditional seasonal workers during harvest. Many ofthe employees have been with the company for over10 years, and are committed to its values. Williamshas helped to train and mentor several young

employees, including Mexican American workers, whohave now developed professional expertise inwinemaking and other skills.

Williams and other Frog’s Leap staff are involved insupporting local environmental and educationalactivities in the community, such as providing fieldtours, seminars, and giving talks at conferences. Thecompany’s efforts can help increase growers’ and thepublic’s understanding of why and how to care for thesoil and other resources, to create healthier vineyardsand high quality products over the long term.

Information sources for this case study included interviews withJohn Williams, CEO, and Frank Leeds, farm manager;information from Amigo/Bob Cantisano, organic agricultureconsultant; and Klinkenborg, Verlyn, 1995, “A FarmingRevolution: Sustainable Agriculture,” Natural Geographic,December, pp. 61-88.

64


PROFILE

Full Belly Farm

The owners stress the value of biological diversity inthe farm. Growing many crops and varieties help toprevent diseases and pests, and diverse cover cropsand surrounding habitat also increase the health ofthe soil and the system. Having a broad diversity ofcrops, including heirloom varieties, also appeals totheir customers. They also make sundried tomatoesthat are sold in the summertime. Farming operationsare continued year round, even through the winter,when they continue to produce vegetables such asgreens and coles.

The farm has approximately 25 employees, most ofwhom are retained all year. This kind of year-longemployment is unusual in a small farm, since mostfarms this size only have a very small handful ofpermanent employees and then hire temporaryseasonal employees during harvests. Full Belly Farmalso has an apprenticeship program, which helpsbuild knowledge and capacities of young adults. Eachyear, they usually hire a small group of apprentices,who live on the farm with the owners and theirfamilies, and take part in the farm’s unique commu-nity. Judith Redmond explains proudly that several ofthese apprentices and other employees have beeninspired to continue farming as a career, and someformer employees have recently started their ownsmall farms in the area, with mentoring and supportfrom the Full Belly owners.

Full Belly’s products are sold mostly in California,but sometimes reach other states through their

Nestled in the Capay Valley of NorthernCalifornia, Full Belly Farm is a well-established and successful organic farm that

is known in the region for its innovative marketingand progressive employee relations, as well as forgrowing and marketing a very broad diversity ofvegetables, fruits, nuts, and flowers all year round.Although this farm is smaller in scale -- 170 acres --than many of the other cases in this report, it ishighly productive and its gross revenues have grownsteadily at a rate of 10 to 15 percent per year over thelast decade. Full Belly harvests more than 80 kinds oforganic crops and also maintains about 100 sheep(and a few other farm animals) that have veryimportant functions in their integrated operation.The farm has a reputation as a mentor and supporterfor other small-scale organic farmers.

Full Belly Farm was started in 1989 by four part-ners/owners, Andrew Brait, Paul Muller, JudithRedmond, and Dru Rivers. The land has beenfarmed organically since 1984, and is certified byCCOF. In addition to avoiding synthetic chemicals,they use cover crops that fix nitrogen and provideorganic matter for the soil, apply compost, and planthabitat areas for beneficial insects. The sheep are avaluable part of the operation, managed in a rota-tional grazing pattern on the farm. They graze oncrop residues and on cover crops, which enablesmowing of the vegetation to create useful greenmanure that is incorporated directly into the soil. Thefarm also sells the wool and sheepskin.

65


wholesale distributors. The company has a diversifiedmarketing strategy: Their products are marketed toretail stores and restaurants (accounting for about33% of their gross revenues), wholesalers (about20%), farmers’ markets in the San Francisco BayArea (also about 20%), and through an innovativeform of marketing called Community SupportedAgriculture (or CSA), which they began in 1992.

For their CSA, Full Belly prepares boxes of freshproduce every week that are distributed directly to‘subscribers’ who are members, mostly in Davis,Sacramento, and the Bay Area. The program hasachieved significant success, and members haveincreased steadily over time. Now, the Full Belly CSAaccounts for more than 20 percent of their farm’stotal gross revenue, and they have 500 members.During the winter, Full Belly also includes freshorganic oranges in the CSA boxes that they purchasethrough an agreement with a neighboring farmer,since Full Belly does not groworanges. Judith Redmondbelieves that the CSA systemhas special qualities, such asenabling consumers to directlyconnect with the farmers, andalso because the customers

appreciate the local supply of very fresh seasonal food.However, Full Belly also continues to market morethan half of its produce in other retail channels, sincenot everyone has access to or prefers the CSA system.

Full Belly Farm is actively involved in communityeducational events about sustainable and organicfarming through school visits and tours for visitors.The farm also puts on an annual harvest festival forthe community and other farmers, and the celebra-tion usually attracts hundreds of people. The farmowners have also been active in political effortsrelated to developing policies to support sustainableand organic farming.

Information sources include: interview with Judith Redmond;Ecological Farming conference in Asilomar, CA 2000-2002;and other experts in sustainable/organic farming; website; andCommunity Alliance of Family Farmers.

66


PROFILE

Lagier Ranches

house manufacturing of several added-value productsin a commercial kitchen that Lagier recently estab-lished on the farm. They manufacture organic prod-ucts that are made mostly from their own crops,including fruit spread, almond butter, almondsnacks, and pies. They also purchase a few additionalingredients, such as evaporated cane juice andorganic wheat, mostly from local businesses. Lagierexplains that they originally started this manufactur-ing mainly because their berries are highly perish-able, so they can avoid losses of fresh fruit by pro-cessing it. Although their manufactured productscurrently make up only about 15 percent of their totalsales, developing this processing capacity adds valueand is beneficial for their business.

The company’s fresh produce is marketed to avariety of places, such as retailers (including localfruit stands), and wholesalers, who distribute inCalifornia and in other cities on the East Coast andthe Midwest. They also retail their produce in severalfarmers’ markets in the San Francisco Bay Area.Most of their manufactured products go to naturalfood grocery stores such as Whole Foods, and toother U.S. retailers or distributors who appreciatethese products; a small amount is sold to a distribu-tor in Japan. The almonds are hulled and shelledthrough a local processor, and they work with acooperative of organic almond growers in Turlock forpacking and selling them.

For Lagier Ranches, the organic conversion anddiversification process has been relatively smooth,

Lagier Ranches, located in Escalon, California, in SanJoaquin County, has family roots going back to thelate 1800s in the region. As a fourth generationfarmer and entrepreneur, John Lagier has developeda new path in his family history: His recent experi-ence illustrates a successful example of diversifica-tion, organic conversion, and innovation in manufac-turing products and direct niche marketing.

