The Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative (IFAI)’s mission is to enhance the health and wellness of tribal communities by advancing healthy food systems, diversified economic development, and cultural food traditions. They focus on putting tribal sovereignty in food sovereignty, promoting tribally driven solutions to revitalize and advance traditional food systems and diversified economic development throughout Indian Country. Recently, OFRF met with their Senior Staff Attorney, Kelli Case J.D. (Chickasaw Nation), to learn more about IFAI’s work and the intersection with organic agriculture. This was the first in a series of “Lunch and Learn” events that OFRF has begun hosting, to provide opportunities to build stronger connections between our organization and others working in the food and agriculture sectors.

During our time together, Kelli shared an overview of IFAI’s work providing policy expertise, youth programs, and support for tribal food and agriculture efforts across Indian Country. She also took the time to shed light on the complex history of federal Indian policy and the significant impact it has had on tribal land access and food systems. Here are our key takeaways from meeting with IFAI.

Working in Indian Country

There are 574 federally recognized tribes across the U.S., with 9.6 million American Indian or Alaska Natives reported in the 2020 Census. These tribes are distinct, independent nations within the United States, each with their own distinct systems of governance that interact with the U.S. federal government. Tribal leaders are the highest political authorities within their sovereign governments and oversee all aspects of Tribal welfare, including public safety, education, communications, transportation, health & human services, economic development, and more.

Within Indian Country, there is a robust and growing agricultural industry, with an estimated $6.1 billion market value of tribal agriculture according. This number is based on sales as gathered from the 2022 Census of Agriculture. It is the total market value of products sold per all AI/AN people, and those who claim AI/AN within a mixed-race demographic.

IFAI provides Tribal governments, producers, and food businesses with educational resources, policy research, and strategic legal analysis at no cost. Their self-proclaimed goal is to be “Indian Country’s ag nerds on call.” Their work includes food and ag issues, youth programs, policy analysis, and tribal enterprise development, all as a foundation for building robust food economies.

History of Federal Indian Policy

Indigenous food sovereignty exists in the context of centuries of federal Indian Policy, which includes things like forced relocation, or removal of youth from their communities to boarding schools, displacing people from their traditional homelands, interrupting intergenerational knowledge transfer, and punishing traditional cultural practices.

Kelli outlined the policy eras in this way:

• Pre-contact: an era of robust trade, flourishing communities, healthy lands, plentiful food, and traditional lifeways before European settlers arrived.
• Colonialism, 1492-1700s: an era defined by major waves of change and the start of land loss for Native Tribes.
• Treaties, 1778-1871: an era of treaty establishment aimed at easing tension between Tribes and settlers, supporting non-Native settlers, reducing Native lands, and forcing Native Americans to adopt Western agricultural practices. Treaties often dictated hunting and fishing rights on Tribal lands.
• Removal, 1830-1850s: continued removal of tribes from their traditional homelands and relocated, often very forcibly, such as the Long Walk or the Trail of Tears. Many of these relocations meant a shift to an unfamiliar ecosystem with unfamiliar food plants and animals.
• Reservation, 1850-1891: tribes forced onto reservation lands, further limiting land and food access.
• Allotment and Assimilation, 1887-1934: an era during which reservation land was further parceled out into individual allotments, fragmenting the traditional practices of collective land management and implementing further use restrictions. Also the beginning of boarding schools and the removal of a generation of youth from their community, culture, and language.
• Reorganization, 1934-1953: an era that encouraged Tribes to implement Tribal constitutions in order to be recognized by the U.S. government, while still preventing them from electing their own Tribal leaders.
• Termination, 1953-1968: a time when the U.S. federal government attempted to sever the trust relationship between Tribal governments and the U.S. government, and ceased recognizing some Tribes. Also relocated many working-age Native Americans to urban metropolitan areas.
• Self-Determination, 1968-1994: Largely influenced by the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (PL 638). Included reaffirmation of Tribal sovereignty and began to look for ways to put Tribes in the driver’s seat for things that impact their communities.
• Self-Government, 1994-Current: This era began with the Self-Governance Act of 1994, which accorded tribal governments the authority to administer programs and services to their tribal members which had previously been administered by the BIA. Also reinforced the principle of tribal consultation, whereby the federal government consults with tribes on federal actions, policies, rules, or regulations that will directly affect them.

