According to one market manager, “While the issues of social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism are very dear to my heart, our main concern to date is the economic sustainability of the farmers.” Another manager said that farmers should not have to make their produce more affordable since they “are often without farm or medical insurance and deserve a decent price for the work they put into it.” Still another cautioned, “Let’s not forget that farmers themselves are an extremely at-risk minority of the population. Farmers’ markets give them a chance to remain on their farms.” The bottom line is that it is neither reasonable nor possible for individual entrepreneurs to alone shoulder the load of providing fresh, healthy food for low-income people. One farmers’ market manager pointed out that, “We do not lobby Safeway [a large supermarket] to lower their costs so that poor people can buy more of their produce.” Many respondents expressed frustration that they could not afford to do more to encourage low-income participation. However, the fact that others expressed what could be construed as hostile sentiments symptomizes an environment that may be inhospitable to low-income people. In some cases,macetas de plastico support for farmers was accompanied by explicit resistance to redistribution programs to assist the poor. One manager said in response to who should pay to help low-income people participate in farmers’ markets, “NO ONE. I think it would be detrimental to farmers’ markets.” A response from a CSA manager suggested that poor people were themselves a problem: “I’m not sure that I agree that subsidy is the best route. In my experience, the subsidy customers are the least committed/reliable.”

The presence of such perspectives even among a minority of respondents casts doubt on the ability to meet these twin goals—farm security and food security—when doing so is left to individual initiative, as is necessarily the case with market-based approaches. Our data suggest that the biggest success in bringing in low-income people has been through the use of public entitlements. That farmers’ markets have been relatively more successful in bringing in low-income people owes a lot to the widespread use of entitlement programs such as FMNP in these markets. Most within the Community Food Security movement, including many of the managers surveyed in this study, continue to advocate for entitlement food programs such as food stamps. At the same time, CFS organizers have looked to market-based approaches to food security problems both as insurance against the vagaries of changes in food assistance programs and as a mechanism to make people less dependent on charity . It is ironic, then, that the way that private CSAs and farmers’ markets achieve some elements of food security is by virtue of the support of public food assistance programs. That this is so demonstrates that AFIs are not and cannot be substitutes for state entitlements in meeting the food security needs of low-income people. Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, but the rules for implementing the law did not go into effect until October 2002. From that time forward, all agricultural commodities sold or labeled as organic must be in compliance with the national organic standards developed by the National Organic Program , created by OFPA and housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. The standards replaced an inconsistent array of state and private certification standards for customer assurance that organic foods meet a consistent and known set of standards. Also, they were implemented to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed organic food. The USDA standards mandate that genetic engineering, sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation cannot be used to produce organic food.

Further, organic crop production excludes conventional pesticides and petroleum-based fertilizers with notable exceptions. OFPA requires the establishment of a “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances” for organic production. The NOP crop standards require that soil fertility, crop nutrients, pests, and disease be managed primarily through cultural practices such as cultivation, hand weeding, crop rotation, and introduction of natural enemies. Only when these methods prove to be inefficient may growers use approved natural or synthetic substances on the National List. For livestock production, animals must be fed 100% organic feed and must have access to the outdoors, including pasture for ruminants. Animals marketed as organic may not be given hormones to promote growth or antibiotics for any reason. Although, producers are also prohibited from withholding treatment from a sick or injured animal. The national standards also require producers grossing more than $5,000 from organic sales to be certified by a third-party certifier that is accredited by the USDA. California is the leading state in organic production. According to the Census of Agriculture 2008 Organic Supplement, California accounted for 36% of all organic farm gate sales in the United States from 19% of all U.S. organic farms and 12% of all organic acres. Looking at the crop breakdown in more detail, California produces 55% of all organic fruit, 90% of all organic tree nuts, and 66% of all organic vegetables—for a total of 62% of all produce. In marked contrast, California represents only 11% of field crop production. While California produces over half of domestic organic fruit, it is even more important for specific crops. Over 90% of all grapes, strawberries, avocados, plums and prunes, lemons, figs and dates—in addition to three-fourths of organic oranges—are produced in California.