Lagier’s parents and grandparents historicallyfarmed row crops and almond orchards usingconventional methods, and also raised mules. JohnLagier began farming in 1979, partly by leasing landfrom other family members, and he began a processof diversification and innovation that has continuedup to the present day. He established vineyards andcherry orchards, and then in 1991, began to convertthe 200 acres he farmed to organic methods. Headopted these changes partly due to health concernsthat he and his wife had about use of chemicals,since both of them had experienced cancers. Givenhis dedication to change, the conversion was quiterapid, and all of the land he farmed became fullycertified organic by 1997. Lagier Ranches currentlyproduces a variety of organic berries, almonds,cherries, winegrapes, and a small area of citrus andexotic crops such as pawpaw. Their organic practicesinclude the use of diverse cover crops, compost,foliar feeding, and minimum or no-tillage through-out the farm.

Lagier Ranches has developed diverse strategies forprocessing and marketing. The company does in-

67


even though there were some risks during the transi-tion period due to yield losses. Once the acreagebecame certified and they began to earn a premiumon the products, they have seen considerable eco-nomic and environmental advantages compared tothe conventional systems. Lagier explains that theparadigm switch to organic required new learningand new information which he has gained largelythrough other growers who are open to sharing theirknowledge.

The biggest production challenge they face isgophers, and they are using avariety of methods, includingtrapping and owl boxes, to controlthem. The depressed prices in theoverall market situation recentlyhas inevitably affected the opera-tion, but not dramatically. Lagierstresses that organic growers likehimself tend to be better off thanconventional growers and foodcompanies under current marketconditions. The company contin-

ues to be committed to this way of farming, anddedicated to refining and growing their innovativemarketing approaches in response to market condi-tions.

Information sources include: Interviews with John Lagier,founder, and Matt Devator, production manager, and CindyLashbrook; presentations at the Ecological Farming Conferencein January 2002, Asilomar; “Partnerships for SustainingCalifornia Agriculture” conference in Woodland, 2001; andcompany website.

68


PROFILE

Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission

efforts and collaborative relationships among farmers,scientists, and advisors. As that program generatedpositive results, the LWWC was awarded additionalfunding from EPA and other agencies to expand theoutreach and impacts.

The IPM program is only one of the commission’sactivities and priorities, but interviewed growers saythat the program has gained importance to them overtime. The components of this program includeunderstanding the ecology and dynamics of the crop,and of the pests and natural enemies; developing amonitoring program to assess levels of pests andtheir natural enemies; establishing an economicthreshold for pests; and considering and determiningthe most appropriate strategies based on the consid-eration of economics, health, and environmentalrisks. Outreach activities, such as monthly breakfastmeetings with growers, research seminars, and fieldworkshops, helps information exchange and encour-ages communication among LWWC members.

The LWWC growers have had a range of reactionsto the introduction of new integrated practices. Somehave been enthusiastic adopters of the biologicallyintegrated practices, and have become strongadvocates of the program and educators to othergrowers. The LWWC members include some organicfarmers as well, who have adopted all of the recom-mended practices, and gone beyond that. On theother hand, some have still been skeptical or resistantto change, especially if they are under economicpressure due to low prices. Nevertheless, growers

The Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission (LWWC) is an association of 650grape growers in the Sacramento River Delta

region of California. In all, the members of LWWCcultivate more than 70,000 acres, making the regiona leading producer of winegrapes in California.LWWC is notable for its integrated farming program,in which many of its member growers participate.Through grower-based educational and outreachactivities, the program is successfully implementinginnovative pest management methods, reducingagro-chemical inputs by many growers in the region,and carrying out on-farm research and evaluation toassess the changes.

LWWC, formed in 1991 to serve the commoninterests of growers in the region. All growers in theregion are required to be members of LWWC, andpay a tax of .35 percent of the value of theirwinegrape gross earnings per year to the commis-sion. There are approximately 650 members withfarms ranging from small family farms of five acresto ranches of 9,000 acres, with a median size ofabout 40 acres.

LWWC began an Integrated Pest Management(IPM) program in 1992. Based on the progress ofthat program, the Commission was awarded a three-year Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS)grant from the University of California in 1995. Thisallowed LWWC to develop its activities, includinggrower outreach, field implementation, and evalua-tion, operating on a model featuring grower-driven

69


themselves say there have been significant overallchanges in attitude toward these approaches, withmore openness and support rather than skepticism.

A grower survey undertaken in 1999, based on self-reporting of 288 growers in LWWC, illustrates someof the results: 76 percent of growers said theyreduced their per-acre rates of insecticides; 66percent reduced their rate of herbicides whenspraying for weeds; 46 percent use cover crops; 65percent monitored for beneficial insects; amongother things.

LWWC also undertakes marketing activities. Whilethere has been discussion of creating an “eco-label”for regional wines that reflects the commission’sevolving ecological practices, the idea has been puton hold for now, since the commission’s work in thisarea is focused on monitoring practices andapplying innovative self-assessment techniquesfor growers. Marketing efforts include advertis-ing campaigns about Lodi growers and wine,participation in trade shows, industry confer-ences, media and press kits, public presenta-tions, receptions, special events, membership inwine education associations, and networkingservices to link growers with market opportuni-ties.

New grants and awards are allowing LWWC togrow the integrated farming program. Theyhave dedicated considerable time and resources

to the expansion of their self-assessment program andworkbook, which is used for monitoring progress inthe adoption of integrated practices. The workbookhas been popular among growers and is a model thathas been adapted by other winegrowing groups inother regions. Those involved in this effort say they areproud that this program is serving the commoneconomic interests of producers in the region. Theyalso believe that other groups and agribusinesses canfollow LWWC’s lead in developing biologicallyintegrated approaches through collaborative action.

Information sources for the case study include: Ohmart, Cliff,1998; Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission’s BiologicallyIntegrated Farming System for Winegrapes; LWWC; Lodi, CA,LWWC website; and interviews with Cliff Ohmart, MarkChandler, Jeff Dlott, and UCSAREP staff.

70


PROFILE

Lundberg Family Farms

they use ecologically-oriented practices includingcover cropping, crop rotation, water conservation,straw incorporation (and not burning rice residues),and wildlife conservation. In organic fields, they adda few features, such as fallowing the land every 2 or 3years, allowing it to rest and regenerate, and alsousing compost or other organic amendments.