Food Sovereignty & Tribal Sovereignty

Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights of Tribes to govern themselves, independent from an external power. For Tribes, the pursuit of true sovereignty is deeply linked to control over their food sources. As Kelli said, “Tribes cannot be truly sovereign unless they can feed themselves.”

However, Kelli also noted that it’s not a one-size-fits-all model, and that food sovereignty will look different for different groups, saying that it comes down to the ability to “feed your own people the things that you want to, in a way you feel good about.” She noted that while that often includes taking back control of food production, it can also include trade with other nations, a practice that has a long history among Tribes.

The current era includes a renaissance in tribal food sovereignty efforts, with growing agricultural production and traditional food revitalization. Although challenges remain around land access, Tribes are working to expand Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and integrate it into food production and education systems. And years of efforts from tribal advocates have greatly improved federal nutrition programs across Indian Country.

One recent example that Kelli shared was a tribal rancher who is now selling meat directly into the tribe’s food distribution program. This one connection has created jobs, supported the local economy, and connected that producer to their community in a new and meaningful way.

Collaboration Opportunities

Kelli expressed that opportunities exist for collaboration between organic agriculture advocates, such as OFRF, and tribal producers, as long as careful cultural sensitivity is observed.

Many tribal farming practices and TEK align with organic principles, even if producers are not certified organic. For those interested in collaborating with Tribes on food production and food sovereignty issues, Kelli offered this advice:

• Familiarize yourself with the history of the Tribes in your region.
• Learn about Tribal priorities, and focus on listening to the needs of the Tribes.
• One way to begin connecting with Tribes in your area is to attend public events hosted by the Tribes. These can often be found on Tribal websites.
  • Be aware that not all spaces are open to non-Native attendees. Respect the intentions of event organizers and don’t show up where you’re not invited.
• Look for alignment between your work and how it can support Tribal priorities.

Next Steps

Don’t know who the Tribes of record in your area are yet? Here are two resources to use to look up the land that you’re on and find out more about its Tribal history.

• The Native Connect: Maps of Native North American Tribes
• Native Land Map

Once you’ve identified whose land you’re on, see if you can find where the closest Tribal office is to you,  and then look to see if they have any upcoming public events, or other ways you can get involved, such as joining their newsletter mailing list.

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Policy & Programs Director

At OFRF, we believe conservation programs should work for every farmer, especially those using organic practices to build soil health, protect biodiversity, and enhance climate resilience. That is why we have submitted detailed public comments to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in response to its proposed revisions to key Conservation Practice Standards (CPSs).

These standards form the backbone of how NRCS financial and technical assistance programs operate. When they don’t reflect the realities of organic production systems, organic farmers are often left behind.

Alongside the National Organic Coalition (NOC), we’re working to change that.

Our comments focus on ensuring that NRCS guidance, definitions, and planning tools meaningfully incorporate organic production systems, an area where the agency has made strides, but where key gaps remain. Our recommendations include:

• Explicit references to USDA National Organic Program (NOP) regulations in all revised practice standards.
• Restoration and expansion of organic-specific ecological strategies within CPS 595 – Pest Management Conservation System.
• Stronger support for composting and on-farm nutrient cycling in CPS 359 – Waste Treatment Lagoon and CPS 633 – Waste Recycling.
• Recognition of the unique ways organic farmers rely on functional ecosystems for pest control, pollination, and resilience to extreme weather events in CPS 645 – Wildlife Habitat and CPS 472 – Access Control.
• We have also urged NRCS to cite its own technical guidance for organic systems, Technical Note 12, and to streamline how Organic System Plans can integrate with conservation planning efforts. 

These aren’t abstract policy ideas; they’re grounded in what organic farmers have told us they need to make these programs work on their farms.

We Need Your Voice

NRCS is accepting public comments through July 30th, 2025, on these proposed changes. 

