Sustainable agriculture speaks to our ability to produce safe, healthy, affordable food in sufficient quantities to maintain our population without degrading the productivity of the land, quality of life in our communities, or the resiliency of surrounding ecosystems.

As a word used to describe companies or products, “sustainable” speaks to whether there is a system in place to identify and ameliorate risks associated with those companies and their products, and to how well that system is operating. Sustainable is akin to safety. In the workplace, you are never completely safe; there is always the possibility of a job-related illness or injury. But you can assess the risks and take steps to reduce them. You can make the workplace safer than it is today. The best managers recognize that this is an ongoing process.

When buyers see Food Alliance Certified, they know the people behind the product are dedicated to continual improvement of social, environmental and economic performance.

At Food Alliance, we support organic agriculture. Organic is a good choice, and a number of our growers have both organic and Food Alliance certification.

Organic is the first and most broadly accepted food eco-label, and the organic community helped start the sustainable agriculture movement. Growing food under organic guidelines, without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and with attention to soil health, is a great improvement over the industrialized form of agriculture that’s prevailed in the last half-century.

But the national organic certification standard (USDA NOP) is not a complete solution for all the challenges found in agriculture and the food industry. It doesn’t guarantee, for example, that workers are treated well or paid fairly, that animals are raised humanely, or that wildlife habitat is protected and enhanced. Many organic farmers are dissatisfied with the national organic standard and use the term “beyond organic” to describe their individual efforts to address these and other issues.

The limits of the national organic standard are also becoming increasingly clear as organic production becomes more common.

Organic started as a philosophy and way of farming espoused primarily by smaller scale farmers that reflected their close and personal relationship to the land.

But under the national standard, as more and larger companies enter the market, organic is in danger of being reduced to a substitution of inputs – natural for synthetic. Some newer, large commercial-scale, organic farms still operate under conventional, industrial, input-intensive models, using management tools and approaches that raise social and environmental concerns. Under these conditions, converting a growing number of acres to organic production will still leave many of the problems we currently see in agriculture and the food industry unresolved.

That’s why Food Alliance believes a different and more comprehensive approach is needed to complement organic agriculture.

To ensure the sustainability of our food system we need to take into account a broader range of social and environmental concerns, and embrace evolving management strategies. Rather than focusing largely on the inputs, Food Alliance looks more holistically at farming systems and encourages management strategies designed to deliver the best possible social and environmental outcomes.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with organic agriculture. Growing food without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and with attention to soil health is a great improvement over the industrialized form of agriculture that’s prevailed in the last half-century. Organic is the first and most broadly accepted food eco-label, and the organic community helped start the sustainable agriculture movement.

But the national organic certification standard is not a total solution for all the challenges found in agriculture and the food industry. It doesn’t guarantee, for example, that workers are treated well, that animals are raised humanely, or that wildlife habitat is protected and enhanced. Many organic farmers are also dissatisfied with the national organic standard and use the term “beyond organic” to describe their individual efforts to address these and other issues.

The limits of the national organic standard are becoming increasingly clear as organic production becomes more common. Organic started as a philosophy and way of farming espoused primarily by smaller scale farmers that reflected their close and personal relationship to the land. But under the national standard, as more and larger companies enter the market, organic is in danger of being reduced to a substitution of inputs–natural for synthetic. Some newer organic farms still operate largely according to conventional, industrial, input-intensive models, using management tools and approaches that cause social and environmental concern. Under these conditions, converting a growing number of acres to organic production will leave many of the problems we currently see in agriculture and the food industry unresolved.

That’s why Food Alliance believes a different and more comprehensive approach is needed. To ensure the sustainability of our food system we need standards that take into account a broader range of social and environmental concerns and evolving management strategies. Rather than focusing largely on inputs, Food Alliance looks more holistically at farming systems and management practices designed to deliver best possible social and environmental outcomes.