Bryce Luncberg explains that the family farms inboth organic and non-organic ways largely becausethey respond to diverse demands in the market. Inother words, some customers want organically grownproduce and will pay the higher price, whereas othersdo not want to pay the premium. Moreover, organicfields yield approximately half the amount of rice peracre as the Nutra Farmed fields. While the premiumthey receive for organic rice helps offset those loweryields, the organic systems usually entail higher costsfrom the fallow periods or other factors. This eco-nomic challenge is therefore another reason why they‘Nutra-farm’ nearly half of their rice acreage withselective use of chemicals.

The Lundbergs have avoided using ‘middle men’ inthe supply chain to the extent possible. They mill,process, and package their own rice. In recent years,they installed innovative grain coolers for the post-harvest handling process, which enabled them tosignificantly increase the milling yields. Theyproduce both brown whole grain rice and white(milled) rice of about 12 varieties. They supply notonly specialty brown rices and blends, but since the1980s, they also process, package, and market a wide

Lundberg Family Farms in Richvale, California produces numerous varieties of riceand rice-based products, and provides about

65 percent of the organic rice grown in the country.The family has been farming rice in California sincethe 1930s, when Albert and Frances Lundberg andtheir four children migrated west from Nebraska.Escaping from the “Dust Bowl,” they wanted to avoidthe serious soil erosion problems they had experi-enced in the Midwest, and therefore became stew-ards of the land starting early in their Californiafarming enterprise.

Lundberg Family Farms pioneered organic ricefarming in 1969, and continued to develop andextend its ecological approaches over time. TheLundbergs also built a rice processing plant whichthey have expanded over the years. The company isnow fully integrated -- including rice production,processing, packaging, contracting with growers, andmarketing a variety of rice and rice-based products.

Four Lundberg brothers and their children cur-rently farm approximately 3,200 acres. About half oftheir total acreage is organically certified by CCOF.The company currently has the nation’s largest brandof organic rice. The other half of the land is ‘NutraFarmed’ -- a term coined and patented by theLundbergs that refers to an integrated farmingapproach, using a minimum of chemical pesticidesand fertilizers. The Lundberg brothers say that inboth approaches -- organic and Nutra-Farming -- theyare committed to ‘sustainable agriculture.’ For both,

71


variety of rice products, including hot brown ricecereal, rice cakes and crackers, dessert pudding, one-step entrees, risotto, rice syrup, and rice flour.Recently, they have also sold some barley, which ismainly used as a cover crop.

The Lundberg family emphasizes producing highquality wholesome products, and maintaining qualitystandards throughout the entire growing, storage,processing, and handling stages. They have sophisti-cated and complex storage facilities in order to keepall of the varieties separate and to ensure adequatemoisture levels. The company has about 135 employ-ees, most of whom work in the milling and market-ing operations.

In addition to processing their own rice, theLundbergs also buy rice from other growers whotogether cover about 4,500 acres in Northern Califor-nia, increasing their capacity to process and sell morerice products. Approximately 25 contracted growerswork with the family, ranging in scale from 10 acresto 1,500 acres; these are mostly certified organic. TheLundbergs work closely with their contracted growersto provide information and advice.

Lundberg rice products are sold throughout theU.S., and about 5-10% of their sales are to Canadaand Japan. They have also begun to explore marketopportunities in Europe. The company markets theproducts through wholesale companies to an exten-sive network of natural food businesses, specialtygrocery stores, and a few mainstream supermarkets.

They receive a premium price for organic rice, whichcan be 50% to 80% higher than the price for conven-tional rice, but the current price for conventional riceis extremely low, so it is hard to make comparisons.Lundberg Family Farms’ revenues have grownsteadily over time, at a healthy rate of 5 to 8% peryear. The family has generally preferred to grow thebusiness by expanding the diversity of their rice-based products and contracting with additionalgrowers, rather than buying more land.

The Lundberg family has continued and expandedthe ecological philosophy that was seeded by theirfather and grandfather two generations ago, by usingmany practices that are aimed at building their“partnership with nature,” and by responding to thesocial concerns of consumers and neighbors. TheLundberg family’s experience also shows how anagricultural businesscan thrive and prosperby using sustainablemethods of agriculture.

Inform0ation sourcesinclude: Interviews withBryce Lundberg, Lundbergwebsite; analysis ofLundberg Family Farms inNAS, 1989; AlternativeAgriculture, NationalAcademy of Science book,and other news clips andexperts in this field.

72


PROFILE

Natural Selection Foods

acre farm in Watsonville, California, where theyplanted about 20 varieties of lettuces and greens. In1992, the company moved their processing andpackaging operation to a large production facility inWatsonville. They also opened a farm stand inCarmel Valley. Soon after that, they introduced saladkits, with mixed lettuces, dressing and toppings all inone package.

In 1995, Earthbound Farm entered a partnershipwith Mission Ranches, a large group of farmers inthe Salinas Valley, and formed Natural SelectionFoods with 800 organically farmed acres. All of theelements of the operation grew in tandem withincreased acreage. By 1998, NSF had 5,800 acres ofowned and contracted certified organic farmlanddedicated to their product, in California, Arizona,and Mexico. In 1999, NSF merged with Tanimura &Antle (T&A), the largest lettuce grower in the UnitedStates. T&A became a one-third partner in NSF andbegan converting 1,500 acres of farmland intoorganic production. Earthbound Farm remains thecompany’s leading organic brand.

NSF farms more than 7,000 organic acres today,with more than 2,000 acres in the required three-year transition period from conventional agricultureto organic agriculture. They grow about 85 differentfruits and vegetables.

All of Earthbound Farm products and processingare certified organic, and they’ve been able to adaptthese methods to their growing scale of production.

Natural Selection Foods (NSF) is one ofthe country’s largest growers andprocessors of packaged specialty and

organic salad mixes. NSF also grows and sells otherproduce, both conventional and organic. Thecompany’s organic brand is Earthbound Farm, whichbegan in the mid-1980s as a two-acre organic farm inCarmel, California. Earthbound Farm was foundedby Drew and Myra Goodman, who are now presidentand vice-president of Natural Selection Foods. Theyhave unique story of transformation and remarkablegrowth.

The Goodmans moved to California from NewYork in the early 1980s to attend college. Althoughthey did not have previous farming experience, theybegan raising raspberries and then mixed specialtygreens in their backyard garden. They preferred touse organic methods from the start, because theywanted to avoid the use of chemicals. Early on, thecouple invented a packaging innovation of baggingprewashed lettuces in plastic bags. The ideastemmed from their home use of convenient zip-topstorage bags. Once they started marketing theirspecialty greens with this kind of package, theproducts became highly popular with retail buyers.Their business took off with leaps and bounds.