If you’re a researcher, farmer, technical service provider, or eater who wants to see conservation programs better serve organic operations, this is your moment, and we encourage you to submit your own comments.

That’s why we’re partnering with NOC to provide an easy-to-use grassroots comment platform that walks you through the process of submitting a personalized comment. Whether you’re new to commenting on the Federal Register or a seasoned voice, your perspective matters.

The more the Agency hears directly from the organic community, the stronger our case becomes for improving access and applicability for NRCS programming on organic operations. If you have expertise in topics related to conservation and organic agriculture, we’d love to hear from you and get connected!  

Thank you for helping us make conservation work for everyone,

Gordon 

Written by guest author Dr. Renata Nave Oakes, Associate Professor, Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee

Dr Renata Nave Oakes

Recently, I had the opportunity to join Gordon Merrick, Policy Program Director, Vinnie Trometter, Policy Fellow, and Rebecca Champagne, Conservation Scientist, at the Organic Farming Research Foundation, in a meeting with staff from Representative Tim Burchett (R–TN–02) and Representative Andy Ogles (R–TN–05)’s offices. I was proud to be able to share my perspective on how the Organic Transitions Program (ORG) supports my research of developing effective, science-based strategies for producing organic corn using living mulch systems in Tennessee and the Southeastern U.S.

Organic Corn Research in the Southeastern US

As an Associate Professor of Plant Sciences at the University of Tennessee, I am using the Organic Transitions Program to research how to improve soil health, reduce weed pressure, enhance nitrogen availability through biological fixation, and ultimately make organic corn production more profitable and practical for farmers in Tennessee and the Southeastern U.S. Organic corn is in high demand nationwide, especially for livestock feed, but domestic supply lags behind — forcing the U.S. to heavily rely on imports. This is especially true for the Southeastern U.S., where organic corn production is underdeveloped. Our research addresses the key barriers holding organic corn producers back: poor weed control, limited fertility options, and higher production costs. 

To do this, we use a combination of greenhouse trials and multi-location field experiments at certified organic research sites in Tennessee. We’re testing organic seed treatments, comparing legume living mulch species, and monitoring soil health, nutrient cycling, weed pressure, and corn yield. We also conduct full economic analyses, including cost of production, breakeven yield, and net returns. We also work closely with the Tennessee Corn Promotion Board and local organic and transitioning-to-organic farmers, who help guide our work and provide field-level insight. The work is spearheaded through our multi-disciplinary team at the University of Tennessee, including agronomists, soil scientists, economists, and plant pathologists.

Early observations show promising establishment of legume living mulches like white clover and hairy vetch. These systems show potential to reduce nitrogen fertilizer needs and suppress weeds effectively — without harming corn yields.

Strong partnerships are being built with farmers who are excited about trying these systems. Stakeholders can access our research findings through field days, producer workshops, in-service training for Extension agents, conference presentations, and digital platforms. We’re also developing factsheets, video content, and practical tools to help farmers understand costs, benefits, and management recommendations for organic corn with living mulch.

I ultimately chose the Organic Transitions Program because it is uniquely positioned to support farmers and researchers working through the challenges of transitioning to organic. Our work aligns perfectly with the program’s goals — especially in building production systems that are ecologically and economically sustainable during and after the transition period.

Our Meeting With Congress

Our meetings with Congressman Burchett and Ogles’ offices were productive. Their staff listened attentively and asked thoughtful questions. It was encouraging to see their interest in the needs of the organic sector and in how research funding directly benefits rural economies and farmers in their states.

Legislators need to hear directly from researchers and farmers about how federal programs like Organic Transitions drive innovation, support rural communities, and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains. Our insights help bridge the gap between policy and real-world impact and ensure that science and farmer needs are reflected in future policy decisions.

Use Your Voice

Interested in sharing your research with legislators and the importance of continued public investment in organic research? Enroll in OFRF’s self-paced email course, Communicating with Legislators. This free, educational workshop is designed to equip researchers within the organic farming community with the tools and resources they need to effectively engage with and educate policymakers about the impact of their work.

