I recently had a chance to speak with Bob Scowcroft, long-time leader in the organic movement and co-founder of the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). During a delightfully meandering conversation, we talked about his early organizing experience, how far the organic industry has come, how far it still has to go, and cultivating the heroes who will get it there. This is part two of a two-part post. You can read my previous post here.
UVM: What barriers do you see for organic agriculture currently, and how might the next generation of food systems leaders address them?
Bob Scowcroft: I think a lot about that. I have to admit, I don’t have the quick “sound-bite” answer. One of the key barriers exists in the realm of the academic agricultural education. On one level, academia generally, appropriately, acts as the tortoise. It publishes the paper, almost universally which calls for more research, which almost universally calls for clarification of the research results, and it can take years for the academic pursuit of organic research to actually reach the practitioner in their organic fields. The question of how to be an activist within that system, to change the paradigm, can be really challenging. The round peg of being a soil scientist does not fit in the square hole of being an organic systems researcher, the papers of which may have to include topics like water contamination or labor costs. There aren’t many journals that can handle this kind of peer-reviewed systems research.
Yet, at the snap of a proverbial finger, over a very short period of time, academic institutions have embraced research into and development of such products as rBGH and GMOs. Why is this? I think that it is because systems research is basically information based, with very little monetary value, while product research is silver bullet based and has remarkable financial value if patented. This change happened because of the Bayh-Dole Act, which changed research institution’s access to money overnight. Suddenly, researchers and/or their departments could gain a percentage of ownership (sometimes) for their personal gain if they patented a product that came out of their particular research. For example, we’re starting to see triple stack corn, glow in the dark plants, and herbicide resistant genes.
Now we allow for-profit companies to leverage our public institutions by underwriting product-based research and, in some extreme cases, actually having seats on academic boards within the university. Thus, a significant percentage of federal funding for agricultural research in the public’s interest was replaced by corporate funding, the results of which are owned by individual companies for their corporate interests.
We should repeal the Bayh-Dole Act. We’re not getting our money’s worth. As a matter of fact, for example, we’re seeing an increase in water pollution and herbicide-resistant weeds, the response to which is a regulatory initiative to allow much more toxic herbicides back into the marketplace for weed management.
An area worthy of greater attention for academic institutions is the embrace of alternative business systems. The arrival of the slow money movement and the 21st century understanding of successful cooperative business models are very exciting. ESOPs are taking root. Food co-op retail outlets have succeeded and in some cases expanded dramatically. Hundreds of millions of environmental dollars are now circulating within these successful business systems.
Where we are falling short is detailed economic studies and assessments of these co-op models, and, at the same time, the failure of the industrial agricultural food system to address our needs. To me, a better understanding of these business models would allow us to produce business plans that could grow our organic industry to 40% of the food economy. For example, the National Coop Grocers Association has over 110 profitable cooperative grocers. We should know why this is working and growing.
This cooperative movement could very well be the only alternative for us as growers and consumers, as food system concentration continues to accelerate. For example, four buyers now account for over 65% of the produce purchased at the wholesale level in the U.S.
UVM: What do you think it is about co-ops that makes them successful?
Scowcroft: I think a key part of it is the human touch, the focus on a real return on investment within their communities. They combine the passion for long-term sustainability that embraces the profitable business plan as if the environment matters, workers matter, and the quality of the food matters.
UVM: What differences do you see between Vermont and California?
Scowcroft: New England’s indigenous pride of place has stayed true, by and large. To New England’s credit, that personal, local, and organic relationship has built a sustainability environment around it. The infrastructure around organic has grown as well. There are butchers, yogurt makers, brew pubs, fine dining, all of which have embraced and built more deeply-rooted and personal relationships than most other parts of the country. Yes, it’s happening in a few other places—western Washington, Madison, WI, Georgia Organics is a rising star in the south—but still, New England is still best known for its passion for all local products. And in my mind, the idea of supporting local businesses came out of the Vermont and the New England area.
That said and done, California has a 12-month growing season, and Vermont doesn’t. And while our culture of local food is a more recent arrival, we, too, have embraced the home-grown nature of a lot of what we are growing and eating out here.
Whereas several decades ago Vermont organic farmers would complain about California-grown food in the winter, certain constituencies are sharing information more dynamically through farmer conferences and alternative business meetings. So Vermont family farmers are going to mid-west and California conferences to learn and share from each other, because there’s a larger sense that we’re all part of a solution in the context of a conventional agricultural environment that just creates more problems.
Of course western organic farmers are making their way back east too. You have, in my personal opinion, one of the most respected plant researchers at UVM—Heather Darby. The Nell Newman Foundation (I serve as a trustee) made a grant in support of her organic heirloom grain breeding, a project involving 10-15 farmers in 5 states.
There are a number of academic oases in the country (UVM, Washington State University, UC Santa Cruz among others) that really embrace the word organic. Our biggest challenge is to grow the student body and the discipline of sustainable and organic research and education. Upon doing so, how do we harness that student passion in a post-university environment? These institutions are graduating undergraduates and master students, but we’re not really prepared to accept them into the workforce. How do we welcome them into what really still is a movement? How do we place them in those different pieces of the puzzle that add up to the movement? These days, that’s what I’m focusing on in the next-phase of my volunteer and philanthropic activities.
Among them will be the heroes of the 21st organic century and I’ll be just remembered as a recovering retiree.
____________________________________________________________
If you enjoyed this interview, you might be interested in the oral history of Bob Scowcroft from the UC Santa Cruz library, which provides an in-depth narrative of his life experience. You can also watch his recent talk at Pie Ranch, where he provided a history of the organic movement.