By 1988, the Goodmans employed several people tohelp them, and established partnerships with saladgrowers in Southern California. At the same time,they began marketing bagged salads to majormainstream supermarkets. They then bought a 32-

73


The company’s organic approach is describedas “nourishing and replenishing soils,protecting water, and honoring the health ofthose who work the land and customers whowill enjoy the harvest.” Cover crops, mulchand composting, beneficial insects, carefulcrop selection, and other organic methodshelp maintain soil fertility and disease- and pest-resistant plants. Quality assurance and food safety arepriorities for Earthbound Farm/NSF, from the farm tothe processing facility. A Hazard Analysis CriticalControl Point (HACCP) program focuses on em-ployee training and state-of-the-art technologies tomaintain safety and quality standards.

The Goodmans still maintain the Earthbound Farmproduce stand on their original farm site, sellingfresh-picked produce direct to consumers. They’vealso established an educational plot on the groundsto help children experience agriculture and learnabout organic farming.

This transformation took place through innovation,growth, good timing, and strategic partnerships.While Earthbound Farm is undoubtedly a successstory in terms of financial success and growth, theenterprise has not been without challenges. Assuringconsistent supplies of organic crops, tackling farm-ing problems, and hiring educated and experiencedstaff have required steady effort and creative strategies.

Myra and Drew Goodman credit their success in partto growing their business without training or precon-ceived ideas about the food industry, allowing them toexplore and make decisions with a “beginner’s mind.”

Today, Earthbound Farm ranks as one of the largestorganic foods brands in the world. Though someorganic pioneers and consumers fear the“corporatization” of organic farming and hold upNSF as one example of this trend, the company feelsit is fulfilling its mission of making organic foodswidely available to many people.

Information sources for this case study include: Interviews withMyra and Drew Goodman, Mark Marino, and other staffmembers; company website; news articles; field tour of Earth-bound farm as part of Ecofarm conference; presentation by RickAntle, conference on Partnerships for Sustainable Agriculture,May 2001; and presentation by Myra and Drew Goodman,Ecofarm conference, Asilomar 2002.

74


PROFILE

Robert Mondavi Winery

with selective and minimized use of synthetic chemi-cals; watershed management; soil and habitat conser-vation; and minimal tillage. Vineyard managerscombine various methods that they judge to be bothenvironmentally and economically sound; they adaptpractices to local ecological and climate conditions,rather than using prescribed standardized applicationsof inputs. Vineyard managers use cover crops andother soil conservation methods such as buffer crops,and they are actively involved in watershed steward-ship projects with the community. The company isundertaking a large experiment on the managementof wildlife, habitat, and other resources in theirCentral Coast vineyards. This unusual project entailscooperation with university scientists and stateagencies to find potential compatibility betweenconservation interests and winegrape production.

In the winemaking process and winery operations,Mondavi’s practices include the use of native yeast inthe fermentation process, energy conservation, andwater recycling. Their winemakers support a tradi-tional European approach of bringing out the innatequalities of the grapes using natural ingredients, withminimal interference. In 1994, as part of its environ-mental efforts, Mondavi created a bottle design freeof any metal seal on top. This innovation has beenadopted throughout the industry. Mondavi alsomakes labels from recycled paper and prints themwith soy-based inks; uses biodegradable soaps andheat for sterilization; maintains strict standards foruse and disposal of oils and solvents.

Robert Mondavi Winery is the largestexporter of premium California wines,selling to 90 countries. Since its inception in

1965, the company, headquartered in California’sNapa Valley, has upheld a land stewardship philoso-phy based on the convictions of founder RobertMondavi. Mondavi’s early interest in resourcestewardship was shaped by the influence of hisItalian parents, who instilled in him an appreciationfor the land, natural home-grown food, fine winemade from natural processes, and culinary arts,which Mondavi describes in his book Harvests of Joy.

Robert Mondavi’s winery-owned vineyards totalapproximately 5,300 acres and are spread throughoutseveral regions of California. In addition, Mondavibuys large amounts of winegrapes from contractedgrowers throughout California. The company also hasjoint partnerships in several countries of the world,including Chile, Australia, and Italy, where they bothco-own and contract fruit grown by external growers.

Building upon Robert Mondavi’s philosophy, thewinery developed and articulated a “natural” approachto wine production in the 1970s, with explicit goals ofenvironmental protection, worker health, and en-hanced wine quality. The term “natural” in thecompany’s perspective means that they use ecologi-cally-oriented practices at all stages, from soil prepara-tion in the vineyard to bottling practices in the winery.

In the vineyards, for example, they use integratedecological pest, crop, and soil management methods

75


Robert Mondavi’s son Timothy is thewinery’s managing director today,leading the company’s pursuit ofnatural methods. Tim Mondavi says hebelieves in continual learning, flexibil-ity, and evolution of ideas as avenues toprogress and excellence. According toTom Mondavi and others in thecompany, winegrape growing using natural orecological approaches and minimal chemicals hasproven economical without jeopardizing the qualityof the product. In fact, some of the company’svineyard production managers believe that thisapproach actually enhances wine quality and flavor.

The company’s transition to these integrated andecological vineyard practices has not always beeneasy, since it requires a significant change in atti-tudes, shifts in costs, and learning new techniques.In addition, convincing growers to consistently adoptIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) and otherecological methods can be challenging and requiresconstrant education. Mondavi’s grower relations’managers provide information to growers andstrongly encourage that contract growers use naturalmethods. Although Mondavi works with someorganic farmers and embraces some organic meth-ods, they have not yet converted to certified organicmethods in their own vineyards, mainly due toeconomic challenges of weed control. Not all syn-thetic chemicals have been eliminated yet, thoughthis is a goal of the company.

Robert Mondavi continues to explore new ways ofdeveloping environmentally friendly and economi-cally competitive approaches. The company is veryopen and committed to sharing information withother businesses and the public about these issuesand practices. They often hold seminars and educa-tional events not only for their contracted growers,but also for the broader public. Robert Mondavihimself believes strongly in the open exchange ofinformation. He has passed on a philosophy that“what is good for us is good for the industry…” andvice-versa, says DeWitt Garlock, growers relationsmanager. This form of honest communication andoutreach can help broaden and sustain positive socio-economic and environmental outcomes for bothcurrent and future generations.

Information sources for this case study include: Interviews withTim Mondavi, DeWitt Garlock Mitchell Klug, Dan Bosch,Dyson Dimarra, Clay Gregory, Genvieve Janssens, and otherstaff members; unpublished materials; Mondavi website;discussions with Napa County Resource Conservation Districtstaff, NSWG members; and Robert Mondavi, 1998, Harvest ofJoy, Harcourt Brace, New York.

