Just as there are thousands of farmers, there are thousands of ways to farm. The small and mid-sized family farms that are competing against multimillion dollar companies are balancing the health of their fields, employees, and consumers, all while having to compete in an ever industrialized food system. While it is reported that 97% of food sold in the US is considered ‘conventional,’ we know from working closely with the farms in our network that there is much more to the story.
Last October, Whole Foods Market launched a new Produce and Floral rating system, called Responsibly Grown, that rates all produce and floral items sold in Whole Foods stores as Unrated, Good, Better, or Best. It’s an effort to allow the customer to make a rapid and ideally a more educated decision about what they are consuming. The ratings are based on a comprehensive set of Whole Foods-specific standards and the 2015 growing season is the first in which all produce sold will be labeled under this system.
We’ve worked with a number of our growers with different growing practices to compile and submit rating requests for products they are selling to Whole Foods this season. So far the ratings, while labor intensive, are turning out to be a significant and uncommon way for these growers to be recognized and to communicate about a whole array of positive practices that are usually invisible to the end consumer.
An NPR reporter raising questions about whether the ratings are meaningful, stated “I found nonorganic onions and tomatoes, presumably grown with standard fertilizers and pesticides, that were labeled best”. This simple statement is the crux of what the rating system is trying to accomplish. Given the requirements to be rated and the significant restrictions on allowable substances and practices, it takes considerable experience, skill, and adaptability to achieve a Best rating. These achievements should be celebrated, rather than dismissed.
Whole Foods has researched and excluded the use of over 40 pesticides, including organophosphates. The process takes into account the scientific knowledge of both the Integrated Pest Management Institute and the Xerces Society in an effort to be responsive both to the needs of the farmer and the expectations of their customers. Exemptions are allowed in some cases; certain pesticides can be used by growers in certain areas to help combat regional pests, or transition growers towards reduced pesticide use. However, any product grown under an exemption is limited to ‘Good’ as the maximum rating it can receive.
Last week the Responsibly Grown rating system came under fire in several news outlets as a result of a letter that five organic growers sent Whole Foods. In the letter the growers stated their concerns that the implementation of this system devalued the USDA organic label and undermines Whole Foods own efforts to educate consumers about organic. The organic growers raise some valid points: the rating system is cumbersome, faces a huge challenge regarding in store implementation, and overlaps with some of the same factors covered by certified organic.
It’s easy to see the rating system as just another labeling requirement. However, we give Whole Foods credit for trying to again shift the conversation and make us think hard about why organic berries from Mexico (which get a head start in the rating system for being certified organic) might be rated ‘Good,’ while strawberries from a conscientious grower in Connecticut can be rated ‘Best’. We see the rating system as an attempt to create a tangible way of making distinctions about the grey space of the in-between. Instead of thinking of our food as either/or, organic or conventional, we have an obligation to dig into the realities of the process of growing food, to understand the challenges our farmers really face, and the many different ways our food is getting to the table.
You can read Red Tomato’s earlier thoughts on the issue in an earlier post from Sue Futrell, who published her thoughts in October of 2014.