Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

The social construction of production externalities in contemporary agriculture: Process versus product standards as the basis for defining “organic”

Article

Abstract

The analysis distinguishes two types of standards for defining organic produce; process standards and product standards. Process standards define organic products by the method and means of production. Product standards define organic by the physical quality of the end product. The National Organic Program (NOP) uses process standards as the basis for defining organic. However, the situation is complicated by agricultural production practices, which sometimes result in the migration of NOP prohibited substances from conventional to organic fields. When this interaction alters the value of the product or the costs of production, a production externality is said to exist. Defining organic using process, rather than product standards, influences the burden and character of production externalities. The NOP’s emphasis on process standards reduces the likelihood that production externalities will emerge.

Keywords

Externalities Gene flow National Organic Program Performance standards Pesticide drift Process standards 

References

  1. AMS (1990). Federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (6501). Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/oldnop/orgact.htm on July 5, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. AMS (2000). National Organic Program: Final Rule with Request for Comments (7 CFR Part 205). Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/oldnop/nop2000/final%20Rule/nopfinal.pdf on July 5, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. AMS (2002). Questions and Answers. Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html on July 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. AMS (2003a). Definitions – Preamble: National Organic Program Overview. Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards/DefinePre. html on March 6, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. AMS (2003b). Organic Food Standards and Labels: The Facts. Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/oldnop/Consumerbrochure.htm on July 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Bowbrick, P. 1992The Economics of Quality, Grands and Brands.RoutledgeLondon, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M., Stubblebine, W. C. 1962“Externality”.Economica29371384Google Scholar
  8. Busch, L. 2000“The moral economy of grades and standards”Journal of Rural Studies16273283Google Scholar
  9. Caswell, J. A., Hooker, N. H. 1996“HACCP as an international trade standard”.American Journal of Agricultural Economics78775779Google Scholar
  10. Coase, R. H. 1960“The problem of social cost”The Journal of Law and Economics3145Google Scholar
  11. Conner, D. S. (2003). “Pesticides and genetic drift: Alternative property rights scenarios.” Choices, First Quarter: 5–8. Retrieved from http://www.choicesmagazine.org/archives/2003/q1/2003-1-02.htm on July 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. Cornes, R., Sandler, T. 1996The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Club Goods2Cambridge University PressCambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Cropper, M. L., Oates, W. E. 1992“Environmental economics: A survey”.Journal of Economic Literature30675740Google Scholar
  14. Emerich, M. 1996“Industry growth: 22.6%”Natural Foods Merchandiser1139Google Scholar
  15. Fetter, R. T., Caswell, J. A. 2002“Variation in organic standards prior to the national organic program”.American Journal of Alternative Agriculture175574Google Scholar
  16. Greene, C. R. (2001). “U.S. organic farming emerges in the 1990s: Adoption of certified systems.” USDA-ERS AIB No. 770 (June) 2001.Google Scholar
  17. Jolly, D. A. 1991“Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and willingness to pay organic price premiums”Journal of Agribusiness997111Google Scholar
  18. Kleiss v. Cassida, Fish and Hudson. Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District, no. 4-97-0604. File Opinion, June 22, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/1998/4thDistrict/June/HTML/4970604.txt on March 10, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Marsden, T., Flynn, A., Harrison, M. 1999Consuming Interests: The Social Provision of FoodsUCL PressLondon, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Monsanto v. Schmeiser. Federal Court of Canada. Docket: T-1593-98, March 3, 2001. Retrieved from http://decisions. fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html on February 5, 2003.Google Scholar
  21. NARA (2004). National Archives and Records Administration, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Chapter VIII, Part 810.402.c.1 (July, 2004). Retrieved from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid= 83e4f85786fab8b3cdf7379d9002da14;region=DIV1;q1= yellow%20corn;rgn=div8;view=text;idno=7; node=7%3 A7.1.2.8.4.4.104.2 on July 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. Organic Trade Association (1996). How to Harvest the Profits of Organic Produce: An Organic Intensive Co-sponsored by the Organic Trade Association and New Hope Communications. Manual compiled by OTA to accompany workshop in Baltimore, Maryland, October 1996.Google Scholar
  23. Rieger, M. A., Lamond, M., Preston, C., Powles, S. B., Roush, R. T. 2002“Pollen-mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields”.Science2823862388Google Scholar
  24. Samuels, W.J. 1971“Interrelations between legal and economic processes”Journal of Law and Economic Processes14435450Google Scholar
  25. Schmeiser v. Monsanto. Federal Court of Canada, Docket: A-367-01, September 9, 2002. Retrieved from http://decisions. fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/2002fca309.html on February 5, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. Schmid, A. A. 1987Property, Power and Public Choice: An Inquiry into Law and EconomicsPraegerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Shadid, A. (2001). “Genetic drift threatens US organic farmers.” Boston Globe April 4, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/geneticdrift.cfm on March 11, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Soref, A. (2002). Some Pesticide Residue in Organic Produce. The Natural Foods Merchandiser. Retrieved from http://www.newhope.com/nfm-online/nfm_backs/jun_02/pesticide. cfm on August 2, 2002.Google Scholar
  29. Ucar, T., Hall, F. R. 2001“Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitigation strategy: A review”.Pest Management Science57663675Google Scholar
  30. USDA-NASS (2002). Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2001 Field Crops Study, May 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0502.pdf on July 6, 2002.Google Scholar
  31. USDA-NASS (2004). Acreage Report, June. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0604.txt on July 6, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and BusinessUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations