University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A critical look at organic farming and positioning of organic products in the American market

(USC Thesis Other)

A critical look at organic farming and positioning of organic products in the American market

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content The University of Southern California A Critical Look at Organic Farming and Positioning of Organic Products in the American Market Candice Cerro May 2013 Cerro 2 Table of Contents Page I. Introduction and History of Organics in America ………………………………….. 4 A. Background About Author’s Interest in Organics ……………………………… 4 B. What is Organic? ……………………………………………………………….. 6 C. USDA Regulations and the National Organic Program ………………………... 6 D. NAFTA Free Trade Agreement ……………………………………………….... 8 E. Recent Cases of Organic Abuse in America …………………………………..... 9 II. Climate of Organics Today ………………………………………………………… 12 A. Looking Closer at the USDA Certified Organic Program ……………………... 12 B. USDA Certified Operations in America ……………………………………….. 13 C. Just Because Produce Meets USDA Organic Standards, is it Really Organic? ... 13 D. Interviews with Farmers About the History of Organics ………………………. 21 III. The Slippery Slope of Packaging and Labeling ……………………………………. 27 A. Packaging and Labeling – What’s in a Name? ……………………………….... 27 B. What Violations Mean for Those Who Carry the Produce …………………….. 29 C. Is the Deceptive Packaging a Problem? ………………………………………... 29 IV. The Truth About Organics …………………………………………………………. 31 A. A View of the Landscape of the Organic Trend ……………………………….. 31 B. Research to Determine if Organics are more Nutritious ……………………….. 32 C. Why is the National Organic Program Maintained by the USDA’s Marketing Department? …………………………………………………………………..... 34 D. Pesticides, Fertilizers, Chemicals, Oh My! …………………………………….. 35 Cerro 3 E. Uneducated Public ……………………………………………………………... 37 F. Organic Versus Conventional …………………………………………………... 38 V. What it Means for Public Relations ………………………………………………... 39 A. Role of a Public Relations Practitioner ………………………………………… 39 B. Other Public Groups Educating Consumers on Organics ……………………… 43 C. Conclusion – So What Does it all Mean? ……………………………………… 45 VI. Works Cited ………………………………………………………………………... 49 Cerro 4 I. Introduction and History of Organics in America A. Background About the Author’s Interest in Organics - In central California where the author was raised on 200 acres of farmland, waking up to the sounds of a crop duster overhead was a normal occurrence. As a child she would sit in her backyard and watch the planes spray fertilizers or pesticides on the crops surrounding her home. Her family never worried about the chemicals and the negative effects they might have; they knew them to be saviors from extreme weather, diseases, or infestations of bugs with scary names like “glassy-winged sharpshooters.” If the author’s father had lost one of his crops, it would have been devastating to the livelihood of their family and for those who depended on his harvests. Conventional, non-organic farming was not looked at negatively, but rather the norm for putting quality food on American tables, and fertilizers and pesticides made it safe and possible. The author does not remember when organic produce began to appear in supermarkets or even the farmers markets at which she sold sweet corn as a child. While the author’s father vividly remembers the organic movement beginning in the 1980’s, she did not take notice of words and phrases like natural, organic, free-range, and cage-free until she was in her late teens. Now, every day the author is surrounded by messaging that suggests these products are superior to crops grown in traditional ways with man-made chemicals. Some go as far as to say why these products are better or healthier, but how is anyone to know if any of this marketing is true? The author does recall discussing organic cotton with her father at the age of 17 as she had a classmate whose father grew the crop. The author knew they were very successful with organic farming, but she didn’t understand what the difference was. The author’s father, primarily a cotton farmer, explained to her that her classmate’s family made top dollar for their Cerro 5 organic cotton. The author asked him what organic cotton was and he explained that the crop is grown without any manmade substances like fertilizers and pesticides. He then explained that in this particular farmer’s case, however, “organic” meant that the crop duster plane had headlights to spray man-made substances on the cotton at night. Essentially the author’s friend’s father was selling the same cotton the author’s father was, but with the title “organic” and making quite a bit more money for it. In other words, that farmer employed “sleight of hand” about the purity of his product. There, the author’s interest in the topic began. As a junior in college the author again was confronted with the topic of organic farming. Her environmental science professor was extremely “green.” The professor believed all pesticides and fertilizers were bad and that organic products were far superior; to her they were a way of life. One day, the author posed the question, “how can you be so sure that the organic produce you are buying is truly organic and, for that matter, how do you know it is better for you?” The author explained that we have been eating produce with non-organic substances for years. Has it been so bad for us? The professor immediately dismissed the questions, though provided no evidence to support her theories. From then on the author has had so many unanswered questions about organic crops that the author believes many consumers share. Chief among them are: 1. Are organics healthier for us than non-organics? 2. How do consumers know what they are buying is truly organic? 3. How closely is U.S. organic farming monitored? The overarching question seems to be: Is organic farming truly an improved way to produce crops in America or is it a trend or fad presented to us by clever marketers? After all, the Cerro 6 sector of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that regulates and controls organic farming, the National Organic Program, is housed in the USDA marketing division. This arrangement could have a damaging effect on traditional farmers as well as the safety of American produce. It is important to remember that many of these manmade substances were created to make the crops better and kill diseases and bacteria that could be harmful for us to eat. If organic farming were truly better for us, and crops grown in the traditional way were potentially hazardous to our health, wouldn’t the USDA, and perhaps the Surgeon General, be working harder to regulate the use of these substances in farming? B. What is Organic? - The USDA defines “organic” as a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used (USDA, AMS, “Consumer Information”). Many organic products, including soaps, eggs, milk, meat and packaged foods, clutter the aisles of grocery stores today, but what does it take to be labeled as such? According to the USDA, for a product to carry the organic label it must be 95% organic, while the remaining 5% can be man- made. The USDA’s National Organic Program must approve the man-made components used on the organic produce, however. If a product is 100% organic, it will be noted as such on the packaging. C. USDA Regulations and the National Organic Program – The USDA began regulating organic farming in 1990 when Congress passed the Organic Food Productions Act (OFPA). The OFPA Cerro 7 required the USDA to create national standards for organically produced agricultural products. From this, the National Organic Program, housed within the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, was created to develop national organic standards and establish an organic certification program. The USDA's National Organic Program regulates the standards for any farm, wild crop harvesting, or handling operation that wants to sell an agricultural product as organically produced (USDA, “Organic Certification”). The certification program and organic standards were created based on recommendations by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The board is comprised of 15 members that fall into these categories: farmer/grower, handler/processor, retailer, consumer/public interest, environmentalist, scientist, and certifying agent (USDA, AMS, “USDA Oversight”). To be certified by the USDA to sell, label and represent its produce as organic, a farm has to pass a certification program. The farm must prove that the soil the crops are grown in has not produced crops with pesticides during the past three years. The farm must then share proof of its organic processes for how the crop is produced. Finally if the previous steps have been met, an inspector will conduct an on-site inspection of the organic operation and share his or her report with certifying agents and then decide if an organic seal will be given (USDA, AMS, “Consumer Information”). Once an operation has been certified by the USDA National Organic Program, it can be subjected to subsequent drop-in inspections to assure the farm is maintaining organic standards. The USDA maintains that it conducts 30,000 on-site inspections of the 17,281 farming operations and handling facilities that are USDA-certified organic in the US every year. These on-site inspections conduct residue testing to verify that prohibited pesticides are not being applied to organic crops. Cerro 8 D. NAFTA Free Trade Agreement – The North American Free Trade Agreement, enacted in 1994, between the United States, Canada and Mexico, changed the landscape of American farming. Signed into law under President Clinton, the trading bloc was created to eliminate barriers to trade, such as tariffs, and increase monetization for all countries involved. Agriculture, however, was a controversial part of the Trade Agreement and the three countries could not come to one unanimous decision so three separate agreements exist today. Fresh vegetables are the leading import from Mexico to the United States under the agreement, including organic produce (US Executive Office, USTR). According to the National Organic Program, organic produce from Mexico is held to the same standards that organic produce for the US must abide by. The NAFTA Free Trade Agreement is not without problems, and organic produce can be directly affected by the terms of the agreement. The National Organic Program’s current standard for organic produce is to give permission to partner countries to act as certifying agents ensuring that the organic produce grown and produced in their countries meets USDA-certified organic standards. This produce is then sent to the US and sold in stores with US organic produce, but these products can be differentiated from American grown produce as they will have a sticker denoting which country certified the product organic. Other issues with the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement arise when chemicals banned for use on produce in the US are sold by organizations within the US to other countries such as Mexico for use on their produce. These chemicals are often sprayed on the produce that is then sold in American grocery stores. Until recently, the US was still allowing the export of DDT and other pesticides that were banned in the US to Mexico (US EPA). Many farming operations in Mexico might still have these pesticides they purchased before the ban. Just like in cases of guns Cerro 9 and ammo, often when a product is banned for sale, a “grandfather clause” goes into effect for those who already possess the banned product – illegal to buy, not illegal to own or use. E. Recent Cases of Organic Abuse in America– Numerous cases have arisen since the creation of the National Organic Program where farmers and farming corporations have slipped through the USDA’s guidelines and non-organic products were sold as organic (Organic Trade Association, OTA Responds). Many farmers can recall incidences where organics were sprayed with pesticides at night, or some other abuse has taken place. In some cases, farmers have unknowingly tainted their organic crops by using products that they purchased to apply to their crops believing them to be organic. Later the farmers discovered after their own research or a failed inspection that what they applied to their crops was, in fact, synthetic. In other instances, non-organic farming operations