Because it’s codified in federal law, expansion of the national organic standard can’t happen quickly or easily. And we’ve already seen efforts by industry to weaken the existing organic standards. That lobby will strongly resist any effort to broaden or strengthen the standards claiming it will create unreasonable barriers to business.

At the same time though, consumers and progressive business interests are developing a more sophisticated understanding of the challenges in agriculture and the need for broader solutions. There is increasing recognition that if we’re truly concerned about the impacts of agriculture—on people, animals, and the environment—we need a different framework and additional criteria to evaluate how food is grown. That’s the change in the conversation that Food Alliance is helping make possible – whatever the inputs, are farmers and ranchers effectively managing the outcomes?

First there was “Organic.” Then there was “Sustainable.” And now it seems like everyone is talking about “Regenerative.” It’s important to understand that “Regenerative” is an idea that is quite old that is now being presented as something new.

Organic got its start in the US in the 1950’s, promoted by the Rodale Institute and others. Robert Rodale used the term, “Regenerative Organic,” and there was apparently debate at the time whether the standard that came to be known as “Organic” should be called that or “Regenerative” instead.

At its core, regenerative is about minimizing soil disturbance and avoiding erosion in order to build more soil, cultivating a more diverse and healthy soil biome (with worms and all the bacteria, fungi, etc. that live in the soil), increasing water absorption and retention, and increasing soil fertility and potential for carbon sequestration. There are also often links drawn to incorporating livestock in diversified farming operations or using rotational grazing and other techniques to benefit soils and plant communities in pastures and on rangeland.

Organic has encouraged this since the 1950s — and it's all been part of Food Alliance’s sustainability standard since 1997. Going back even further, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (originally the Soil Conservation Service) was founded in 1935 as a response to the “Dust Bowl” that devastated the Great Plains, and has researched, encouraged and funded soil conservation ever since.

As people in the United States and globally have become increasingly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, proposals have been made to regulate and tax greenhouse gas emissions, to require offsets for emissions, and to create markets where credits could be traded.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 2020 that the agriculture accounted for 11% of total U.S greenhouse gas emissions. However, a number of studies have also pointed to agricultural lands as a possible “sink” where we could sequester carbon from the atmosphere and bind it in soils by improving management practices and soil health.

A number of farm and food organizations and businesses have been trying to put their own spin on “Regenerative” by proposing different definitions and standards for it. Some with good intentions . . . some . . . well, not so much. At the moment, it’s buyer beware.

There are risks jumping on the “Regenerative” bandwagon. Some are definitely trying to use “Regenerative” to get credit for soil conservation efforts that have been standard industry practice for a long time, to narrow the scope of accountability (“Look over here at soil! Don’t worry about the rest of our business.”), to fend off additional regulation (“Look at how much we are already doing!), and to get in line to profit in case the market for credits does actually take off. Some are just slapping “Regenerative” into their marketing pitch since it’s not a regulated claim.

Ultimately, “Regenerative” only makes sense in the broader context of “Sustainable,” in a holistic approach that considers the welfare of workers, the health and humane treatment of farm animals, and the full slate of environmental concerns, and with independent verification of claims. In that sense, Food Alliance has had “Regenerative" baked in for a long time.

No, Food Alliance is about carrots, not sticks. We’re trying to use the growing market for more environmentally and socially responsible products as a positive means to encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily improve their management practices. Food Alliance certification is a tool that farmers, ranchers and other food-based businesses can use to differentiate and add value to products. Benefits that can be gained from this tool include improved customer relations and loyalty, sales increases, new markets, access to contracts, and price premiums.

All farmers face threats to crops and animals from pests and disease. Food Alliance certification standards emphasize managing the farm in ways that help prevent the occurrence of pests and disease in the first place. As an example, farmers can rotate crops to prevent the build up of pest populations, or plant rows further apart to allow better air circulation to avoid problems with mildew. Food Alliance believes that if farmers and ranchers manage the land and agricultural cycles appropriately, they can reduce or even eliminate reliance on routine pest treatments.