76


PROFILE

Sherman Thomas Ranch

nated by the Community Alliance of Family Farmers,and the University of California Sustainable Agricul-ture Research and Education Program. The BIOSproject consisted of on-farm experiments anddemonstrations for cover cropping, composting, andreducing pesticide and fertilizer inputs in almondproduction. Braga was actively involved in trying outBIOS methods, working along with other growers,scientists, and farm advisors.

Since Braga was pleased with the results in theinitial BIOS experimental fields on his farm, hecontinued to expand his land under these integratedpractices. Braga became involved in a similarproject in prunes, experimenting with biologicallyintegrated methods, and became convinced that themethods paid off. Soon he went beyond that, todevelop organic methods in all of his crops. Bragaexplained that once he had adopted the BIOSpractices, “it was easy to eliminate chemicals…andto convert to organic.” In fact, his conversion wasrelatively rapid. Currently, approximately 540 acresare organically certified by CCOF, and the rest is intransition. Braga uses diverse annual cover crops,compost amendments, and no-tillage farming. Heemphasizes the use of good sanitation practices toavoid the spread of diseases and insects.

Braga says that he is pleased with the economicresults of the organic approach. Although the yieldsare usually reduced by 25% compared to the conven-tional approach, they receive a premium (rangingfrom 25% to 100% higher) for the organic productsand spend less on chemicals, so the returns balance

Sherman Thomas Ranch has recentlybecome recognized in Madera County,California, for its successful transition to

biologically integrated and organic farming practiceson a 700-acre farm of almonds, pistachios, prunes,and raisin grapes. Under the management of MikeBraga, the manager, the ranch began experimentingduring the 1990s with integrated low-chemical-inputpractices. Since then, about 75 percent of the ranchhas been converted to certified organic production.The company is also vertically integrated, operating adehydrator for processing prunes and raisins, andrunning a retail produce store.

The ranch’s history goes back to the 1930’s when itwas founded by Sherman Thomas and his family. Formany decades, Sherman Thomas owned and conven-tionally farmed over 30,000 acres that included rowcrops such as cotton and alfalfa, and tree crops, andpastures for grazing cows, and also had a dairy.During Sherman Thomas’ later years, the operationwas scaled-down and much of the land was sold, andMike Braga became the farm manager in 1990.When the elder Thomas passed away in 1995, theremaining 700-acre ranch was passed to the owner-ship of his son, Vernon Thomas, and is still managedand run by Mike Braga.

The company began to develop integrated pestmanagement practices in the 1980s and early 1990s,and eliminated the use of organophosphate pesti-cides. During the 1990s, Sherman Thomas ranchbecame a participant in the Biologically IntegratedFarming System (BIOS) program, which was coordi-

77


out to be similar to or better than conventional. Thecompany has about 8 permanent employees andhires an additional crew of about 25 people duringharvest. The organic conversion has not requiredadding more employees, but the staff has had tolearn new approaches.

The company adds value by doing some of theirown processing and direct marketing. They own alarge dehydrator facility, which enables them to drytheir own organic prunes and market the finishedproduct to wholesalers. They dehydrate prunes andraisins for other growers, mainly for custom-orderorganic raisins for three other farms. However, theirown raisin grapes are harvested in the field andallowed to sun-dry naturally in the vineyards. Theysell their almonds and pistachios to a certifiedorganic processing company in Fresno.

Sherman Thomas’s retail store, called “ValleyPistachio Country Store,” sells products that aremostly conventional and locally grown and arepurchased largely from wholesalers. They havetried selling some of their own organic produce inthe store, but sales have been slow in the CentralValley location, so they sell mostly conventionalcrops in this small store. They have better resultsmarketing the organic products to areas wherethere is higher demand. About 75% of total salesis in the United States, and about 25% is exportedto Europe.

Sherman Thomas’s recent conversion and success inthe organic business has become both “a curiosity”and a model for other growers in the county. Bragasays that conventional growers frequently come byhis farm to ask how to do this: “They often don’tthink it’s possible…and they tend to fear the un-known.” But Braga’s experience has shown them thatit is not only possible but also lucrative. Braga hasbecome a supporter and communicator aboutorganic farming, and is now the president of the localchapter of CCOF. According to a local extension farmadvisor, Brent Holtz, “Braga’s success has created afollowing…”.

Information sources include interviews with Mike Braga, BrentHoltz, Cindy Lashbrook, and Lonnie Hendricks. Anothersource of information was an article in California NutsMagazine, called “Batting Cleanup,” 2002.

78


PROFILE

Small Planet Foods

for 3 years, but it was excluded from the partnership in2000, since its products were not entirely organic.

Under USDA’s national organic standards, sched-uled for implementation by late 2002, organicprocessed foods must contain 95 percent certifiedorganic ingredients in order to bear the “organic”label. To meet this requirement, Small Planet Foodscurrently contracts with about 50 growers who aremostly in the Pacific Northwest, and with 6 to 10tomato growers in California for the Muir Glenproducts. These growers range from small organicgrowers of 10 acres, up to about 2,000-acre opera-tions. Ingredients not grown domestically aresourced internationally; for example, organic sugar,and bananas are imported from Latin America.

As Small Planet Foods, these companies togetherproduce and market approximately 200 processedproducts, including a wide range of frozen vegetablesand frozen fruits, juice concentrates, conveniententrees, frozen desserts, canned tomato products,jams, and sauces. The company’s sales grew at ahigh rate during the late 1990s, up to 20% per year.Annual sales reached $90 million at the end of 2001,and marketing extends throughout the United States,and in Europe and Asia (for 10% of their sales).SPF’s stated mission is “to create the world’s preemi-nent organic food company by communicating apowerful vision of the relationship between diet,health, agriculture, and the environment.” One of thecompany’s main goals, according to Kahn, is “to

Small Planet Foods (SPF) is one of thelargest organic processed foods companies inthe United States. Now a subsidiary of General

Mills, Small Planet Foods represents, for many, themainstreaming, growth, and consolidation of theorganic foods industry — which has generated mixedreactions in the organic sector.

Small Planet Foods’ divisions or brands began asindependent companies that each have long-timeroots in the organic and natural foods community.They include Cascadian Farm, based in Sedro-Wooley, Washington, a processed and frozen-foodscompany founded by a pioneer organic farmer, GeneKahn, currently CEO of Small Planet Foods; andMuir Glen, a California-based company specializingin processed organic tomato products.