have tainted crops of neighboring organic fields when pesticides or fertilizers being sprayed by crop dusters have drifted over to the organic crop. In 2011, Kenneth Nelson, who owns Port Organic Products and other organic operations in California, was caught selling fraudulent organic fertilizers. Nelson scammed farmers between at least 2003 and 2009; thus these non-organic products were being sold in American grocery stores as organic, most likely for a higher price than non-organic produce. As pointed out by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of California, “Nelson claimed that these fertilizers were made with purely organic ingredients including fish meal, bird guano, or blood meal. Such organic materials are more costly than conventional, synthetic fertilizer materials and are sold at a higher price than conventional fertilizers” (US Dept. of Justice). While Nelson claimed to be using these products, he was actually using cheaper synthetic alternatives to save money on the production of his chemicals, but selling the final product at a higher price point. Nelson was Cerro 10 charged with falsifying applications and renewal applications each year and presenting his fertilizers as meeting the requirements of the National Organic Program standards. He pled guilty in August 2012 to four counts of mail fraud and is awaiting sentencing on November 5, 2012, in federal court (Associated Press). Nelson was eventually stopped for his unscrupulous business practices, but unfortunately it took many years for this to happen, leaving non-organic produce on the shelves of U.S. grocery stores labeled as organic. Similar fertilizer fraud cases occurred in California in 2010 as well. Perhaps the most publicized case of organic abuse in recent years occurred at Aurora Organic Dairy, the largest organic dairy farm in the country. Aurora Organic Dairy provides and packages private-label, store brand dairy products for grocery store chains including Wal-Mart, Safeway, Target, and Costco. Many of the chains filed lawsuits against the company in 2007 for selling organic milk that was not, in fact, organic. The violations committed included cows having little access to pastures (Aurora moved its cows back and forth between conventional and organic farms), so the milk did not meet federal organic standards (Johnson). Sparked by complaints from the Cornucopia Institute, an organic farming industry watchdog group, the operation faced scrutiny for failing to comply with USDA National Organic Program regulations. In August 2007, Aurora was sanctioned by the USDA when investigators found multiple violations of federal organic law. The investigators recommended Aurora Organic Dairy lose its organic certification for its numerous violations, but the USDA instead opted to put the company on one-year probation. The company eventually agreed to “comply” with USDA standards and didn’t lose its certification even though numerous violations had been reported (USDA, “Aurora Organic”). The Cornucopia Institute felt the USDA, under the Bush Administration, failed consumers by not Cerro 11 revoking Aurora Organic Dairy’s organic certification, but rather gave the company a “slap on the wrist” for extremely serious infractions. Aurora Organic Dairy is only one example of abuse happening in the organic milk industry as multiple other cases have been reported (Cornucopia, “Enforcement Hammer Falls”). Many of the organic products sold in America are imported from foreign countries that have agreements with the USDA to certify organic produce themselves. The USDA trusts these countries to monitor the farms and handling operations. In August 2012, the USDA caught five international producers using fake certifications – two in China, two in India, and one in Ghana, West Africa. While the National Organic Program spokesperson, Soo Kim, said products from these companies were not found on retail shelves, they are used in further processing of products sold in America. Because of this, the USDA National Organic Program alerted handlers and processors who might use products from these companies. The companies found in violation were: • Xi'an YuenSun Biological Technology Co. Ltd. in Xi'an, China, which produces fruit juice powders, raw powders, extract powders, and ingredients such as Resveratrol, Anthocyanin, Yohimbine, and Coenzyme Q10. The certifying agent, CERES GmbH in Germany, confirmed the certificate is fraudulent and is not responsible for it. • Shanghai Honghao Chemicals Co. Ltd. in Shanghai, China, which produces barley grass, wheat grass, oat grass, and powdered versions of each. The certifier, CERES GmbH, confirmed the certificate is fraudulent. • Castillo Group of Companies in Ismir, India, produces refined sugar. CERES GmbH confirmed the certificate is fraudulent. Cerro 12 • M/s.Parker Biotech Private Ltd. in Tamil Nadu, India, producers of neem oil, neem leaf and coconut oil. Its certifying agent, LACON Quality Certification in Kerala, India, confirmed that the certificate is fraudulent. • Pure Shea Butter Co. in Accra, Ghana, which produces refined and unrefined shea butter, refined cocoa and cacao butter, and vegetable oil. Its certifier, Ecocert Certification Body, in Tunisia, confirmed that the certificate is fraudulent (Brown). II. The Climate of Organics Today A. Looking Closer at the USDA Certified Organic Program –The National Organic Program requires all products labeled as organic to be grown on farms and handled in operations certified by the USDA or a USDA certifying agent. Here is a more in depth look at regulations certified organic operations must abide by, based on recommendations from the NOSB: • Production and Handling Standards – Specifically in regard to produce, these standards dictate that no conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge- based fertilizers may be used to grow the crops. It also prohibits the use of genetic engineering and ionizing radiation. • Labeling Standards – To be labeled “100% organic,” a product must be completely organic and in order to be labeled as “organic”, the product must be 95% organic. If a product has 70% or more organic ingredients it can be labeled as “made with organic ingredients.” • Certification and Accreditation Standards – The National Organic Program created the standards for organic production and handling operations to abide by in order to become accredited by the USDA. Those submitting for accreditation must present a plan for how Cerro 13 they will grow and sustain the organic crops as well as prevent commingling with non- organic substances. For those operations that sell less than $5,000 a year of organic products, no certification is required (USDA, AMS, “USDA Oversight”). B. USDA Certified Operations in America – There are 17,281 farming operations and handling facilities that are certified organic in the US by the USDA today (USDA, AMS, “2011 List”). This number seems low and begs the question: who has to be certified organic to sell their produce in US grocery stores? According to the National Organic Program, any farm or business that sells more than $5,000 a year in organic produce, products, food, etc. must be certified by the USDA. For smaller farms and businesses that are not selling $5,000 a year in organics, they are not required to become certified or meet organic certifications but they must maintain their records for the past three years and are not allowed to use the USDA’s organic seal unless they seek the certification and rights to do so (USDA, AMS, “Do I Need to Be Certified Organic?”). Many of the farmers that fall into this category are those who sell their produce at farmer’s markets. C. Just Because Produce Meets USDA Organic Standards, is it Really Organic? - Since crops only have to be 95% organic to be labeled as organic by the USDA, there is room for manmade chemicals and products to be used on the crops. The USDA also regulates these products and has a list, referred to as the National List. According the USDA’s website, “the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances identifies substances that may and may not be used in organic crop and livestock production. It also lists the substances that may be used in or on processed organic products. In general, synthetic substances are prohibited unless specifically Cerro 14 allowed and non-synthetic substances are allowed unless specifically prohibited. For example, a vaccine used to prevent pinkeye in livestock is an allowed synthetic substance and arsenic is a prohibited natural substance. Some substances on the National List may only be used in specific situations, e.g. only for certain crops or up to a maximum amount” (USDA, AMS, “National List”). § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production. In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided that use of such substances does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest. (a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems. (1) Alcohols. (i) Ethanol. (ii) Isopropanol. (2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions. Cerro 15 (i) Calcium hypochlorite. (ii) Chlorine dioxide. (iii) Sodium hypochlorite. (3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent. (4) Hydrogen peroxide. (5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only. (6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material (7) Soap-based algicide/demossers. (8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #–15630–89–4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label. (b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable. (1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops. (2) Mulches. (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. Cerro 16 (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)). (c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop. (e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). (1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil. (2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #–1312–76–1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand. (3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops. (4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent. (5) Elemental sulfur. (6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide. (7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. Cerro 17 (8) Soaps, insecticidal. (9) Sticky traps/barriers. (10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922–74–7; 58064–47–4)—in accordance with approved labeling. (f) As insect management. Pheromones. (g) As rodenticides. (1) Sulfur dioxide—underground rodent control only (smoke bombs). (2) Vitamin D3. (h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0). (i) As plant disease control. (1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #–1312–76–1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand. (2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper- based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides. (3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil. (4) Hydrated lime. (5) Hydrogen peroxide. (6) Lime sulfur. Cerro 18 (7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. (9) Potassium bicarbonate. (10) Elemental sulfur. (11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014. (12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014. (j) As plant or soil amendments. (1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction. (2) Elemental sulfur. (3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only. (4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant. (5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency. (6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing. (i) Soluble boron products. Cerro 19 (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt. (7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5. (8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E. (9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782–99–2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section. (k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering. (l) As floating agents in postharvest handling. (1) Lignin sulfonate. (2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing. (m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances. (1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern. (2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers. (n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647–01–0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting. Cerro 