The only important fruit crops for which California does not dominate are apples, pears, and cherries—these are produced primarily in Washington. Grapes are the most important fruit crop, both nationally and in California— including table grapes, raisin grapes, and wine grapes—with total California farm gate sales at $111 million out of $122 million for the United States. Strawberries show the second highest revenue both in California and nationally, with $40 million in sales in California out of $44 million in the United States. California produces two-thirds of organic vegetables and over 90% of all organic lettuce, broccoli, celery, sweet potatoes, and onions. The most important individual crop both nationally and in California is lettuce, with over one-third of all vegetable sales. California organic lettuce sales are $175 million out of $187 million in sales nationally. To put this in perspective, tomatoes are the second most important vegetable crop with $36 million in sales in California and $59 million nationally. Fruit is grown on almost two-thirds of California organic farms, by far the most dominant commodity group in terms of farm numbers. Vegetables crops are grown on 20% of California organic farms. In contrast, fruit is grown on 23% of U.S. organic farms and vegetables on 27%. Field crops are grown on 11% of California organic farms and 21% of organic acreage. In marked contrast, one-third of U.S. organic acreage is in field crops. California produces 69% of the country’s organic rice, but is not an important producer of any other field crop. Looking at livestock, California produces 43% of organic livestock and poultry and only 18% of livestock and poultry products. California dominates in chicken and turkey production but has a smaller presence in the production of milk from cows and chicken eggs . Nonetheless, milk from cows and broiler chickens are the second and third most important organic commodities in California, with $134 million and $129 million in sales, respectively. Animals raised in accordance with the NOP are required to eat 100% organic feed. California produces only 15% of organic hay in the United States and less than 2% of corn for grain or silage. Therefore, organic livestock producers in California typically import organic feed from other states. It is important to keep organic agriculture in perspective. In California,macetas rectangulares organic represents only 3% of farm gate sales, $1.1 billion out of $36.2 billion in 2008. Organic penetration is highest for vegetables, at 6% of farm gate sales .

While vegetable production is a healthy 20% of all California farm gate sales, it is 40% of organic sales. In contrast, field crops contribute 12% of total sales and only 7% of organic sales. Therefore, organic agriculture is not simply a smaller version of conventional agriculture. Another way to look at organic production is that it brought in only 0.5% of California farm gate sales a decade ago and is now over 3%—a six-fold increase. The growing importance can be explained by a number of reasons. Price premiums allow farmers a way to diversify and increase revenue. The growth in processed organic foods provides additional opportunities for organic farmers. According to an ERS report, over 3% of new food products introduced in retail outlets are labeled as organic. Consumer demand for organic food has risen from $8.6 billion in retail sales in 2002 to $29.2 billion in 2011— according to the Organic Trade Association—compared to fairly flat food sales overall. Early in the decade, annual growth in retail sales hovered at 20% but has slowed in the past few years. With this rate of growth, the organic industry faces several unique challenges. Worldwide demand is rising and organic imports and exports are becoming increasingly common. The United States signed an equivalency agreement with Canada in 2009 and another with the EU in 2012. These agreements will undoubtedly escalate trade of organic foods. California’s dominance in domestic organic fruit, nut, and vegetable production corresponds to a reliance on exports out-of-state and internationally. Organic foods generally command significant price premiums attributable in part to increasing demand, but also because organic food costs more to produce. In particular, organic strawberries are one of the hardest crops to grow organically and costs are higher with lower yields. Low adoption of organic practices by grain and hay producers restricts the expansion of organic livestock production, although livestock remains the fastest growing organic sector. Organic products compete with an increasing number of labels including locally grown, natural, no preservatives, and GMO-free. Coexistence of organic grain and hay producers alongside producers of genetically modified crops will be an increasing challenge as organic feed production expands. Clearly, the organic industry is expanding but also adapting to changing policy and market conditions.In the upcoming November election, California voters will decide the fate of the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” Proposition 37, a law that would mandate labeling of foods produced from genetically modified crops—also known as either biotech or genetically engineered crops. Consumer activists, lawyers, and organic-food groups are behind the initiative, while agribusiness, food manufacturers, and retailers are opposed. Significant funding for both sides of the issue is coming from outside California, so there is national interest in Prop 37. Recent attempts to pass mandatory GM labeling laws in states such as Connecticut and Vermont or at the Federal level have failed. If implemented, Prop 37 would begin to take effect in 2014 with some minor exemptions in place until 2019. It would constitute the first mandatory GM labeling law in the United States. Prop 37 would apply the strictest threshold level for unintentional traces of GM ingredients of any international mandatory labeling scheme, including that of the European Union where the threshold is 0.9% for adventitious presence of GM. The California initiative would implement a zero-tolerance policy for accidental presence of small amounts of GM substances, even if the U.S. government has approved the GM material for human consumption. It will be impossible for farmers and the food industry to comply with such an impractical tolerance standard. In the U.S. where GM crops are common, zero tolerance for commingling with non-GM is not feasible due to the technicalities of grain production, handling, processing, and storage. Adventitious presence of unintended ingredients is an issue for all foods, not just GM foods, and it is acknowledged as a feature of a complex food system. Other countries that have introduced mandatory GM labeling have established thresholds to cope with the practicalities of low levels of unintended material. For instance in Japan, a country much more averse to biotech foods than the U.S., the legal labeling tolerance level for the accidental presence of GM ingredients in non-GM food is 5% of the top three ingredients. The Japanese government acknowledges that a total and complete separation of dust and admixtures from GM and non-GM crops along the entire production and transport chain is not possible.