Cascadian Farm was founded in 1972 on GeneKahn’s small farm of 22 acres in Washington state,still in operation today. Along with the young naturalfoods market, Cascadian Farm grew as a processedfoods company through the 1970s and 1980s. By the1990s, investors such as Welch Foods, Inc., andShamrock Company, helped fuel the company’s rapidexpansion into mainstream markets. Muir Glenbegan in 1991 and today remains the industry’sleading manufacturer of organic tomato products. In1998, Small Planet Foods was formed as the um-brella company for both Cascadian Farm and MuirGlen. Fantastic Foods, a maker of processed vegetar-ian products based in California, was also part of SPF

79


become the premier provider of natural and organicproducts, catching the growing wave of interest innatural foods and a natural way of life.”

The companies of Small Planet Foods do not ownprocessing facilities; instead, they contract with about30 plants. These facilities are also certified organicfor processing and packaging methods. Most salestake place through distributors, who in turn sell SPFproducts to both natural foods and mainstreammarkets; only about 10 percent is sold directly toretailers. SPF’s marketing and packaging strategiesposition its products to be competitive in bothconventional supermarkets and natural foodsmarkets such as Whole Foods Market, and Wild Oats,which sell SPF’s brands. Cascadian Farms still runs asmall road-side store next to their original 22-acrefarm in the foothills of the Cascades.

In 2000, General Mills acquired Small PlanetFoods — a noteworthy takeover of an organicbusiness by a transnational food company thatreceived lots of media attention. Since then, thecompany’s sales continue to grow at a fairly high rateof about 10% per year. At the same time, the com-pany buyout has also been criticized, especially fromsmaller scale organic pioneers, for this‘corporatization’ of the organic industry. The takeoverhas also generated questions about the sustainabilityand social responsibility of the situation, since manyother organic businesses face difficulties to survivewhen trying to compete against such large compa-

nies. However, Gene Kahn and his staff, and others inthe business, believe this ownership by General Millsenables SPF’s organic products to be marketed moreeconomically and purchased by many more main-stream consumers throughout the United States andthe world.

Information sources for this case study include: Interviewswith Gene Kahn, Clark Driftmeir, Craig Weakley, StevenCrider, Lawrence Tsai, Lisa Bell, and other staff members;company website; news articles such as Deann Glamser, 1998,“Organic Growth,” Your Turn, Winter (trade magazine), andother news articles; and presentations by Craig Weakley atEcological Farming conference and “Partnerships for SustainingCalifornia Agriculture” conference.

80


81


REFERENCES

Collins, Keith. 2000. “Outlook for the Farm Economy in2000.” Agricultural Outlook, April. Pp. 2-4

Condor, Bob. 2000. “Organic Market Growing at RecordSpeed.” Chicago Tribune, September 17.

Conway, Gordon, 1987. “The Properties ofAgroecosystems.” Agricultural Systems, Vol 24: 95-117.

Conway, Gordon. 1998, The Doubly Green Revolution: Foodfor All in the 21st Century. Cornell University Press,Ithaca, New York.

Conway, Gordon, and Jules Pretty. 1991. UnwelcomeHarvest: Agriculture and Pollution. Earthscan Publica-tions, London.

Corselius, Kristen, Suzanne Wisniewski, and Mark Ritchie.2001. Sustainable Agriculture: Making Money, MakingSense. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,Minneapolis, MN.

Dmitri, Carolyn, and Nessa Richmond. 2000. “OrganicFoods: Niche Marketers Venture into the Mainstream.”Agricultural Outlook (Economic Research Service,USDA) June-July: 11-15.

Doering, O. 1991. “U.S. Federal Policies as Incentives orDisincentives to Ecologically Sustainable AgriculturalSystems.” Staff paper #91-14. Department of Agricul-tural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette.

Douglass, Gordon K. 1984. “The Meanings of AgriculturalSustainability,” in G.K. Douglass, ed, AgriculturalSustainability in a Changing World Order, pp. 3-29.Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Dunn, J. 1995. Organic food and fiber: An Analysis of 1994certified production in the United States. USDA Agricul-tural Marketing Service, Washington, DC.

Ellis, William. 1991. “Harvest of Change.” NationalGeographic, February

Altieri, Miguel. 1987. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis ofSustainable Agriculture. Westview, Boulder, CO.

Altieri, Miguel. 1992. “Agroecological Foundations ofAlternative Agriculture in California.” Agriculture,Ecosystems, and Environment 39: 23-53.

Ames, Paul. 2000a. “Organic farming thriving in Europe.”Associated Press, Wichita Eagle, January 2.

Ames, Paul. 2000b. “Organic farming a growing trend.”Orange County Register (Santa Ana, CA), January 7.

Arnold, Matthew, and Robert Day. 1998. The Next BottomLine: Making Sustainable Development Tangible. WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC.

Auburn, Jill. 1994. “Society Pressures Farmers to AdoptMore Sustainable Systems.” California Agriculture.48(5): 7, pp. 9-10.

Batie, Sandra, and D.B. Taylor. 1989. “Widespread Adop-tion of Non-Conventional Agriculture: Profitability andImpacts.” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,4(3-4): 128-134.

Benbrook, Charles. 1996. Pest Management at the Cross-roads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York.

Beus, C. E. and R.E. Dunlap. 1990. “Conventional VersusAlternativeAgriculture: The Paradigmatic Roots of theDebate.” Rural Sociology, 55(4): 590-616.

Bourne, Joel. 1999. “The Organic Revolution.” AudubonMagazine, March-April.

Brazil, Eric. 2001. “Organic Farming Sprouts Businesses.”The Chronicle, San Francisco, April 22. A25.

Buck, David, and Christina Getz, and Julie Guthman. 1996.Consolidating the Commodity Chain: Organic Farmingand Agribusiness in Northern California. DevelopmentReport, Food First, Oakland, CA

Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflen,New York.

82


Ervin, David, and Sandra Batie. 2000. Transgenic Crops: AnEnvironmental Assessment. Henry Wallace Center forAgricultural and Environmental Policy at WinrockInternational. Washington, DC.

Economic and Social Research Programme, 1999. Thepolitics of GM food: Risk, science and public trust. ESRC,Centre for the Study of Environmental Change,Lancaster University, UK.

Fabricant, F. 1995. “Organic Foods Go Mainstream.” NewYork Times. November 6, 1999, p. C3.

General Accounting Office. 2001. Agricultural Pesticides:Management Improvements Needed to FurtherPromote Integrated Pest Management (GAO-01-815).General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.

Gershuny, Grace. 2000. “Do we continue to support theOrganic Foods Protection Act?” Organic Farmer, pp. 31-33.