20 (o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #'s 64742–42–3, 8009– 03–08, and 8002–74–2)–for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors. § 205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production. (a) Ash from manure burning. (b) Arsenic. (c) Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake. (d) Lead salts. (e) Potassium chloride—unless derived from a mined source and applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil. (f) Sodium fluoaluminate (mined). (g) Sodium nitrate—unless use is restricted to no more than 20% of the crop's total nitrogen requirement; use in spirulina production is unrestricted until October 21, 2005. (h) Strychnine. (i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) (US Government Printing Office). Some farmers and consumers are actually shocked by what is included on the aforementioned list. In July, Tom Philpott of Mother Jones took a hard look at some substances allowed by the National Organic Program in organic products. For instance, Carrageenan, an additive made from seaweed used as a thickener in dairy products like yogurt, has been controversial as some claim it is known to cause intestinal inflammation. Acidified sodium Cerro 21 chlorite, a synthetic chemical made by DuPont, is used as a disinfecting wash for poultry and other meats. The chemical had been linked to many health problems. Finally, Ethylene is used to hasten the ripening process for tropical fruit and de-green citrus. While Ethylene is not harmful to humans, it is a fossil fuel derivative which could harm the environment (Philpott). One pasture-raised meat farm in North Carolina took its own approach to organic products. Using sustainable production practices since 2005, Foothills Pasture-Raised Meats decided not to become USDA certified organic. Foothills adheres to its own strict production practices that it claims are better for the animals, the environment, and the consumer (Foothills). The company has seen no problems positioning its products in such a way. Michael Potter of Eden Foods also refuses to put USDA organic certified label on his products as he believes the system is fraudulent. Potter recently appeared before the NOSB to denounce the use of Carrageenan in certified-organic foods, but to no avail. Potter sees big companies like PepsiCo getting into the business of organics, and he believes their motivation is purely monetary (Strom, “Has ‘Organic’ Been Oversized?”). Big companies like General Mills and Campbell’s Soup even sit on the NOSB, giving them direct influence on regulations and what non-organic products are deemed okay to put on organic produce. D. Interviews with Farmers on History of Organics - The interviewees all requested to remain anonymous as they all currently work in farming and have ties to organics, both directly and indirectly. Some of the questions differ for each farmer depending on his knowledge of organic farming and the direction that the conversion went. Cerro 22 Farmer One– July 29, 2012 – This is a conventional farmer. He is beginning to grow to organic avocados, but would make less than $5,000 a year in sales and, therefore, would not have to be USDA certified to do so. 1. Give your background in farming including any knowledge you have of organic farming. I have been in farming for 32 years and am a third generation farmer who worked on both my father’s and grandfather’s farms as a child. I grow cotton, corn, wheat, and hay, as well as small amounts of organic produce on my own for personal consumption and to sell at farmers’ markets. Organic farming started catching on in the early 1980’s mostly with carrots. People began to get their fields certified to grow organics crops and it could take up to four years for the whole process. I know many people today who grow fruits and vegetables as well as other crops like cotton. 2. Have you farmed organic produce? No, I have not farmed organic produce in the past since the crops I grow on a large scale are not vegetables. I am currently in the process of having a small avocado orchard certified organic. 3. To your knowledge, does the USDA check up on organic farms to make sure they are meeting standards? The USDA doesn’t check that often to make sure people are following organic standards to my knowledge. There aren’t enough inspectors for them to do that, so most of the organic operations I’m aware of go without much attention from the USDA once certified. Cerro 23 4. Do you know of cases, past or present, where farmers have abused the “organic system” and passed produce off for organic when it wasn’t? It seems that many people are farming organically with integrity and honesty, but there are also others who get away with cheating because they know the way around the system. I would say that the large companies like Dole, Paramount, and Grimmway Farms are going out of their way to make sure they are actually certified organic. They have more resources to do so and there’s more at stake. The reality for all organic farmers though, is that garlic water isn’t going to kill a massive bug infestation, so when a problem arises, people will do anything to solve it. 5. Do you think the current USDA rules are effectively regulating how organic produce is farmed in America? No, it’s impossible to fully regulate organic farming in America. Organic farming is like many other government programs in the US: things fall through the cracks due to lack of funding, personnel, and resources. Organic farming is still relatively new, so we are learning as we go in terms of regulations. Farmer Two – August 21, 2012 – Has mixed experience in both conventional and organic farming. He also is operating a harvesting business that has to be certified to harvest organic produce. He grew his first organic crop in 2012, but based on his negative experience doing so has decided not to continue with organics. Cerro 24 1. Give your background in farming including what crops you grow and any knowledge you have of organic farming. I have been farming since 2008. I grow cotton, corn, alfalfa, garlic, carrots, cabbage, wheat safflower, and oats. 2. Have you farmed organic crops? I have some knowledge of organics as we grew 800 acres of organic safflower for the first and last time this season in 2012. We also own and operate a custom harvesting company where we can harvest certified organic crops. 3. If so, what certification did you have to go through to grow organics? As far as certification goes on ground we farm, if the crop is organic then the field has to be certified from the USDA or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Once this is done, the machinery that tills or harvests must be sanitized each time it comes or goes to organic crops. Some applications require a USDA inspection. 4. Does the USDA check up on organic farms to make sure they are meeting standards? Yes they do, but they do not check very often and it is mostly based on the honor system. The products harvested are also subject to inspection prior to marketing. 5. If so, how often? Cerro 25 We plan an inspection of fields and crops several times a year with the USDA but they have the option to do a surprise inspection if they feel it is warranted. 6. Do you think the current USDA rules are effectively regulating how organic produce is farmed in America? No, there is a large grey area on regulations; they rely on the growers to police themselves. Farmer Three – September 6, 2012 – Works for a large corporate organic produce grower. He manages both conventional and organic fields for the operation. 1. Give your background in farming including what crops you grow and any knowledge you have of organic farming? I grew up in an agriculture family since my father is a cotton grower. I worked on a farm most of my life. My father grows conventional cotton, however. I wasn’t exposed to organic farming until I began working for a farming corporation over a year ago. For this farm I grow both organic produce and conventional produce. I manage crops like kale, lettuce, carrots, beets and potatoes. 2. What are the differences you see in your current position in growing conventional produce compared to organic produce? The differences start in ground preparation and go all the way through harvest. For organic crops we can only disk (till) the dirt or use organic compost to add nutrients to the field. In conventional farming we use many Nitrogen-based compounds on the crops, but we cannot use these in organics so instead we use different types of Omegas. Also, any time a neighboring farmer is going to spray Cerro 26 a fertilizer or pesticide on a crop, our farm receives notification to make sure we can avoid drift. We also keep a 100-foot buffer from conventional crops and organic crops. 3. Does the USDA regularly check up on your farm to make sure it is meeting standards? The USDA does regularly check-in on the farm I work for, probably because we are such a large organic grower. My company also makes sure to document every single thing we use and put on the organic crops. We track this every day in case the USDA needs to see our records. My farm goes above and beyond to make sure we are one step ahead of the regulations and doing everything by the book. The USDA does inspections at our fields pretty regularly as well. 4. Do you think the current USDA rules are effectively regulating how organic produce is farmed in America? Yes I do. Everyone is held to the same standards and it’s really fair. My farm makes sure that we uphold USDA standards and I believe other farms as large as ours do as well. 5. If an organic crop at your company is faced with a disease or insect problem that cannot be treated with organic compounds, what do you do? In that instance we have to either cut our losses and save as much of the crop as we can without treating it, or treat the crop with synthetic substances but not sell it as organic. Cerro 27 6. Now that you’ve grown organic produce and see the differences between conventional and organic production, do you eat organics? I still believe in conventional farming and that it isn’t hurting anybody. I mostly buy conventional produce because it’s cheaper and I do not taste a difference between conventional and organic produce. I think conventional produce is still grown well also. III. The Slippery Slope of Packaging and Labeling A. Packaging and Labels – What’s in a Name? - In the food industry there are many different types of organic labeling: 100% organic, organic, natural, free-range, cage-free, without hormones, grass fed, the list can go on and on. It is challenging for a consumer know if these products are actually superior or just marketed as such. The National Organic Program, after all, is housed in the marketing department of the USDA. It is not often the marketing or public relations group is put in charge of government regulations. Research proves that consumers do have positive word association for terms like “organic” as noted in a 2002-2003 study conducted in Oregon shortly after the state adopted National Organic Program standards. Conducted by the Oregon Survey Research Center at the University of Oregon, the survey of randomly selected Oregon households continued until 800 interviews were completed out of a sample frame of 3,990. There was a response rate of 62% for the entire sample frame, taking into account refusals, no answers, and disconnections. The survey found that two-thirds of respondents gave positive word association to organic foods citing phrases such as natural, home grown, chemical-free, and earth friendly (Raab and Grobe). Likewise, in 2009 RMI Research and Consulting conducted a study on behalf of the Cerro 28 Organic Trade Association and KIWI Magazine to track U.S. families’ organic attitudes and beliefs. This study was conducted in the height of the recession when American families were tightening budgets and trying to save money everywhere, including the grocery store. The study found that American families were not giving up organic products. In fact, 73 percent of U.S. families buy organic products at least occasionally. The main reason these families purchased organics was for perceived health benefits. The study also found that the majority (32 percent) of organic purchasers had only begun doing so in the past two years. Finally, the study pointed out that parents who buy organic are more likely to be making lifestyle choices that promote healthy living across many categories than parents who do not buy organic (Organic Trade Association. 