Written by guest author Dr. Dilip Panthee, Associate Professor, Tomato Breeding and Genetics, Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University

Dr. Dilip Panthee

I recently joined the Organic Farming Research Foundation’s team— Gordon Merrick, Policy & Programs Director; Vinnie Trometter, Policy Fellow; and Rebecca Champagne, Conservation Scientist—for a meaningful conversation with staff from Senator Thom Tillis (R–NC) and Senator Tedd Budd (R–NC)’s offices. Together, we discussed why the Organic Transitions Program (ORG) is vital for organic tomato growers like those I serve through my research on breeding organic tomatoes to resist new and emerging diseases.

As a tomato breeder at North Carolina State University, I’m focused on helping farmers grow better tomatoes even in the face of rising disease pressure and climate stress. Specifically, I work to develop tomato varieties that are resistant to bacterial, fungal, and viral diseases, while also improving fruit quality and increasing yield. Organic growers face significant risks from common, potentially devastating diseases such as late blight, bacterial spot, early blight, and Septoria leaf spot. These diseases are becoming more prevalent in organic tomatoes grown in the mountains and Piedmont regions of North Carolina, where rising temperature and humidity levels contribute to the problem. Similar trends are also occurring in other mountainous and hilly geographies across the Eastern Seaboard and across the country. Our work seeks to ensure the profitability of organic tomato growers in North Carolina and throughout the United States by developing varieties that are resistant to these emerging diseases. 

To do this, I use both conventional and molecular breeding methods to introduce target resistance genes into existing tomato lines. Our program develops and tests these technologies in-house, collaborating closely with organic growers across the state. In other words, we evaluate new varieties under both research station and on-farm conditions to ensure consistent performance. This dual approach enhances our confidence in the varieties we release. 

To date, we have successfully combined resistance to multiple diseases in several tomato hybrids, including resistance to late blight, early blight, Tomato mosaic virus, Tomato spotted wilt virus, and Fusarium wilt. While this progress is significant, we continue working to incorporate resistance to other critical diseases, such as bacterial spot and Septoria leaf spot. With continued support, we can expand these efforts further.

But developing better varieties is only part of the equation—we also need to make sure growers know about them. Our close collaboration with extension specialists is vital for disseminating our findings through various channels, informing growers and stakeholders about new developments in our research. Getting this information out to the fields is critical for increasing U.S. tomato production. Organic tomato production in the U.S. has declined in recent years, even as demand and consumption continue to grow. To meet this demand and make production more cost-effective, we need improved varieties with high yield potential and strong disease resistance. Our varieties are well-suited to both conventional and organic farming systems, but are particularly critical in organic systems—where the traditional use of pesticides is restricted.

I ultimately chose the Organic Transitions Program because it naturally aligned with my long-standing interest and work in organic tomato breeding. When the funding opportunity arose, it fit perfectly with my research goals and experience, making it an ideal platform to advance this work.

Our meetings with Senator Tillis’s and Senator Budd’s staff went very well. Both senators’ staff were attentive and interested in how my research impacts the region’s economy. I’m grateful for their time and hope they will support organic agriculture research. To remain competitive, the U.S. organic industry must address disease resistance breeding and improve crop quality. I’m optimistic they will champion this cause.

We can’t afford to stay silent. When researchers speak directly with legislators, they see federal programs in action. Legislators play a key role in shaping policies that directly affect agricultural research. As researchers, we cannot assume they are fully aware of our work and its impacts on local, regional, and national economies. Their support is essential for allowing us to advance work that benefits tomato growers nationwide. Regular engagement with lawmakers helps them understand the value of our research and how it contributes to the competitiveness and sustainability of the U.S. organic industry. I am eager to share my next research publication with these legislators to ensure they’re aware of the cutting-edge research happening in the state they represent. 

Use Your Voice

Interested in sharing your research with legislators and highlighting the importance of ongoing public investment in organic research? Enroll in OFRF’s self-paced email course, Communicating with Legislators. This free workshop gives researchers and advocates in the organic farming community the tools to confidently connect with lawmakers and make your work count where decisions are made.