Gilmore, John. 1999. “U.S. Organics 1998.”DATAMONITOR, New York, NY.

Gliessman, Steven R. 1992. “What are the Indicators ofSustainability in Farming Systems?” in Organic ’92:Proceedings of the Organic Farming Symposium, UCDivision of Agriculture and Natural Resources,Publication 3356, pp. 46-48. Davis, CA.

Greene, Catherine. 2000a. “U.S. Organic AgricultureGaining Ground.” Agricultural Outlook, EconomicResearch Service, USDA. April issue, pp. 9-14.

Greene, Catherine. 2000b. “Adoption of Organic FarmingSystems: Progress in the 21st Century?” EconomicResearch Service, USDA, Paper from the OrganicAgriculture Symposium in the American Associationfor Advancement of Sciences conference.

Guthman, Julie. 1999. “Raising Organic: An agroecologicalassessment of grower practices in California.” draftpaper, Department of Geography, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Hartman Group. 1996. The Evolving Organic Marketplace.Summer. Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.

Hartman Group. 1999. Food and the Environment: AConsumers’ Perspective, Phase 3. The Hartman Group,Bellevue, WA.

Hartman Group. 2000. Organic Consumer Profile. TheHartman Group, Bellevue, WA.

Hartman Group. 2000. “Organic Lifestyle Shopper Study -Summary,” on website www.hartman-group.com/organicstudy.html, The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.

Harvard Business Review. 1994. “The Challenge of GoingGreen.” Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 37-50.

Hawken, Paul. 1994. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declara-tion of Sustainability. Harper, New York.

Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and H.J. Lovins. 1999.Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next IndustrialRevolution. Little Brown and Company, New York.

Heffernan, William. 1999. Consolidation in the Food andAgriculture System. Report to the National FarmersUnion. (Rural Sociology Dept, University of Missouri,Colombia).

Hendrickson, Mary. 2000. Consolidation in Food Retailingand Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in aGlobal Food System. National Farmers Union. (RuralSociology Dept, University of Missouri, Colombia.)

Hesterman, Oran B and T.L. Thorburn. 1994. “A Compre-hensive Approach to Sustainable Agriculture.” Journalof Production Agriculture. 7(1): 132-134.

Ikerd, John. 2000. “Organic Agriculture Faces the Special-ization of Production Systems: Specialized Systemsand the Economical Stakes,” Working paper, Agricul-tural Economics Department, University of Missouri.

International Trade Centre (ITC). 1999. Organic Food andBeverages: World Supply and Major European Markets.International Trade Centre, UN Center on Trade andDevelopment, Geneva.

Johnson, Douglas. 1996. “Green Business: Perspectivesfrom Management and Business Ethics.” Society andNatural Resources, Vol 11: pp. 259-266.

Jolly, Desmond. 1991. “Differences Between Buyers andNonbuyers of Organic Product and Willingness to PayOrganic Price Premiums.” Journal of Agribusiness. 9(1):91-111.

Kirschenman, Frederick, G, Kahn, and A. Ferguson. 1993.“Towards a Sustainable Organic Food MarketingSystem.” Organic Farmer 4(2): 16.

Klinkenborg, Verlyn. 1995. “A Farming Revolution:Sustainable Agriculture.” National Geographic,December: 65-88.

Klonsky, Karen and P. Livingston. 1994. “AlternativeSystems Aim to Reduce Inputs, Maintain Profits.”California Agriculture 48(9): 34-42.

Klonsky, Karen, and L. Tourte. 1993. “Statistical Review ofCalifornia’s Organic Agriculture.” California Depart-ment of Food and Agriculture. Organic Program,Sacramento, CA.

83


Lampe, Frank. 2000. “Homegrown Rollup Creates $50Million Foods Player,” Natural Business. October issue,p 1.

Liebman, James. 1997. Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use inCalifornia 1991-95. Pesticide Action Network, SanFrancisco, CA.

Lipson, Elaine. 2000. “Conagra Swallows Lightlife Foods.”Natural Business, August issue, page 1.

Lipson, Elaine. 1997. Organic standards (?), New FoodsMerchandiser. (PLEASE INSERT CORRECT TITLEAND DETAILS ON VOLUME & PAGE)

Lipson, Mark. 1997. Searching for the “O” Word: Analyzingthe USDA Current Research and Information System forPertinence to Organic Farming. Organic FarmingResearch Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.

Mayer, Steven. 1998. “Organic.” The Bakersfield Californian,April 25, 1998.

Mergentime, K, and M. Emerick. 1996. “Widening marketcarries organic sales to $2.8 Billion in 1995.” NaturalFoods Merchandiser, New Hope Communications,Boulder, CO.

Myers, Steve, and Somlynn Rorie. 2000. “Facts and Stats:The Year in Review.” Organic and Natural News,December Issue.

National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture.National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 1991. Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education in the Field: A Proceedings.National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 1996. Ecologically-Based PestManagement: New Solutions for a New Century. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 2000. The Future Role ofPesticides in U.S. Agriculture. National Academy Press,Washington, DC.

Natural Foods Merchandiser. 1997-2000, current and backissues of journal on website,www.healthwellexchange.com/news.cfm

Onstad, Eric. 1999. “Tasty earnings fuel European OrganicSector.” ABC news. November 23.

Organic Trade Association. 2000. “Food Facts, andEnvironmental Facts,” from Website of OTAwww.ota.com.

Perkins, John. 1982. Insects, Experts and the Insecticide Crisis.Plenum Press, New York.

Pimentel, David and H. Lehman, eds. 1993. The PesticideQuestion: Environment, Economics, and Ethics. Chapmanand Hall, New York.

President’s Council on Sustainable Development. 2000.Sustainable Agriculture - Policy Recommendations,President’s Council on Sustainable Development, TheWhite House.

Pretty, Jules. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies andPractices for Sustainability and Self Reliance. EarthscanPublications, London.

RAFI. 2000. “The Seed Giants – Who Owns Whom?”Rural Advancement Foundation International website,www.rafi.org

Reisner, Mark. 1993. Cadillac Desert. Penguin Inc, NewYork.

Richmond, Nessa. 1998. The Natural Foods Market: ANational Survey of Strategies for Growth. Policy StudiesReport Number 12, The Henry Wallace Institute forAlternative Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Rissler, Jane, and Margaret Mellon. 1996. Ecological Risks ofEngineered Crops. MIT Press, Boston.

Roberts, Paul. 1998. “Growth Industry,” Approach (RenoAirlines) pp. 36-42.