2009 U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes). Unfortunately, there are cases proving that companies take advantage of consumer perception by representing and packaging their products inaccurately. Major brands, including General Mills, have come under fire in recent years for “deceptive marketing” of natural products and have been challenged to defend the accuracy of their natural labels. The General Mills lawsuit began in the summer of 2012, brought by two California mothers who claimed the company deceptively marketed its Nature Valley products as natural when they contain highly processed ingredients. Amy McKendrick, one of the mothers in the lawsuit said, “I’ve figured out now that something can say it is 100 percent natural on the outside and not be 100 percent natural. I want to make sure other people making purchases understand that, too” (Strom, “Lawsuit”). Also in 2012, Unilever settled a class action lawsuit over claims its Breyers ice cream brand was “all natural.” The lawsuit alleged Unilever misrepresented its Breyers brand ice cream products as they contain alkalized cocoa, a non-natural processed ingredient that additionally Cerro 29 contain Potassium Carbonate, a man-made synthetic ingredient. While Unilever denied any wrongdoing, the company agreed to provide $2.5 million in restitution. Consumers who may have purchased the product in the past eight years, were entitled to receive cash payment from the class action settlement in a short time frame that ended in August 2012 (Holter). B. What Violations Mean for Those Who Carry the Produce - In cases such as the Breyers and Nature Valley lawsuits, or even the aforementioned Aurora Organic Dairy, when a product is deemed to be inaccurately labeled or not organic, grocery stores that carry the produce and products are then faced with the task of removing the items from the shelves. Wal-Mart found itself facing this issue in 2010 with insecticides carried in the garden section of its stores. Bio Block, marketed as an organic pest controller, carried the USDA Organic certification seal, but was found to be in violation of the National Organic Program’s regulations. Once the Cornucopia Institute pointed out the problems with the product, Wal-Mart began removing it from shelves nationwide (Charky). If a retailer continues to knowingly sell a product that does not meet national organic standards, it can be fined up to $11,000. In some instances, grocers themselves take items off their shelves if they personally believe the product is labeled incorrectly. Such was the case for a Rhode Island grocer in early 2012. He took offense to Kashi cereal’s natural claim when he found out the soy in the cereal had come from soybeans that had a gene inserted to protect the soybeans from the herbicide Roundup. Kashi responded by pointing out that the FDA does not regulate the term “natural,” therefore Kashi was not committing a violation (Weise). C. Is the Deceptive Packaging a Problem? – Only 70% of ingredients in a packaged good have Cerro 30 to be organic for a product to be labeled as “made with organic ingredients.” Likewise, a product only has to be 95% organic to pass USDA organic regulations and the previously referenced list of allowed substances is astounding. Finally, no one is currently regulating the usage of the term “natural” on American products. With so many inaccurate descriptions of products in grocery stores today, how can the consumer know what is truthful and what is not? If a product is labeled as organic, it should not have manmade substances in it. The same is true for cage-free, natural, grass fed, and other descriptions of products that present them as superior to their traditional counter parts. As we have discovered though, even the products that are following regulations to be USDA certified, are not as organic as a consumer might assume they are. Much like Kashi spokespeople pointed out, some of these terms are not even regulated. Therefore a company might be falsely representing its products to consumers, knowing the consumer will perceive it to be healthier. While this is false advertising, it is not currently illegal. With news lawsuits cropping up on a regular basis however, the term “natural” might be next to be clearly defined and regulated by the USDA. Not all American consumers read the entire list of ingredients on the packaged goods they purchase, so they might not know the product that is presented as natural might not be at all. Another example is “cage-free” egg products. The USDA defines cage-free as indicating “that the flock was able to freely roam a building, room, or enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water during their production cycle” (USDA, AMS, “Consumer Information”). The US Humane Society points out that while the birds may be cage-free, they are still confined to a barn or warehouse and generally have no access to the outdoors. The Humane Society also explains that practices like beak cutting are permitted (Humane Society). When a consumer purchases eggs that are labeled as cage-free, one probably has the notion of a bird roaming with free access to the outdoors and treated humanely. Cerro 31 Unfortunately the consumer’s vision is not always the case, so it is important to research the company before buying its products. Another problem arises when the USDA will not regulate corporations that it knows are blatantly disregarding rules or using non-organic compounds. Such is the case with Dean Foods, manufacturer of Horizon dairy products. The USDA has come under fire for not stopping Dean Foods from adding unapproved additives: Martek Biosciences Corporation’s omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (DHA/ARA), derived chemically from fermented algae and fungus, to foods with the organic label. DHA and ARA can be found in the company’s infant formula. While the USDA has stated that these additives are illegal in organics, it also made it clear that it would not take action against companies using them in USDA certified organic products. In a USDA compliance letter, it was suggested that companies would be able to continue using the additives in organic foods during a phase out period. “Essentially, the USDA admitted once again in its letter that the DHA additives should never have been allowed in organics, and then goes on to state that they have chosen not to take enforcement action at this time,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute, (Cornucopia, “Industry Watchdog ‘Dumbfounded’”). The Cornucopia Institute filed a formal legal complaint with the USDA on the topic in early August 2012 (Cornucopia, “Corporations Sneak Preservatives into Organic Food”). IV. The Truth About Organics A. View of the Landscape of the Organic Trend – This study is not meant to criticize the practice of organic farming or the reasoning behind it. It is, however, designed to critically examine a practice that has only recently begun being regulated and is poorly researched. It is a practice Cerro 32 that still needs work to streamline the process and ensure that all “manufacturers” -- farmers, processors, chemical creators, etc. -- are fulfilling the duties necessary of delivering to American consumers the organic products they pay for. As farmer one pointed out, many government systems are flawed and need revising and updating to ensure they are functioning in the intended capacity. The USDA’s regulation of organics is similar to other government programs that are flawed. Due to a lack of staff, resources, money, the USDA cannot fully regulate all organic farming operations in America. All of the farmers interviewed pointed out that the National Organic Program operates on the “honor system” in many instances, as the USDA simply does not have the manpower to regularly check in on all of the certified organic operations in America. B. Research to Determine if Organics are More Nutritious is Minimal - With the knowledge that consumers perceive organics to be healthier for them, the question must be asked if organics really are more nutritious than non-organics? According to the Organic Trade Association, “while many studies show organic foods are rich in nutrients, researchers generally agree there is a need for more research. A study review authored by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health researchers looks at the paucity of data now available concerning the nutrition-related health effects of organic food, points out the need for better designed studies to answer this question. The review, which appeared in the May 12, 2010, online posting of articles for The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, only found 12 studies with any relevance to nutrition-related aspects of organic food, and most of these were poorly designed and flawed.” (OTA, Nutritional Considerations) Cerro 33 In early September 2012, the Stanford School of Medicine released the first significant study about the health benefits of organic foods. Findings state there is little evidence to suggest organic foods are more nutritious. “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non- organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. The group from Stanford executed the most comprehensive meta-analysis of existing studies comparing conventional and organic foods to date. The study did show that eating more organic foods did reduce the risk of pesticide exposure, but for those eating conventional foods, the pesticide exposure was within suggested amounts. Also, the study yielded little evidence that organic food offered more nutrients or health benefits for consumers. While this study is the most comprehensive to date, Stanford points out there is still little research designed to give a comprehensive look at the health benefits of organic foods as compared to conventional foods (Brandt). If there is no evidence that organic products are better, why have sales increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion since 1997? In 2009, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition conducted an analysis of studies and articles on the topic of nutrition in organic versus conventional produce. 52,471 articles were found on the topic and 162 studies were identified. Of the 162 studies, only 55 were of satisfactory quality. Using only the studies of satisfactory quality and working with subject experts, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition discovered that while conventional produce has significantly higher content of Nitrogen and organic produce has significantly higher content of Phosphorous and higher titratable acidity, no difference in nutrient content was found (Dangour et al). This content analysis further proves the lack of studies in the field of organics Cerro 34 until the Stanford study was released in 2012. It is astounding that in the nearly two decades that organic produce has gained popularity there is only one significant study in the field to validate whether or not organics are actually better for us to consume. Hopefully more reputable institutions will undertake research on the topic of organics in the near future to shed more light and knowledge on such an important subject. C. Why is the National Organic Program Maintained by the USDA’s Marketing Department? – Other problems with the validity of organics in America are more political. Why is the National Organic program housed in the marketing department of the USDA? It seems like a horrible fit to have a marketing department regulate organic farming practices since we consume these products, but it also suggests that the organic movement is just that – marketing. Not to suggest all marketing and public relations is spin or untruthful, but isn’t the purpose of a marketing department to sell a product or service? Likewise, how often are marketing or communication departments in charge of government mandates and regulations? By classifying the National Organic Program as a marketing service in the USDA, consumers are being expertly sold the notion that spending more money on an organic product is justified because it is healthier for us than conventional foods and products, but there is no research to support that this is true. Any good marketing department would do research before spending the money and other resources to sell a product. The marketing team would ensure there were interested audiences and a need for the product. Unfortunately, the National Organic program is not operating on