The national organic standard includes lists of hundreds of “allowable” and “prohibited” materials, including pesticides, fertilizers and animal treatments. The difference is defined largely by whether the material is derived from natural or synthetic sources. Organic farmers do use pest treatments, but only those derived from natural sources. That is not to say that those allowable inputs do not pose risks to human health or the environment. After all, the difference between medicine and a poison can be as little as the dose or how it’s administered. As with other farming systems, organic inputs must be managed to limit negative impacts.

Rather than taking a natural vs. synthetic approach, Food Alliance requires farmers to show that they have taken appropriate steps to prevent pest problems, that they have evaluated the extent and likely economic impact of pest problems, and that they have chosen a mechanical or chemical response to the threat which poses the least possible risk to human health and the environment. For worker safety, Food Alliance certification further prohibits the use of certain commonly used pesticide ingredients that are acutely toxic to mammals.

The organic line-in-the-sand (natural = good, synthetic = bad) misses the question of outcomes. We feel that farming is a science, not a religion. What’s important is to manage for best possible outcomes, not according to preconceived notions of right and wrong. Oftentimes the best choice will be a natural input. Sometimes the best choice may be a synthetic input.

There are synthetic products that, for example, are low in toxicity or used in very small quantities; are not highly mobile in the soil and unlikely to contaminate surface or groundwater; break down quickly into harmless constituent elements; are applied appropriately by trained and licensed professionals in ways that manage human and environmental health risk; are effective in dealing with the pest or disease problem; are cost effective; and deliver better net economic and environmental outcomes than a natural input.

On the flip side, there are natural products that may be more toxic or require application in larger quantities; are more likely to contaminate water supplies; do not break down quickly; are applied by untrained farm workers or without regard to potential risks; don’t address the pest or disease problem; are more expensive; and deliver lower net economic and environmental outcomes.

It is also important to recognize that there are farmers who will be unable to qualify for organic certification, who will be unwilling for many reasons to follow organic practices, or who will assume unacceptable economic risks in doing so. Vineyards in the Northwest, for example, may be able to go 4 out of 5 years without synthetic treatments. But if there is a heavy outbreak of powdery mildew, the choice can be between losing the harvest or using a synthetic treatment that will invalidate organic certification and require a 3-year waiting period for recertification.

By taking a different approach, Food Alliance’s goal is to appeal to and make positive change across a much wider cross-section of agriculture.

As a sustainable agriculture certification, Food Alliance challenges certified businesses to assess and manage a wide variety of risks to human and environmental health. A number of the certification criteria, such as the expectation that workers have access to sanitary restrooms and hand washing facilities, contribute directly to food safety. Many others, such as criteria designed to prevent animal wastes or agricultural chemicals from entering the water supply, serve human and environmental health more broadly.

In addition to certifying farms and ranches, Food Alliance also certifies handlers–food processors and distributors–for their social and environmental practices, and to ensure the traceability of products they buy from Food Alliance certified farms and ranches. That certification process includes verification that handlers have plans and programs for ensuring food safety.

Food Alliance believes agriculture can be practiced responsibly at all scales, and under multiple ownership and management arrangements. But the best stewardship-minded farmers and ranchers are those who know their land and local conditions well, and those tend to be farmers and ranchers who have lived on that land for multiple generations.

We also recognize that the incentive for large-scale farms is often achieving the lowest price. It’s the logical outcome of commodity systems. Unfortunately, lowest price can encourage management decisions that jeopardize quality or environmental outcomes, and that undermine sustainability over the longer term.

Food Alliance believes that agriculture can be more sustainable at all scales. But we also believe that mid-sized and smaller farms and ranches have fantastic opportunities to differentiate their products based on social and environmental claims. The larger scale producers are paying close attention to the conversation about sustainable agriculture, but they may not yet have sufficient incentive to make the change. Mid-sized and smaller producers can get there first – and can arguably create lasting market advantages because of who they are and perceptions that they are innately more sustainable.

Local food gives people a sense of place, connects them with the broader community, and creates important economic opportunities for small and beginning farmers.

However, we’re in some danger of letting our love affair with “local” eclipse other very important questions about our food. It’s very positive to take steps to localize food production and consumption to the extent possible – but, in many parts of the US, growing conditions and other constraints dictate that only a small percentage of food needs can be met from local production.

We also have to recognize that there are reasons why production of certain crops is centralized in certain regions. Oranges don’t grow in North Dakota, but they grow very well in Florida.

Like it or not, consumers will continue to buy and eat a wide variety of foods, and will want to have many of these foods available through large parts of the year. That means national and international trade. Given this reality, we’d better ask not only where our food comes from, but how it’s grown.

If we are concerned with improving quality of life, protecting the environment, and supporting local economies, we should certainly emphasize regional food production and consumption as one strategy for achieving those outcomes. But we must also look at how the food is produced, processed and distributed, and make decisions based on the best net outcome given our goals and concerns.

Food Alliance does not currently prohibit the use of glyphosate, but it is something we are watching closely.

Glyphosate — commonly known as Roundup — was introduced by Monsanto in 1974 and marketed as a safe and effective weed killer. Over 750 products containing glyphosate are now available for home or commercial use, and it has become the most widely used herbicide in the United States.

In 2019, a high profile trial against Monsanto raised concerns about a possible link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a potentially fatal cancer. One result has been that we now receive many calls and e-mails asking if Food Alliance certified growers use glyphosate.

Food Alliance standards prohibit the use of chemicals which the World Health Organization has designated “extremely hazardous" or "highly hazardous" to human health (Group 1A and 1B).

In 2015, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer initially classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). A follow-up statement in 2016 clarified that glyphosate is ‘unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet’.

Research is continuing, however, and If WHO elevates glyphosate to Group 1A or 1B, Food Alliance will prohibit it.

Food Alliance does prohibit certification of all genetically modified (GMO) crops, including crops that have been modified to be resistant to glyphosate. To date, the list of “Roundup Ready” crops is limited to a few commodities, including soy, maize (corn), canola, sugar beets, cotton, sorghum, and alfalfa. These are the crops where overuse of glyphosate is really a concern.

In addition to the prohibited WHO Group 1A and 1B chemicals, Food Alliance also maintains a larger list of restricted use chemicals identified by the Integrated Plant Protection Center as posing risks to human health, and/or risks to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and pollinators. Use of these chemicals — including formulations of glyphosate — requires mitigation, with steps taken to reduce the identified risks.

We sometimes get calls asking about glyphosate and wheat. Monsanto did establish trials for “Round Up Ready” wheat. However, that product was withdrawn from the market following widely negative responses by growers and the public. Concern remains, however, for “pre-harvest application” of glyphosate in wheat. This is not a common practice (estimated < 3% of wheat acres), but it is allowed under US EPA label rules if wheat plants are already dead (wheat kernels mature and drying with < 30% moisture) and the application is at least 7 days prior to harvest. Food Alliance does not view this as an acceptable practice.

Finally, there are calls about use of glyphosate for other fruit and vegetable crops. Most crops cannot survive direct treatment with glyphosate. It kills the plant. There are no “Roundup Ready” versions of blueberries, apples, lettuce, carrots, etc., etc., etc. As an example, University Extension guidance on glyphosate for blueberry growers states, “Since glyphosate is nonselective, extreme care must be exercised to avoid contact with blueberries or other desirable vegetation."

However, glyphosate might still be used in a limited fashion to control weeds on the perimeter of fields or for spot application (targeting individual weeds) in fields. Exposure risks for farmworkers remain, even with this more limited use, and requires functional personal protective equipment (PPE) provided free of cost to workers, flagging application sites, and restricted entry intervals.