SARE. 1998. Ten years of SARE: A Decade of Programs,Partnerships and Progress in Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education. Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education Program, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, DC.

SARE Western Region. 2000. Sustainable Agriculture:Continuing to Grow. A Proceedings of the Farming andRanching for Profit, Stewardship and Community.Conference, March. Western Region SustainableAgriculture Research and Education Program, andSustainable Northwest, Portland.

SARE. 2001. The New American Farmer: Profiles of Innova-tion. Sustainable Agriculture Research and EducationProgram, U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonDC.

Schaller, Neill. 1993. “Farm Policies and the Sustainabilityof Agriculture: Rethinking the Connections.” HenryWallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, WinrockInternational, Washington, DC.

Sooby, Jane. 2001. State of the States: Organic FarmingResearch in Land Grant Universities. Organic FarmingResearch Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.

84


Swezey, Sean, and Janet Broome. 2000. “Growth predictedin biologically integrated and organic farming.”California Agriculture, 54(4): 26-35.

Thrupp, Lori Ann. 1996. New Partnerships for SustainableAgriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington,DC.

Thrupp, Lori Ann. 1998. Cultivating Diversity:Agrobiodiversity and Food Security. World ResourcesInstitute, Washington, DC.

Thrupp, Lori Ann. 1999. Roots of Change: The Sprouting ofSustainable Agriculture in California. Unpublishedreport for the Funders Agricultural Working Group,Clarence Heller Foundation, San Francisco, CA.

UCSAREP. 2000. “What is Sustainable Agriculture?”University of California Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education Program, information onwebsite www.ucsarep.ucdavis.edu, University ofCalifornia.

Uhland, Vicky. 2000. “Organic Farmers Struggle DespiteRising Sales.” Natural Business. December issue, p. 1.

United Nations Development Programme. 1995.Agroecology: Creating the Synergism for a SustainableAgriculture. United Nations Development Programme,New York.

United Nations Development Programme. 1992. Benefits ofDiversity. United Nations Development Programme,New York.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Food Produc-tion and Environmental Stewardship: Examples of HowFood companies Work with Growers. Policy Planning andEvaluation Report 2128, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC.

Van der Harst, Tatiana, and Laura Gabel Scandurra. 1997.“Dutch Organic Food Market Offer All NaturalPotential for U.S. Firms.” Ag Exporter, pp. 10-17.

Walz, Erica. 1999. Third Biennial National Organic Farmers’Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, SantaCruz, CA.

White, Heather. 2000a. “Kellogg Acquires Kashi Co.”Natural Business, August issue, page 1.

White, Heather. 2000b. “Nanosecond Consolidation Rocksthe Industry.” Natural Business, March issue, page 1.

Willer, Helga, and Minou Yussefi. 2001. Organic AgricultureWorldwide 2001: Statistics and Future Prospects. Interna-tional Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements(IFOAM), Durkheim, Germany.

Young, Douglas. 1989. “Policy Barriers to SustainableAgriculture.” American Journal of Alternative Agricul-ture, 4 (3-4): 135-141.

Youngberg, Garth, Neill Schaller, and Kathleen Merrigan.1993. “The Sustainable Agriculture Policy Agenda inthe United States: Politics and Prospects,” in P Allened. Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions ofSustainability, pp. 295-317. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

85


APPENDIX 1

PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AND CONSULTED FOR THE STUDY

Walt Bentley, U.C. Extension, pest management specialist

Jenny Broome, U.C. Sustainable AgricultureResearch & Education Program

Amigo Bob Cantisano, Organic consultant

Stacey Clary, California Sustainable Agriculture WorkingGroup

Jeff Dlott, Realtoolbox consulting

Volker Eisle, winegrape grower, Napa Valley

Isao Fujimoto, California Institute of Rural Studies

Catherine Greene, ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture

John Ikerd, University of Missouri

Bruce Jennings, Policy expert, Sacramento, CA

Desmond Jolly, Small Farm Center, U.C. Davis

Fred Kirchenmann, Grower, and Leopold Center, IowaState University

Sibella Kraus, formerly Community Alliance of FamilyFarmers

Bill Liebhardt, U.C. Davis

Ralph Lightstone, policy expert, Sacramento, CA

Mark Lipson, Organic Farming Research Foundation

Craig McNamara, Sierra Orchards

Monica Moore, Pesticide Action Network

Bu Nygrens and Mary Jane Evans, Veritable Vegetables

Stephen Pavich, Pavich Family Farms

Peter Price, legal and policy expert/advocate

Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture Trade and Policy

Walter Rob, Whole Foods

Karen Ross, California Association of Winegrape Growers

Bob Scowcroft, Organic Farming Research Foundation

Sean Swezey, U.C. Santa Cruz

Stephen Temple, U.C. Davis, Integrated Farming Program

Alice Waters, Chez Panisse

Warren Weber, Grower, Bolinas, CA

Frank Zalom, U.C. Integrated Pest Management program

Information for the case studies was obtained throughstructured interviews with the directors and staff ofeach company, and with external informants who arefamiliar with the cases. Questions were posed about:General characteristics of the case/company; Agricul-tural production practices; Reasons for and results ofusing “green” practices; Food processing practices;Marketing practices; Economics; Information sourcesand linkages in the supply chain; Barriers and chal-lenges; Future plans and prospects.

Interviews were undertaken with directors and staffof 12 case studies, which included the following: DelCabo, Durst Farms, Fetzer Vineyards, Frog’s Leap,Full Belly Farm, Lagier Ranches, Lodi WoodbridgeWinegrape Commission, Lundberg Family Farms,Natural Selection Foods, Robert Mondavi Winery,Sherman Thomas Ranch, Small Planet Foods. (Thenames of interviewees are noted in footnotes to theprofiles in Part II.) In most of the cases, the farms/sites of the companies were also visited for thisanalysis.

Additional experts and analysts were informallyinterviewed, consulted, or provided insights duringoral presentations. They provided information abouthistorical and policy aspects, perceptions of progressand challenges, and other issues related to sustain-able agriculture, marketing, and food systems. Theseindividuals include the following:

Michael Abelman, Fairview Gardens

Miguel Altieri, U.C. Berkeley, Agroecology

Rick Antle, Tanimura and Antle company

Jill Auburn, SARE, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Documents

FRUITS OF PROGRESSpdf.wri.org/fruits_of_progress.pdf · WRI: FRUITS OF PROGRESS ELAINE LIPSON EDITOR HYACINTH BILLINGS PRODUCTION MANAGER MAGGIE POWELL LAYOUT CLEMENS KALISCHER COVER