such premises and American consumers are literally paying for it. The USDA also markets the “carbon footprint” aspect of organics. Using fewer chemicals on produce and handling them less is better for the environment, but this is contradicted by the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement. If Cerro 35 organic produce is grown in Canada or Mexico, or any other country that sends certified organics to the US, that produce has traveled a long distance via plane, train, truck, etc., to make it to American grocery stores. Likewise, many American companies that grow organic produce, do so in other parts of the world and ship the produce back to America. Therefore this organic produce is having a large impact on the environment due to the transportation efforts to make it to market and completely disproves the marketing claims that organic produce is better for our environment. It is astounding that something humans ingest is not being managed more responsibly by the USDA – this is not nail polish, it is the food that we eat. If the USDA values the organic practice, should it not show the American public by housing the National Organic Program somewhere other than a marketing department? With as largely as the revenue stream has grown for organic products in the past decade, the USDA needs to move the National Organic program out of the marketing department and hire more inspectors and regulators to more carefully and closely manage inspections and investigations. Likewise, when cases of organic abuse arise, the USDA needs to take a tougher stance when punishing those guilty of organic fraud. If a product is going to carry a certified organic label, the USDA needs to assure to consumers they are actually getting what they believe they are paying for and prove it will not tolerate those trying to cheat the system. The USDA has missed many key opportunities to send the message to both consumers and organic producers that it upholds organic standards to the highest level and that violators will not be able to continue to sell products. D. Pesticides, Fertilizers, Chemicals, Oh My! – Chemicals by their very nature and names sound scary, but even a farmer who manages organic produce for one of the world’s largest organic farms admits that he eats conventional produce and sees no problem with it. With names like Cerro 36 Glyphosate and Abamectin, it is no wonder that people are afraid to put them in their bodies. While having large amounts of synthetic substances can be toxic to anyone, chemicals also serve a purpose and can be used for good in certain situations. Chemicals make sanitation possible, are used in modern medicine and have protected Americans from diseased crops for many years. Many of the chemicals, like Abamectin, contain key ingredients that are even used in medicine that treats illnesses. Abamectin has many uses including insect and mite control in crops like cotton and strawberries for farmers in an insecticide named Zephyr (Novartis). Abamectin is also used in ant bait that can be purchased at any garden or home care store (DoMyOwnPestControl.com). Taking a look at other uses for Abamectin reveals that veterinarians use the compound to control endo- and ectoparasites, essentially meaning it is used as a de-wormer (Boisseau). Finally, small doses of Abamectin, as well as other members of the Avermectin family of compounds, are widely used to treat humans for river blindness by the World Health Organization (Extension Toxicology Network). While the incorrect exposure to Abamectin can be toxic for both humans and animals, the right quantities of the compound also have great benefits for those in need. Before marketers and communicators make sweeping generalizations about how bad chemicals can be, it is important to remember that many are used every day in positive ways that protect both humans and animals and keep us healthy, as is the case with Abamectin. Most chemicals have many different uses and in the correct doses, have positive effects and as the Stanford study suggests, the exposure to pesticides when eating conventional produce is still within safe limits. As stated earlier, American companies sell category one chemicals like DDT to Mexico as part of the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement, though more regulations are beginning to form around the practice. While American farmers cannot put category one chemicals on any crops, Cerro 37 conventional or organic, Mexican farmers can apply them to their produce. This produce is later shipped to and sold in the US, for Americans to purchase and consume. Essentially, we have been eating produce with a variety of chemicals applied to it for years. Even certified organic produce can have a variety of chemicals applied to it and still be considered organic. Having a synthetic compound applied to produce, however, does not necessarily mean the food is unsafe to consume or unhealthy. Many of these chemicals were created to improve the quality of the produce. As Underwood Family Farms, a sustainable farm in southern California explains: Spraying has developed a negative connotation. However, it is a tool used by virtually all farmers, whether organic or not. Sometimes we foliar feed (spray major and minor nutrient elements onto the leaf surface), which is a low impact way of meeting a plant's nutritional needs. Organic growers may only utilize biological and natural chemicals to kill the pests that attack crops, though they are still classified as pesticides. Conventional growers will use both natural and synthetic material to stop unusual infestations. (Underwood Family Farms) E. Uneducated Public – Most Americans associate the words “organic” and “natural” with good things – research has proven consumers think such designations are better, healthier, and merit a higher price tag. It has yet to be proven true, however, so how has this industry grown so much in the past decade? Most consumers, the author included, are guilty of being passive when it comes to labeling. Finding out that DHA and ARA are not actually beneficial for one’s health is probably shocking to many consumers who purchase these products for their children on the premise that they are healthier for them. When things are presented to us as healthier, we just assume they are without going a step further to substantiate the claims. Some would believe “sugar free” products are healthier than their sweeter counterparts. In truth, though, to make a Cerro 38 product without sugar, artificial sweeteners that can be more dangerous than sugar must be used. Without the public and demanding answers about quality and proper regulations, advertisers can get away with positioning products as healthier when the claims might actually be unsubstantiated. F. Organic Versus Conventional – While it might sound like this is an argument against organic farming, or the USDA’s National Organic Program, that is not the case. The purpose is simply to point out that consumers need to take a deeper look at all of the facts before deciding to purchase organic produce and products or not. Organics are not necessarily better than conventional produce and conventional is not necessarily better than organics. Buying produce grown from a local farmer that has been handled as little as possible and grown in the most sustainable way that is best for environment is the most ideal situation and supports the local farmers and businesses. The truth though, is that sometimes we have to buy produce from a grocery store that has traveled far distances and has been sprayed with pesticides or chemicals, or both. Both organic and conventional produce and products serve a purpose and should be considered by consumers, but the organic movement should not make consumers afraid to buy and consume produce grown in a traditional way. As the Stanford University study points out, even those who consumed only conventional produce had low amounts of chemicals in their urine, and amounts that were certainly within a safe range. Are there people cheating the system and growing organics incorrectly? Yes. Are there farmers who grow organics honestly and accurately and uphold the National Organic Standards? Yes. In life there will always be those who do things correctly and those who cheat to get ahead and make more of a profit, etc. All Cerro 39 consumers can do is educate themselves to make sure they know the most about the benefits, drawbacks, special considerations, etc. of both organic and conventional produce. With only one significant study about the nutritional value of organics, more research must be done on the organic produce to determine if it truly is more nutritious than conventional produce or if there are health risks that can be incurred from eating produce that has been treated with synthetic substances. For an industry that has grown so much in the last decade, it is imperative to make sure the claims are accurate and substantiated before continuing to drive money towards it and present the products as superior or healthier. Finally, responsibility lies with the marketers, public relations practitioners and individuals who communicate on behalf of companies to ensure that the message being shared about the product is an accurate description and does not over-promise and under-deliver. V. What it Means for Public Relations A. Role of Public Relations Practitioner – For public relations practitioners in farming and agriculture as well as food and beverage industries it is definitely an interesting time with uncharted territories. Being on a communications team can be difficult in any type of organization. Establishing oneself as an advisor to the leadership team can be challenging as not all executives understand the role of public relations. In an ideal world, or at least an ideal economy, a public relations practitioner would only take a position where his or her opinion was valued by executives and he or she was not asked to convey a brand message inaccurately. Working for an unscrupulous company who represents their products inaccurately would be damaging for not only the individual’s career, but eventually for the company’s reputation as well. While it is common practice in public relations to use language to describe a product that Cerro 40 will be most appealing to consumers, if this language is untruthful about the quality of the product, it is unethical to do such. A public relations professional, should work to raise the bar and represent a brand he or she can support and truly believe in. While interviewing farmer three, it was clear that he believed in the corporation he worked for and took pride in the fact that it was growing organic produce in an honest and accurate way, though he ultimately did not believe organics are superior to conventional produce, he still felt his company was growing them in an honest and accurate way. Public relations and marketing practitioners should strive for the same professional satisfaction. Working for a cause one believes in and supports will only make him or her more successful in the professional world. Likewise, lying about the nutrition or perceived health value of a product is unethical and could be dangerous to the professional’s career. After all, how can a public relations practitioner sleep at night if he or she knows they are lying about the quality of a product that consumers are not just using, but eating? This is our food supply, not a trendy consumer product that will come and go with seasons. Companies like General Mills who are selling unnatural products labeled as “natural” are doing so unethically. As a public relations practitioner, it is important to question product messaging and talk points and make sure they represent the product accurately. Just because there is currently no law regulating usage of the word “natural” does not mean that it is morally correct for companies to use in their labels. Eventually there will be laws more closely regulating acceptable packaging labels and terms as the organic practice continues to grow. Until then it is up to communications and marketing professionals to make sure they urge management to represent products accurately. Just like a messaging should not deem a product “revolutionary” or “ground-breaking” if it is not, products that are not completely natural or organic should not Cerro 41 be labeled as such. Marketers and communicators can instead focus on the value the product does have such as: grown in Nitrogen-free soil, grown in a sustainable way with minimal chemicals, etc. Underwood Family Farms take the time to explain the difference between sustainable and organic to show that its products, while not organic, are still grown in a sustainable way that is both good for the environment and consumers. Though Underwood Family Farms does limit the amount of pesticides and chemicals it uses on its produce, it is not certified organic and does not pretend to be such. For those communications professionals already working for organic businesses, they should strive to influence their executive teams to drive research in the organic field and help educate consumers about organics. Most of these organics companies, at least on the produce side, also have conventionally farmed products and would not want to present organic as superior anyway, so it would benefit the corporation to represent both products accurately. By sharing organic processes with consumers, businesses would be held accountable for living up to the image they are portraying, but would also garner interest and support from consumers. Dole is a great example of this. As one of world’s largest producers and marketers of high-quality fresh fruits and vegetables, Dole offers both conventional and organic products (Dole, Company Information). Dole presents great information about the production of its products and even has a website and social media platforms dedicated to its organic practice. On the Dole Organic Program site, consumers can find the exact farm their certified organic produce came from by using a code from the sticker on their produce. The location, exact farm, certification information and more can be found for the organic produce. Dole Organic’s website also explains its organic program and carbon neutral program in depth, educating its consumers about the products they buy. Dole uses its websites and social media platforms to educate Cerro 42 consumers on news items that affect them such as food recalls. Dole’s organic practice does not go without criticism, however. The Dole Organic Program sources organic bananas and pineapples from five countries in Latin America meaning the produce travels great distances to be sold in the United States (Dole Organic). This can have a large environmental impact and the public relations team might face questions about this from reporters who take an in depth look at truly organic practices around the world. Organic growers and producers must be honest about their products and services. Conveying organic products inaccurately can taint the image of the entire organic industry. Those who lie about organic products hurt those who operate fairly and honestly. In most cases, those who lie and falsify products will eventually get caught incurring fines and potentially destroying their businesses and reputations, not to mention the reputation of the industry as whole. In these instances, public relations professionals working for companies who operate in an honest way must work hard to separate themselves from the mistakes of others in the industry and work harder to tell the story of how their companies operate honestly and in accordance with regulations. Many companies offer industry reporters behind the scenes looks as how they operate on a daily basis. In the organic industry, this kind of access for reporters to farms, packing and shipping operations, etc. could be beneficial to show the media and public how truly organic practices operate. Often companies forget that their most important audiences are internal. Employees can act as brand ambassadors and should be the biggest supporter of a company’s product. Educating employees and giving them something to be proud of can only benefit a brand. Internal communications practitioners for organic companies should encourage management to offer in- depth training programs for employees about how organics are grown, the differences, the Cerro 43 benefits, the difficulties, etc. By educating employees, they will in turn take this knowledge into their lives and influence those around them about the benefits of the organization’s products. B. Other Public Groups Educating Consumers on Organics – While not all companies with organic operations have been transparent, there are many third party groups watching them closely on behalf of consumers. Some of the organizations serve as watchdogs, while others are industry-friendly trade associations or interest groups. Some of the most notable in the US are: • Organic Consumers Association – OCA developed the Safeguard Organic Standards campaign in 1998 to pressure the USDA and organic companies to preserve strict organic standards. This group fulfills a watchdog role in the organic discussion. They hope to influence traditional farmers to transition to organic farming, support fair trade and economic justice and a global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops. The OCA supports buying local, organic and fair made and has a platform to convert American agriculture to at least 30% organic by 2015, and to phase out the most dangerous industrial agriculture and factory farming practices (Organic Consumers Association). • Organic Trade Association – OTA is a membership-based business association for the North American organic industry. Established in 1985, OTA has been a key player in legislative decisions regarding organic produce and products for some time. It supports and protects certified organic production, takes positions on legislation affecting organic agriculture, monitors government agencies and represents the industry to regulators, elected officials, and international bodies. OTA offers resources for farmers and businesses looking to go organic, looks to educate the public on organic produce, products and more. The group does not take a hard stance on the organic industry and Cerro 44 works closely with and promotes the USDA National Organic Program. OTA has many organic companies as annual fund investors including: Earthbound Farm Organics, Horizon Organics, Nature’s Path, Organic Valley, Amy’s, among others (OTA, Who We Are). • Cornucopia Institute - Known most widely for exposing Aurora Organic Dairy through research and investigations on agricultural issues, the Cornucopia Institute provides needed information to consumers, family farmers, and the media. The Cornucopia Institutes latest endeavor is to stop DHA and ARA from being added to organic milk. The group aims to promote economic justice for family scale farming and often opposes large farming corporations who are enacting corrupt policies. Other recent reports from Cornucopia include an organic egg scorecard as well as a deeper look at organic cereal (Cornucopia, “Home Page”). • In Organic We Trust – In Organic We Trust is a recent documentary that takes a balanced look at the industry and seeks to educate consumers about what organic food really is. Producer and director Kip Pastor set out to answer the question of what exactly organic is and if it is truly better or just a marketing scam. By interviewing farmers, organic certifiers, organic critics and scientists, Pastor offers a balanced approach to the organic movement. The documentary takes a look at how a small grassroots farming movement turned into a $30 billion industry. Pastor separates true organic farming from the marketing tool it has become and discusses how products like gummy bears and Heinz ketchup can carry the USDA certified organic label when they are actually not organic products at all. The film supports buying organic, but buying locally grown organic products. As the makers of In Organic We Trust point out, “Of course, it may only be a Cerro 45 matter of time before we visit the neighborhood supermarket and find six packs of soda and bags of potato chips labeled “Locally sourced!” or “100% Slow Food!” Hopefully, if that day arrives, those labels will actually mean something. And if they don’t, we’ll need a new movement” (Pastor). C. Conclusion: So What Does it all Mean? – Unfortunately the answers to the burning questions remain mostly unanswered: 1. Are organics healthier for us than non-organics? 2. How do consumers know what they are buying is truly organic? 3. How closely is organic farming in America monitored? 4. Is the organic movement one big marketing scheme? Unfortunately, we still do know if organics are healthier for us. By eating organics that are grown properly, one can ensure he or she is putting fewer chemicals in his or her body, but as various studies point out, the amounts of manmade substances on conventionally grown produce are minimal and certainly not at hazardous levels. Growing organic produce is more sustainable for the environment and the world as chemicals can be hard on the ground and deplete the integrity of the soil, but shipping organic produce all around the world also defeats the purpose of trying to eliminate the carbon footprint of conventional farming. It is perplexing that organic industry has grown so rapidly in recent years on unsubstantiated claims organic crops are better than those conventionally grown both for us to eat and for the environment. When embarking on this thesis topic, the author was most concerned with question two – how do consumers know what they are buying is truly organic? The author now realizes that is Cerro 46 not the crux of the issue in the organic farming movement. Yes, there are people who cheat the system and are not regulated closely enough and therefore sell non-organic items as organic. After interviewing farmers and conducting secondary research, the author does believe that many are growing organic produce honestly and accurately. Unfortunately there will always be those who break the rules. The issue with this, however, is that the USDA is not taking a hard stance against organic operations that break the rules therefore some substances remain on shelves with items that should not be used in organic products. In terms of how close organic farming is monitored in America, it still seems to be mixed. Large farms like the corporation farmer three works for are monitored extremely closely; likewise, the USDA probably closely watches Dole’s organic practice as well. For big brands like these though, with millions of dollars at stake each year, it is of the utmost importance for them to organically farm in and honest and transparent manner. An organic farming scandal would be more damaging for these large companies and for the industry as a whole. Unfortunately the organic farmer on the smaller scale is operating mostly on the honor system. This does not suggest that buying organic produce from a larger company is better though, as many large companies are growing their organic produce in other parts of the world and shipping it far distances, thus defeating much of the environmentally-friendly and locally-grown aspects of organics. Buying local organic produce is still the very best option for consumers as the produce traveled the smallest distance to make it stores and farmers markets and supports the local economy. The question the author did not initially have in the beginning of the thesis is whether the organic movement is more marketing than science. As the author moved through research and discovery of the topic however, the author realized this is the question that needs to be answered Cerro 47 the most. Yes, organic farming is mostly a marketing term to sell products and make more money. This does not suggest that organic farming is dishonest or bad; it simply means that companies saw the trend of organic produce becoming popular and found ways to make it even more appealing to consumers. As In Organic We Trust points out, the initial movement of organic farming was to support sustainable farming and create more natural products. Unfortunately the original intention has been contorted. Buzz words like “natural” and “sustainable” are now being applied to products that do not match these descriptions. Since research on the topic has previously been lacking aside from the study from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Stanford’s study is only just the beginning of a movement towards finding the truth. Lawsuits are being filed regularly against companies who are using marketing to greenwash products that do not stand up to their packaging and labels. Essentially, consumers are beginning to question what is being sold to them as healthier. The only option organic operations and corporations selling organic products have, is to be honest about their products. If products are marketed as natural, they need to be or the company will eventually pay the price and potentially tarnish its brand. Americans need to continue to question what they put into their bodies and decide what is truly best in an educated and informed manner. Marketers and communications professionals need to work to achieve higher standards of honesty and integrity in the natural and organic food movements and could do so by calling for additional research in the field. Companies who sell organic products on the premise that they are truly healthier for the consumers and/or better for the universe should commission studies to prove the truthfulness of their claims. As a farmer’s daughter who has seen firsthand the integrity of conventional products, the author will still support and purchase mostly conventional produce, she is still perplexed that Cerro 48 organic produce continues to be touted as “healthier” when there’s no substantial research to support such claims but understands that some consumers might want organic products for other reasons. As a communications professional, the author will attempt to work for brands she believes convey their products or services honestly and accurately. If the author finds herself representing a brand in the organic sector, she will also work to encourage leadership to conduct research on the topic, educate internal and external audiences about quality in a truthful and accurate manner, and only represent the product as “natural” or “organic” if it has truly been created in such a way. After all, organic food should be treated with the highest level of integrity when packaging, marketing, and presenting it to consumers since we put it in our bodies and feed it to our children. Cerro 49 Works Cited Anon. farmer one. Personal interview. 29 July 2012. Anon. farmer two. Personal interview. 21 Aug. 2012. Anon. farmer three. Personal interview. 6 Sep. 2012. Associated Press. ”Bakersfield Man Pleads Guilty in Fertilizer Case.” The Sacramento Bee. 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 9 Aug. 2012. <http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/10/4714377/ bakersfield-man-pleads-guilty.html>. Boisseau, J. Addendum to “Residues of Some Veterinary Drugs in Animals and Foods. Abamectin, Chlortetracycline and Tetracycline, Clenbuterol, Cypermethrin, Moxidectin Neomycin Oxytetracycline, Spiramycin, Thiamphenicol, Tilmicosin, Xylazine. Addendum.” FAO Corporate Document Repository. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997. Web. 12 Aug. 2012.<http://www.fao.org/docrep/w4601e/ w4601e04.htm>. Brandt, Michelle. “Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds.” Stanford School of Medicine. Stanford University School of Medicine, 3 Sep. 2012. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/ organic.html>. Brown, Steve. “Foreign Organic Firms Accused of Fraud.” CapitalPress.com. Capital Press, 2 Aug. 2012. Web. 9 Aug. 2012. <http://www.capitalpress.com/newest/ SB-organic-fraud-072712>. Charky, Nicole. “Wal-Mart Removes Mislabeled Organic Products From Shelves — Based on Cornucopia Complaint.” Cornucopia News. The Cornucopia Institute, 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 23 Jul. 2012. <http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/04/ wal-mart-removes-mislabeled-organic-products-from-shelves/>. Cerro 50 Cornucopia Institute. “Corporations Sneak Synthetic Preservatives into Organic Food.” Cornucopia News. The Cornucopia Institute , 8 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Jul. 2012. <http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/corporations-sneak-synthetic-preservatives-into- organic-food/>. ---. “Enforcement Hammer Falls on Giant Arizona Organic Factory Farm Dairy: USDA Action Spurred by Industry Watchdog’s Investigation.” Cornucopia News. The Cornucopia Institute, 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 23 Jul. 2012. <http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/12/ enforcement-hammer-falls-on-giant-arizona-organic-factory-farm-dairy/>. ---. Home Page. The Cornucopia Institute, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2012. <http://www.cornucopia.org/>. ---. “Industry Watchdog ‘Dumbfounded’ by USDA’s Failure to Enforce Organic Law.” Cornucopia News. The Cornucopia Institute, 21 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Aug. 2012. <http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/industry-watchdog-dumbfounded-by- usda%E2%80%99s-failure-to-enforce-organic-law/>. Dangour, Alan D, Sakhi K Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock, and Ricardo Uauy. “Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: a Systematic Review.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 90.3 (2009): 680. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/07/29/ajcn.2009.28041.abstract>. Dole Food Company, Inc. Company Information. Dole Food Company, Inc., n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2012. <http://www.dole.com/AboutDole/tabid/1255/Default.aspx#>. ---. Dole Organic. Dole Food Company, Inc., n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2012. <http://www.doleorganic.com/>. Cerro 51 DoMyOwnPestControl.com. Abamectin. P&M Solutions, LLC DBA DoMyOwnPestControl.com, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2012. <http://www.domyownpestcontrol.com/abamectin-c-114_121.html>. Extension Toxicology Network. Abamectin. Cornell University, May 1994. Web. 12 Aug. 2012. <http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/abamectin-ext.html>. Foothills Pasture Raised Meats. Foothills Pasture Raised Meats, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2012. <http://www.foothillslocalmeats.com/>. Holter, Mike. “Breyers All Natural Ice Cream Class Action Settlement.” Top Class Actions. Top Class Actions, LLC, 29 Aug. 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2012. <http://www.topclassactions.com/ lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/2361-breyers-all-natural-ice-cream-class-action- settlement->. Humane Society of the United States. “Egg Carton Labels: A Brief Guide to Labels and Animal Welfare.” The Humane Society of the United States, 8 Oct. 2010. Web. 8 Sept. 2012. <http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/ guide_egg_labels.html>. In Organic We Trust. Dir. Kip Pastor. Pasture Pictures, 2012. Film. Johnson, Gene. “Lawsuits: Costco, Others Sold ‘Organic’ Milk That Wasn’t Organic” Cornucopia News. The Cornucopia Institute, 13 Dec. 2007. Web. 23 Jul. 2012. <http://www.cornucopia.org/2007/12/lawsuits-costco-others-sold-organic-milk-that- wasnt-organic/>. Novartis. “Zephyr Specimen Label.” Novartis, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2012. <http://www.cannabase.com/cl/bcga/bcga/zephyr.pdf>. Cerro 52 Organic Consumers Association. “About the OCA: Who We Are and What We’re Doing.” Organic Consumers Association, n.d. Web. 8 Jul. 2012. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm>. Organic Trade Association. Who We Are. Organic Trade Association, n.d. Web. 8 Jul. 2012. <www.ota.com/about/accomplishments.html>. ---. 2009 U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes and Beliefs Study: Executive Summary. Organic Trade Association, June 2009. Web. 8 Aug. 2012. <http://ota.com/organic/www.ota.com/ pics/documents/01b_FinalOTA-KiwiExecutiveSummary.pdf>. ---. Nutritional Considerations. Organic Trade Association, n.d. Web. 9 Jul. 2012. <www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html>. ---. OTA Responds. OTA, 6 Sep. 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ota.com/OTAresponds.html>. Pastor, Kip. “More on ‘In Organic We Trust.’” In Organic We Trust: Change from the Soil Up. 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 8 Sept. 2012. <http://www.inorganicwetrust.org/ in_organic_we_trust_blog>. Philpott, Tom. “5 Surprising Ingredients Allowed in Organic Food.” Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress, 11 Jul. 2012. Web. 9 Aug. 2012. <http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/07/five-weirdest-ingredients-allowed- organic-food>. Raab, Carolyn, and Deana Grobe. “Consumer Knowledge and Perceptions about Organic Food.” Journal of Extension. 43.4 (2005): n. pag. Web. 10 Sept. 2012. <http://www.joe.org/joe/2005august/rb3.php>. Cerro 53 Strom, Stephanie. “Has ‘Organic’ Been Oversized?” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 7 July 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ 2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies- influence.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=acc73&pagewa nted=all>. ---. “Lawsuit Forces General Mills to Defend the Accuracy of Its ‘Natural’ Labeling.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 26 July 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/business/general-mills-sued-over-natural- labeling.html?_r=2>. Underwood Family Farms. “Sustainable Agriculture.” Underwood Family Farms, n.d. Web. 8 Aug. 2012. <http://www.underwoodfamilyfarms.com/Sustainable_Agriculture.html>. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Services. “2011 List of Certified Operations.” National Organic Program. USDA, April 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2012. <www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097484&acct=nopgeni nfo >. ---. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Services. “Consumer Information.” National Organic Program. USDA, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateC& navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPConsu mers&description=Consumers&acct=nopgeninfo>. ---. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Services. “Do I Need to Be Certified Organic?” National Organic Program. USDA, Jun 2012. Web. 8 Aug. 2012. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5099113>. Cerro 54 ---. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Services. “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.” National Organic Program. USDA, 21 Nov. 2012. Web. 21 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do? template=TemplateJ&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalList&descr iption=National%20List%20of%20Allowed%20and%20Prohibited%20Substances&acct =nopgeninfo>. ---. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Services. “USDA Oversight of Organic Products.” National Organic Program. USDA, Nov. 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004443&acct=nop geninfo>. ---. Dept. of Agriculture. “Aurora Organic Dairy Signs Consent Agreement with USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.” USDA, 29 Aug. 2007. Web. 8 Jul. 2012. <http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/0 8/0228.xml>. ---. Dept. of Agriculture. “Organic Certification.” USDA, n.d. Web. 8 Jul. 2012. <http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO>. ---. Dept. of Justice. United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California. “Bakersfield Man Charged In Scheme To Defraud Customers Of His Organic Fertilizer Businesses.” News and Press Releases. United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner, 10 Mar. 2011. Web. 9 Aug. 2012. <http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2011/ 03-10-11NelsonIndictment.html>. Cerro 55 ---. Environmental Protection Agency. “International Agreements and Treaties on Pesticides.” Pesticides: International Activities. EPA, 9 May 2012. Web. 10 Aug. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/agreements/>. ---. Executive Office of the President. Office of the United States Trade Representative. “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).” USTR, n.d. Web. 8 Aug. 2012. <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/ north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta>. ---. Government Printing Office. “Part 205—National Organic Program.” Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. GPO, 21 Nov. 2012. Web. 21 Nov. 2012. <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=6f623e1de5457587ccdfec12bc3 4ed1c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32&idno=7#7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354>. Weise, Elizabeth. “Kashi Cereal’s ‘Natural’ Claims Stir Anger.” USA Today. Gannett Co., Inc., 29 Apr. 2012. Web. 23 Jul. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/ food/story/2012-04-29/kashi-natural-claims/54616576/1>.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Nostalgia: more than just the flavor of the week: a critical look at the movement of nostalgic food from "trend" to "mainstream"

PDF

Selling the world: an exploration of the past, present and future of destination marketing

PDF

Strategic communications in dietary supplement marketing — a case study of the marketing of Coenzyme Q10 supplements

PDF

Are public relations firms ready to lead in the new communication normal? the changing agency landscape and PR’s shifting roles

PDF

Digital impact: the impact of mobile digital technology on live music events and its influence on marketing, branding and public relations professionals

PDF

Destination USA: marketing the United States as an international travel destination

PDF

Public relations vs. advertising for the big screen: the ever-growing role of strategic public relations in the effective marketing of theatrical motion picture releases

PDF

A study on how companies communicate and market themselves on Sina Weibo

PDF

Wake up PR practitioners, the Lovemark is here to stay: an analysis of the Lovemark theory with a discussion of the future of brands

PDF

Creating the brands we trust: how organizations in the lifestyle category build consumer trust through effective branding and content marketing in the 21st century

PDF

From the EV1 to the Chevy Volt: a re-electrification of the American automobile industry

PDF

Personal branding and lifestyle bloggers: can blogs become brands?

PDF

Marketing to Millennials and Gen Z: a strategy presented for a startup creative agency

PDF

Analyzing the decline of symphonic music in the United States: public relations strategies to attract Millennials

PDF

Whole foods market -- a communication plan to engage the German market

PDF

Managing professional athletes’ and sports team owners’ reputation in times of crisis: why it’s necessary to follow these crisis communication and public relations techniques

PDF

Investment or gamble? What brand managers should know about targeting second- and third-generation Hispanics

PDF

A study of the cultural environment of social media

PDF

Corporate social media: trends in the use of emerging social media in corporate America

PDF

Growth hacking: a deep look into online marketing for startups

Asset Metadata

Creator Cerro, Candice A. (author)

Core Title A critical look at organic farming and positioning of organic products in the American market

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 01/22/2013

Defense Date 05/01/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Farming,labeling,Marketing,OAI-PMH Harvest,organic,Public Relations

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Floto, Jennifer D. (committee chair), Lynch, Brenda (committee member), Tenderich, Burghardt (committee member)

Creator Email cerro.candice@gmail.com,cerro@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-127656

Unique identifier UC11290465

Identifier usctheses-c3-127656 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CerroCandi-1402.pdf

Dmrecord 127656

Document Type Thesis

Rights Cerro, Candice A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA