Gordon’s Policy Corner

Action Alert! Tell Congress: Don’t Fail Our Farmers

Gordon’s Policy Corner, March 2025. By OFRF & NSAC Staff

In much of the country, spring is on its way. For farmers and ranchers, it’s time for planting decisions, for calving and lambing, for lining up their financial capital and markets for a busy season, and more.

But this year, it’s different: across the country, tens of thousands of farmers and farmer-serving organizations have been thrown into limbo by an unprecedented freeze of federal funding and subsequent mass firings of USDA employees. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently withholding payments owed under signed, lawful contracts, causing turmoil across the food system. And in a move that will have far-reaching consequences–including disrupting critical research, data collection, and economic analysis that farmers, the businesses they sell to, and policymakers rely on–the administration has dismissed hundreds of thousands of federal employees.

We wrote about The Consequences of Mass Firings Across the USDA in a recent blog, and now we’re taking space in this month’s Policy Corner to share an important action alert from our allies at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC):

Our Farmers and Neighbors Need Your Voice, Now More than Ever 

The disruption of USDA programs is already having serious consequences for farmers, food systems, and our communities:

  • Farmers who’ve already installed new irrigation equipment or planted cover crops with support from USDA are now unable to receive the reimbursements they were promised, jeopardizing their financial stability.
  • Programs that pair local farmers with local food banks are pausing their procurement plans, at the exact time growers most need to know their markets for the season.
  • Organizations who train and support beginning farmers are instead having to lay off staff.
  • Families are anxious about grocery store prices and the availability of food long term.

These immediate impacts could compound and lead to further suffering without swift intervention from Congress.

None of this should be happening: these are signed agreements with the federal government, and USDA must follow through on its commitments before impacts worsen in communities nationwide. Congress has the ability to ensure that USDA restores access to critical programs and funding, and they need to hear directly from folks who are affected – along with all of us who care about our local farmers and ranchers, our fellow neighbors, and the organizations that help us strengthen our communities.

Calling takes only 60 seconds: can you call and email your members of Congress, urging them to protect our farmers and communities from further harm?

Our OFRF Advocacy Page has a new #GetActive Guide to help you prepare to stay active and engaged in policy issues impacting food and farmers at this critical time.

By |2025-03-05T16:03:00+00:00March 6th, 2025|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

The Consequences of Mass Firings Across the USDA

A Blow to Agricultural Research and Rural Communities

Written by Gordon Merrick and OFRF staff

Editor’s note: Since the publication of this post, the USDA has announced plans to reinstate affected employees. However, the situation remains fluid, and the long-term impacts on agricultural research funding and capacity are still unfolding. OFRF remains committed to advocating for strong, stable investment in organic research to ensure farmers and researchers have the resources they need to innovate and thrive.

In a sweeping, indiscriminate move that has sent shockwaves through the agricultural community, the administration has dismissed thousands of federal employees with the stated goal of reducing government spending and increasing operational efficiency. While the full scope of these staff cuts is still emerging, recent communications requesting employees justify their continued employment have added to the uncertainty. What is already clear, however, is that the USDA has been acutely impacted, particularly within the agencies that form the backbone of our nation’s agricultural research and farmer technical and financial assistance programs.

The Role of USDA Research Agencies and the Impacts of These Firings

The agencies within the Research, Education, and Economics division of the USDA (USDA-REE) are the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). These agencies are cornerstones of our agricultural assistance systems, conducting and awarding grants for high-quality research that informs and improves our conservation, risk management, and market development programming in other USDA mission areas.

As these mass firings unfold, it remains difficult to assess the full extent of the cuts, with many agency personnel pages having been taken down. What’s already evident is that these mass firings will have far-reaching consequences—disrupting critical research, data collection, and economic analysis that farmers, the businesses they sell to, and policymakers rely on.

Capitol building, The United States Congress covered with snow in winter time and Capitol hill area covered with snow

The United States Congress covered with snow.

Among the agencies most directly affected by these cuts is ARS, which plays a crucial role in advancing agronomic research. ARS is the sole intramural research agency at the USDA, conducting long-term research that will undoubtedly face disruptions due to these firings. Reports indicate significant staffing reductions at ARS stations, with sources stating that 10-50% of the workforce at different stations has been dismissed, reportedly due to performance-related concerns. While the scope and rationale for these firings remain unclear, they have already disrupted critical research programs across the country.

It is still unclear how NIFA has been affected by these firings. NIFA doesn’t conduct its own research but rather operates competitive grant programs that fund research conducted by farmers themselves (SARE), land-grant institutions, and nonprofits across the country (OREI). As we’ve written about in the past weeks, the RFAs for these grant programs are still under review, and application portals, including for grants that were supposed to be open for applicants, are not currently available, impacting critical funding for universities and other institutions.

Focused more on understanding the past, present, and future status of agricultural markets and related information are the USDA’s NASS and ERS agencies. NASS works to collect and publish raw data about the agricultural system in the United States through their Census of Agriculture and supplemental surveys, like the Organic Survey. ERS provides crucial economic analyses on agriculture, food markets, and the environment. Their research has led to a better understanding of the economic impact of publicly-funded agricultural research: every $1 invested triggers $20 of economic activity, a massive return on investment (ROI). This fact highlights the point that cutting research dollars will negatively impact the agricultural economy.

Immediate Consequences

The abrupt firing of USDA scientists and their lab staff at ARS has thrown vital research projects into chaos. Initiatives aimed at critical topics like improving crop resilience, combating pests and diseases, and improving livestock production systems are now jeopardized, facing setbacks due to reduced research capacity. This is not isolated to any one region or station, derailing research projects that have been able to continue for decades, even through the COVID pandemic, due to the dedication of the civil servants that are now being cast aside.

These firings not only impact the research projects, though; they impact the local and often rural communities that host the research stations and the employees who work there. As mentioned above, the massive ROI of agricultural research will be drastically reduced. In one case, the research station in Salinas, California, has had four researchers and seven lab staff fired, reflecting hundreds of thousands of dollars that will no longer be circulating in that community, meaning that the industries that provide supplies and services to these staff will also be taking a significant hit.

Long-term Consequences

The long-term ramifications of these mass firings are profound. Aside from the economic impacts on the businesses directly involved with the research, this will impact the agricultural industry for decades to come. The United States risks falling even farther behind in meeting the growing demand for organic products as domestic production struggles to keep pace without the support of robust research programming. For example, if NIFA does not award funds through their competitive grant programs, this will lead to significant setbacks at land-grant universities across the nation, simultaneously affecting both the institutions that conduct the research while also hurting the farmers that rely on the research that these programs fund.

Most privately-funded research conducted is focused on generating patentable genetics and compatible products, not the public-welfare-oriented research that NIFA competitive grants fund and ARS conducts. Put simply, cutting federal research funding and personnel undermines the economic engine and weakens the resilience of the agricultural systems against climate change and supply chain disruptions.

Why This Matters

Agricultural research is the backbone of the technical and financial assistance programs operated by the USDA that ensure food security, food safety, environmental sustainability, and economic vitality for the United States. Disruptions in research will lead to higher food prices, reduced innovation in sustainable agriculture systems, and ultimately weakened rural economies. It is imperative to recognize that supporting agricultural research is an investment in the nation’s future success, ensuring that our domestic food supply is stable and resilient, especially in the face of a continually unpredictable international trade environment.

But, it is important to highlight that these firings were not just in USDA-REE’s agencies. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the primary conduit for free technical assistance for farmers, had over 1,200 field staff fired; the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has been significantly impacted, in some cases being forced to close entire county offices; and the Risk Management Agency (RMA), which supports farms securing of insurance products and other risk-reduction assistance, have seen significant firings which are just starting to be understood. Ultimately, these firings are impacting these programs’ ability to access high-quality agronomic research and economic information that improves their operation, as well as their specific on-the-ground operation.

OFRF’s Commitment to Farmers

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) has a longstanding history of advocating for policies, research, and programs that support organic farmers, both certified and non-certified. Our efforts have directly led to increased USDA funding for organic research, the development of conservation programs tailored to organic producers, and the inclusion of organic priorities in federal farm policies and appropriations allocations. Looking ahead, we have outlined our key policy priorities to strengthen organic research and ensure farmers have the resources they need to succeed.

In this current environment of uncertainty, OFRF is actively working to both understand and address the challenges posed by these mass firings by engaging with policymakers, providing resources to affected communities, and amplifying the voices of farmers and researchers who have been affected.

We have already been working to get in contact with researchers and their support staff who have been unjustly fired during this time. If you have a story or experience you are willing to share, please reach out directly to our Senior Policy & Programs Manager at gordon@ofrf.org or through his Signal account at 207.408.3086.

How To Take Action

Staying informed and taking action right now is crucial to counteract these impacts.

  • Get Educated: We at OFRF have developed a newly updated advocacy page that will help you understand the issues and access resources. We will be continually updating this webpage as new materials and resources are developed.
  • Contact Your Representatives: Share your concerns about the impact of these layoffs on agricultural research, the technical and financial assistance that it impacts, and the rural communities that benefit from these investments. Personal stories about what these mean are oftentimes more important than impersonal data. Find their contact information here.
  • Engage in Community Advocacy: Participate in local meetings that help raise awareness of these impacts, write Letters to the Editor and opinion pieces in your local news outlets, and collaborate with organizations like OFRF to raise awareness.
  • Support Affected Workers: Offer assistance to those who have lost their jobs, whether through networking opportunities or whatever is possible given your current situation.

By taking these steps, you can contribute to a collective effort to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of agricultural research, the technical and financial assistance programs that it bolsters, and the communities that depend on it.

By |2025-03-13T17:51:05+00:00February 26th, 2025|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

Unlocking the Full Potential of Organic Agriculture: OFRF’s Policy Priorities for the Future

Gordon’s Policy Corner, February 2025

Organic agriculture is not just a method for growing our food and fiber, it is a proven solution to many of the challenges facing U.S. agriculture today. It reduces dependence on imported synthetic inputs, strengthens rural and urban economies, and builds resilience to a changing climate through supporting healthy soils and agroecological systems. But, despite its rapid growth and growing importance, public investment in organic agriculture programs has not kept pace.

At the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), we believe that strategic, science-based policies can unlock the full potential of organic farming. That is why we have developed a new set of Policy Priorities designed to align research investments with market opportunities, enhance technical and financial assistance for organic farmers and farmworkers, and strengthen the incentive structures that reward sustainable stewardship of our natural, social, and economic resources.

By embracing these policies, Congress and the USDA can ensure that organic agriculture continues to be a thriving part of the United States’ food system; creating economic opportunities, empowering producers, and delivering environmental benefits far beyond the farm.

Bridging the Research Investment Gap to Drive Innovation and Resilience

Organic agriculture is the fastest-growing sector in the United States’ food market, accounting for over 6% of total food sales and 15% of all produce sales. Despite this growth, organic research receives less than 2% of USDA’s research funding, and less than 1% of the Agricultural Research Service’s research budget. Simultaneously, public agricultural research funding has declined by 20% since 2000, even though every $1 invested generates over $20 in economic benefits. Private funding has attempted to fill this gap, but it often prioritizes proprietary technologies over public welfare.

This underinvestment slows the ability of U.S. farmers to keep up with demand, increasing our national reliance on imported organic goods and products. Public research funding is vital to closing the domestic supply gap and ensuring that communities across the United States benefit from the economic growth of the organic sector. Increasing federal investments in organic agriculture research will drive innovation, improve resilience to agronomic and economic disruptions, and ensure U.S. farmers have access to high quality science-backed tools.

Key Policy Solutions:

  • Establish an Organic Research Coordinator at the USDA
  • Expand ARS Intramural Research on Organic Systems
  • Strengthen NIFA Competitive Grant Programs for Organic Research
  • Improve Organic Market Data Collection and Dissemination

Read more in our Policy Priorities

Ensuring Farmers Get the Support They Need

The USDA alongside state and local governments offer a range of financial and technical assistance programs for farmers, but many organic farmers struggle to access these resources. There are multiple, related, reasons for this, from a general lack of awareness, administrative barriers, or insufficient organic knowledge among USDA field staff. These must be addressed to ensure organic farmers receive the support they deserve.

Many agricultural service providers, from NRCS conservation planners to private Technical Service Providers (TSPs) lack training and knowledge of organic systems, leading to guidance and advice that might not be practical or relevant for an organic farmer. Simultaneously, many organic farmers are not aware of the USDA resources available to them, leading to them missing out on key financial and technical support.

Key Policy Solutions:

  • Increase Organic Knowledge Among Technical Service Providers
  • Improve Outreach to Organic Farmers about Available Programs
  • Expand Organic-Focused services at USDA Agencies

Read more in our Policy Priorities

Understanding Organic’s Role as an Economic Engine

Organic agriculture isn’t just good for farmers and farmworkers, it’s a powerful economic engine for rural and urban communities. Research shows that regions with high levels of organic production, known as “organic hotspots,” have higher household incomes, and lower poverty rates compared to regions with lower levels of organic production. Importantly, this research shows that organic agriculture generates wealth in these areas through a variety of methods, like local capital cycling and decreased reliance on imported inputs.

A significant limiter on this economic engine is the lack of organic supply chains and connections to markets. Investing in organic infrastructure and market development will help U.S. farmers capture more of the organic market’s economic value.

Key Policy Solutions:

  • Expand Funding for Organic Market Development
  • Support Research on the Economic Benefits of Organic Agriculture
  • Develop Policies that Recognize Organic’s Environmental and Social Benefits

Read more in our Policy Priorities

Moving Forward With a Bold Vision for Organic Agriculture

Organic farming systems provide economic, environmental, and social benefits that impact entire communities. But to fully realize the organic method’s potential, Congress and the USDA must take action: investing in research, strengthening farmer technical and financial support, and ensuring organic agriculture remains a competitive and viable option for agricultural businesses across the country.

At OFRF, we are committed to advocating for policies that advance organic agriculture, support producers, and strengthen the entire food system. With the right investments, organic can continue to blaze the trail and foster economic opportunity, environmental resilience, and a healthier food system for all.

We invite policymakers, farmers, farmworkers, and the general public to join us in pushing for these critical investments in organic agriculture. The future of farming depends on it.

Stay engaged, stay informed, and together we can make a difference.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

By |2025-02-28T16:17:44+00:00February 6th, 2025|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

Looking Back, Planning Ahead: The Farm Bill, Government Funding, and Political Gridlock

Gordon’s Policy Corner, January 2025

2024 was a year to remember in the political realm, not for the actions taken by Congress, but rather the cans kicked down the proverbial road. We at OFRF wanted to take a moment to review some of the happenings at the close of last year, and give a brief overview of what that means for the legislative and administrative agendas in 2025. 

What Happened in 2024?

Long story short, the last year of the 118th Congress was defined by lots of aspiration and almost no delivery. Here’s a quick rundown of the items we’ve been watching:

  • The 2018 Farm Bill was extended (for the second time) for a year, expiring in September 2025. This extension did not include crucial programs that do not receive mandatory levels of funding, like the Organic Certification Cost Share Program and the 1890 Land Grant University Scholarship program. 
  • FY25 Appropriations was delayed well into the fiscal year by passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds the government at FY24 levels into March of 2025. For reference, Congress usually starts working on the next fiscal year budget in February of the preceding year, potentially creating a log jam with all of the rest of the legislative actions needed this year. 
  • The federal debt limit was not raised or amended, which means that the United States Treasury will need to order all agencies to begin “extraordinary measures” almost immediately in the new administration.

What Needs to Happen in 2025?

Because of the lack of action in 2024, that has just added more work to the legislative calendar in 2025:

  • The Farm Bill is in desperate need of updating, and the Farm Bill process starts over from square one; meaning that marker bills and priorities need to be reintroduced and revisited, and new Members of Congress must be educated on the importance and impacts of the Farm Bill’s many policies on their States and Districts.
  • Both FY25 and FY26 Appropriations packages will need to be finished and passed to both avoid a government shutdown, and also make sure the programs and supports that our farmers and researchers need continue!
  • One of the biggest things taking up space on the legislative calendar so far this year has been Reconciliation, which is a detailed budget and legislative process that Congress can use to move money around that has not yet been obligated to a specific program or line item. As some might remember from the Democrat’s use of this early in the Biden Administration it is difficult and very procedurally demanding.
  • Another budget-related task is the debt limit, mentioned above. This is different from the need to pass a budget, or reconcile for different priorities; this is the authority of the United States Treasury to establish new debts to pay for ongoing obligations. To put simply, this is the debt limit on the nation’s credit cards, and we’re close to hitting it once again. 

What You Can Do

While this legislative gridlock is frustrating, there are ways to make your voice heard and advocate for the programs that matter most:

Call Your Representatives and Senators: Ask them what their stance is on organic agriculture and agricultural research. Let us know how those conversations go!

Highlight the Impacts: Share personal stories about how these programs benefit you, your community, or your operation. Legislators are more likely to act when they hear directly from their constituents.

Stay Engaged: Keep up with the latest developments and participate in advocacy opportunities as they arise. Sharing information with your network can amplify the message and drive greater action.

This continuing situation underscores the importance of public engagement and advocacy to ensure that the programs supporting organic farmers, agricultural research, and rural resilience remain funded and effective. As Congress resumes discussions in the coming months, OFRF will continue to push for robust investments in organic agriculture and support for critical orphan programs.

Your voice is vital. Together, we can ensure that the value of organic farming, research, and education is recognized and supported in Washington.

Stay engaged. Stay informed. Together, we can make a difference.

We’re here for it,

Gordon

OFRF Senior Policy & Programs Manager

gordon@ofrf.org

By |2025-02-28T14:51:34+00:00January 9th, 2025|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

Agricultural Runoff: Organic Practices as a Method for Marine Conservation

Gordon’s Policy Corner has a guest author this month! This blog post was written by our Fall 2024 Policy and Communications Intern, Jazea Kalea Smith.

Being a Religious Studies major and an Oceanography minor, one might say that I’m a bit of an untraditional intern for OFRF. Besides a passion for being outdoors and a dream of running off to become a farmer I’ve harbored since I was 14, I generally live and work on the ocean side of conservation and food production. I’m happy to report that my time with OFRF, although brief, has ignited a flame in me to broaden my understanding of food systems both on land and at sea within my future academic and professional career. However, today I write from that foundational marine science perspective as we explore just how detrimental conventional agricultural runoff is for ocean health and resource viability.

Shrimp boat along the North Carolina shoreline in the light of the setting sun.

A shrimp boat drifts along the North Carolina shoreline.

This article seeks to provide context for why the continued use of conventional farming practices are unsustainable for the health of marine ecosystems, with an emphasis on fisheries. We first define what runoff is, and what its impacts are on water quality. Next, marine and estuarine systems impacts are described in depth, including the largest “dead zone” in the U.S. Then, the impacts of pesticide, herbicide, and bacterial contamination on marine life, human illness, and decrease in support for shellfish aquaculture operations. After focusing on the widespread effects, a background on the regulatory bodies and monitoring projects related to agricultural operations is provided, as well as a brief exploration of the EPA’s role. In conclusion, this blog highlights how and why organic practices inherently improve upon this crucial issue. 

What is runoff? 

Agricultural “runoff,” a type of nonpoint source pollution, refers to irrigation and rainfall originating on agricultural land that makes its way outside of the bounds of a farm site. This runoff can carry nutrients, bacteria from livestock manure, and other chemicals from poorly managed land into downstream lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal areas. Survey efforts, including the National Water Quality Assessment, have demonstrated that runoff from agricultural operations is the leading source of impacted water quality in the United States. Both artificial chemicals and unnatural levels of naturally occurring chemical compounds infiltrate our water supplies and can lead to devastating human health consequences. Although more research is urgently needed, there is a documented correlation between pediatric cancer rates and high levels of nitrate and the herbicide Atrazine in drinking water. Approximately 13 million households in this country are supplied with water by private wells, which are at a higher risk of contamination than public systems often are. Furthermore, runoff destabilizes soil integrity, causing destructive erosion and decreasing soil compositional health.

U.S. Geological Survey

What are the effects of runoff on marine and estuarine systems?

Twenty-one percent of the coastal waters in the U.S. contain excess levels of nutrients, and more than 80% of marine ecosystem pollution originates on land. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients contained in runoff, and the result of excess concentrations in marine and estuarine environments is hypoxia: oxygen concentrations of less than 2 milligrams per liter. Affected areas are commonly referred to as “dead zones,” because the overproduction and subsequent decomposition of algae decreases dissolved oxygen levels to the point where very few organisms can survive. Fish that have been subjected to hypoxia exposure additionally demonstrate abnormal behavior, lower reproduction and growth rates, a shift in the dynamics of the food web, and a decrease of overall resilience. The loss of planktonic fish eggs to hypoxic waters impacts vulnerable population numbers, often previously devastated by overfishing practices. A highly relevant example of this reaction is the Chesapeake Bay, the largest, and one of the most polluted, estuaries in the United States. The historical average (based on conditions between 1985-2023) of hypoxic waters in the Bay is 2.3-7.9 [km3]. To put this area into perspective, 1 km3 of water is the equivalent of 400,000 Olympic swimming pools! Agricultural runoff is the number one source of excess nitrogen flow into the Chesapeake, contributing 48% of the total load. 

What is a major U.S. example of a “dead zone” and its widespread impacts?

The largest dead zone in the United States runs along the coast of eastern Texas and all of Louisiana, with a staggering 6,705 square miles of hypoxic waters recorded in the summer of 2024. Runoff from farms throughout the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin, which comprises 31 states and two Canadian provinces, empties into the Gulf more than 70% of the excess nitrogen load and more than 80% of the phosphorus load. Not only does runoff play a role in impacting healthy waters and biodiversity, but it’s estimated that the Gulf of Mexico dead zone has led to economic losses of approximately $2.4 billion annually since 1980. These losses largely stem from the increasing lack of viability of shrimp fisheries, most prominently brown shrimp, as well as the Atlantic croaker and oyster fisheries. Economic hardship for commercial fishers paired with deprivation of Cultural ecosystem services (CES), the intangible benefits garnered from living and working with industries dependent on interaction with ecosystems, have the potential to devastate livelihoods. These services are understudied yet often indispensable to the health of the affected communities. 

How does pesticide, herbicide, and bacterial contamination affect marine life?

In addition to the widespread effects of fertilizer over-application, the USGS estimates that 500,000 tons of pesticides are applied to U.S. crop fields annually. Chlorpyrifos are a widely applied organophosphate pesticide that is highly toxic to most marine and freshwater organisms. Further, the most commonly used herbicide in conventional agriculture worldwide is glyphosate, which has been directly linked to alterations in foraging, predator evasion, and mating behavior in aquatic species. These changes compromise the ability of aquatic organisms to survive and reproduce, and a rise in ocean temperatures correlated with global climate change also poses significant future risk—under higher temperatures, static concentrations of glyphosate-based formulations’ and chlorpyrifos’ toxicity and lethal potential for marine life grows. 

Finally, research shows that bacterial contamination derived from the application of uncomposted, raw manure slurry as a fertilizer and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) pose a risk to marine life and aquatic organisms broadly. Manure is generally considered an organic fertilizer, depending on its source, and is used on certified organic farms in conjunction with other soil conservation techniques designed to minimize runoff and stabilize soil. It’s been determined that 30% of surface-applied manure on conventionally cultivated corn fields (the most planted U.S. crop by acreage) is never incorporated, resulting in lower nutrient retention and economic losses. 16.3% of corn fields are treated with manure fertilizer. Incorporation of manure into the soil, a more commonly used organic farming practice, has been examined in recent studies and was shown to decrease runoff potential, preventing manure-borne pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Vibrio from entering greater watershed areas.

How can contamination cause human illness and hurt sustainable aquaculture efforts?

Exposure to these pathogens in marine bivalves (planktonic filter-feeders) can increase the hazards of human consumption of raw shellfish, potentially reducing demand for farmed shellfish. Oyster, clam, and mussel farms are being adopted as a solution to eutrophication (high nutrient influx and subsequent algal blooms), so public acceptance and confidence in farmed shellfish is more critical than ever. Regarding fisheries broadly, bioaccumulation, the process by which chemicals such as those in pesticides and herbicides build up in organisms when they cannot be metabolized or excreted faster than they are taken in, can lead to obesity, cancer, endocrine disruption, and more in human consumers.

How is agricultural runoff monitored and regulated in the U.S.? 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that facilitates water quality monitoring and protection, and provides funding for numerous long-term research projects. The EPA collaborates with and supports many federal, state, and regional departments that support water quality assessments. At the federal level, highly involved agencies include the United States Geological Survey (facilitator of the National Water Quality Program), the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office for Coastal Management, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) created the Nonpoint Source Management Program, providing grants to U.S. states and territories for the purpose of increasing regional involvement in runoff mitigation. $178 million was appropriated in 2022 for this program, funneled towards resources such as public educational programing, technical and financial aid, demonstration projects, and monitoring. 22,500 watershed projects have been funded under Section 319 since 2000, successfully improving water quality across the country. Additionally, the National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program (NNPSMP) was established under Section 319, and is intended to provide proof of the viability of nonpoint source control methods.

What is the “Total Maximum Daily Load” and how is it achieved?

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits are required by the CWA in impaired watersheds, subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations (which specifically address point source pollution), set by each state, and confirmed by the EPA. TMDLs must factor in seasonal variability and build in a “margin of safety.” They are designed to ensure that waterways meet water quality standards for toxic pollutants. In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was set at a limit of 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus, 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment annually entering the estuary. In comparison to 2009, these limits represent a 25% nitrogen decrease, 24% phosphorus decrease, and 20% sediment influx decrease. To reach these reductions, nutrient management planning is a mandatory step in the large farm permitting process in many states, including Maryland, Vermont, California, and Washington. In order for production to legally commence on any operation in these states, a plan with a detailed layout of the status of the land (including soil tests) and records of nutrient application timing must annually be submitted to the state.

Research has found that there are Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can mitigate pollution, like cover cropping and forest buffers, and are sometimes prescribed by state agencies and regional organizations to reach TMDL restrictions. Organic practices oftentimes align with BMPs, and are being increasingly adopted by farmers, largely with the assistance of incentive programs; 39% of farmland in Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake watershed implemented cover cropping between 2016 and 2021, versus 5% of the broader U.S. Runoff forecasts have also been identified as a crucial aid to farming operations, allowing farmers to make informed decisions about when to apply inputs to avoid storm events. Check out these interactive maps from NOAA on runoff risk in 5 U.S. states.

Why do the harmful effects of runoff continue to increase?

NOAA has set a goal to reduce the 5-year average extent of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone down to 1,900 square miles by 2035, and to bring nutrient runoff down 20% by 2025. However, despite successful efforts to increase compliance, the levels of runoff have not decreased significantly in the wake of the setting of these deadlines; in contrast, between 2012 and 2022, the underground drainage tube network has increased by 9.5% and hog production increased 12%. Between 2016 and 2020, combined synthetic fertilizer sales in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota increased by 10.6%. From the climate change perspective, spring storm frequency in the Midwest is climbing, allowing less time for pesticide and fertilizer application to absorb before entering drainage pathways. 

NOAA’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is a joint effort with the EPA to support states with guidance on management practices for addressing runoff from five nonpoint sources, of which agriculture is one. Management measures to be applied by states (required under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990) include erosion prevention tactics such as conservation tillage. The application of pesticides that are the “most environmentally benign” and 3-year cycle nutrient management plans are additional mandatory measures. Cover cropping, green manure incorporation, and crop rotations are non-required but recommended management practices under the CZARA. As the aforementioned research tells us, the most prevalent pesticides in the U.S. today carry a wide variety of environmental and human health dangers. Runoff risk is on the rise with increasing toxicity of many of the commonly found chemicals, even if overall American usage may be declining.

Enforcement success has been plagued by the simple fact that many of these departments are spread thin. Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Maryland Department of the Environment only employed three people who were assigned to conduct in-person inspections at poultry operations. Nutrient management plans of 5,000 farms in the state were monitored by nine Maryland Department of Agriculture employees. This is seemingly the case for many agencies throughout the country. Given the sheer number of farms and CAFOs in the U.S., enforcement can be seen as a challenging logistical endeavor and largely the product of limited departmental funding.

How does organic agriculture support marine conservation and ecosystem health?

Ingrained within the organic farming methodology are many courses of action for reducing agricultural runoff through rebuilding soil health. Practices that are in line with organic systems such as crop rotation and cover cropping have been shown to lead to increased nitrogen availability and soil stabilization. No-till and conservation till methods protect soil integrity and are associated with lower risks of runoff. However, they are a major challenge for organic farmers. In some cases, runoff risk may be lessened on organic farms still using tillage when combined with cover cropping and compost application, by growing active soil organic carbon concentrations. Although organic farmers can utilize nutrient-dense inputs like chicken litter or composted manure to maximize crop yield and quality of product, standard practices allow for operations to infrequently rely on fertilizers alone. Use of “green manure,” often legume plants that are grown and incorporated into fields, can significantly increase nitrogen availability for the primary crop. 

The most fundamental practice associated with organic farming is a clear solution to runoff-caused marine ecosystem damage: the strict prohibition of chemical pesticide and herbicide application. The evidence that these chemicals are invading human and animal communities is strong, and the correlation between exposure to many of the commonly utilized conventional products and illness is well-studied. Reframing this issue as an environmental injustice is critically important to fully convey the human impacts of chemical usage: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities are disproportionately impacted by exposure to environmental pollutants. Organic systems are more aligned with TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge) by emphasizing comprehensive understanding of the landscape and natural processes that can be utilized for sustainable production.

Organic farming is a sustainable farming method that is constantly evolving and improving, and is consistent with the goals of decreasing runoff and protecting both marine environments and human communities. Because we face these issues alongside a rapidly changing climate, acting as stewards of ocean biodiversity is more essential than ever; advocacy for organic agriculture can truly be interpreted as a serious climate and coastal pollution mitigation tactic. 

If you want to learn more about the impact of agricultural runoff on the two largest estuaries in the United States, watch this PBS Frontline documentary on coastal pollution in the Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay.

If you want to get active in helping OFRF advocate for expanded technical and financial services for organic producers, and the research programs that inform them, please reach out! 

As Gordon says, eat well and breathe deep,

Jazea

By |2024-12-24T16:57:17+00:00December 5th, 2024|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

A Landscape Shift: Opportunities and Challenges for Organic Agriculture Under a Trump Administration

Gordon’s Policy Corner, November 2024

This year’s election results have brought with them a significant shift in the political landscape in Washington, which will undoubtedly influence food and agriculture policy at the federal level.  While every presidential election brings change, the dynamics of this year’s tumultuous election are particularly significant. With a Trump presidency and a solid, multi-seat Republican majority in the Senate, the USDA will likely be shaped and directed in line with the new administration’s vision. The House remains an open question, but current projections suggest the Republican majority will at least be maintained, if not strengthened.

What does this mean for the Organic Farming Research Foundation and organic agriculture at large?  We are stepping into a period of uncertainty, with many unanswered questions about Congressional priorities and the coming USDA leadership and their associated agenda. For context, during Trump’s previous presidency, the USDA’s cabinet position was last to be nominated, January 18th, 2017, suggesting that this agricultural leadership and direction may not come quickly. We must remain nimble and on our toes until we understand the priorities this new administration plans to act on.

A Potentially Hostile Funding Environment

Winter cereals, winter grains, fall cereals, fall grains, or autumn-sown grains wheat field in early spring in fog. First green shoots of winter wheat.

Over the next two years at least, we anticipate facing a very challenging financial climate in Congress. Budget allocations for agricultural research, technical assistance, and conservation funding may be targeted as an opportunity for budget cuts. The push for austerity measures could represent significant hurdles for securing the resources organic farmers and researchers need. But, even among these challenges there are potential opportunities.

One factor worth noting is the influence of Robert Kennedy Jr. on Trump’s campaign. RFK Jr. has voiced support for certain agricultural values that align with organic and regenerative organic production. It remains unclear how much sway he will hold in shaping agricultural policy, as Trump has made many unkept promises in the past. But, this alignment opens up the possibility for strong bipartisan support for organic agriculture research. Recent meetings OFRF staff have had with conservative members of Congress have revealed some exciting interest in organic agriculture. While we cannot rely on this support alone, it does represent an opportunity for expanding organic agriculture.

Our Path Forward: Advocating for Organic Farmers

Despite the uncertainty and potential funding challenges, our mission remains the same: 

“Organic Farming Research Foundation works to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems. OFRF cultivates organic research, education, and federal policies that bring more farmers and acreage into organic production.“

As outlined in our new strategic plan, our policy work will continue to focus on advocating for organic farmers, and ensuring that the research programs and supports they depend on are not only preserved, but expanded. Our strategic plan emphasizes several key areas:

  • Securing Funding for Organic Research: We will continue to make the case for robust investments in organic agriculture research. The data is clear: organic practices benefit not only certified organic farmers but also conventional farmers who adopt sustainable techniques, improving soil health, reducing chemical dependency, and increasing resilience to climate change.
  • Promoting Organic as Climate-Smart Agriculture: We will work to ensure that organic systems are recognized as essential tools for climate mitigation and adaptation. Organic practices are proven to enhance carbon sequestration and conserve water, and we will highlight these benefits in discussions with policymakers.
  • Building a Lasting Bipartisan Community: We recognize that the best way to advance our priorities is through collaboration. Our strategy will include building and leveraging relationships across the aisle, making organic agriculture a bright spot in bipartisan conversations.

The potential for bipartisan support hinges on our ability to communicate the universal benefits of organic research. Research investments not only support organic certification standards but also generate best practices that conventional operations can use to reduce inputs and build healthier ecosystems. This broad appeal makes organic agriculture a rare unifier in a divisive political environment.

As we navigate this changing landscape, we call on our community to stay engaged. We will be developing a variety of ways you can get involved if you’re interested. The influence of grassroots advocacy cannot be underestimated, especially when we emphasize how organic practices contribute to healthier soils, cleaner water, and more resilient food systems for everyone. Keep an eye out for those tools and resources early next year!

Our Commitment

Regardless of the makeup of Congress or the Executive Branch, our commitment to organic farmers and sustainable agriculture will not waver. We will continue to fight for research programs and policy supports that empower farmers to adopt practices that are good for the planet and their bottom line. The winds of change in Washington sometimes shrouds our path forward, but our mission to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems remains unshakeable.

Stay tuned, stay engaged, and know that we are here, as always, working tirelessly to ensure that organic agriculture has a seat at the table and a voice in the conversation.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

By |2025-02-28T14:52:40+00:00November 8th, 2024|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

First Frost and Federal Deadlines

A Call for Action on Congressional Investments in Organic Research

farm field with first frost of winter

Gordon’s Policy Corner, October 2024

Earlier this morning we had our first frost of the year here on the farm in Vermont; late for our area yet it came all the same. The arrival of frost, whether early or late, is inevitable for the Northern regions of the country, a seasonal deadline that irrevocably holds firm. The same can’t be said for the Farm Bill or the federal appropriations process, behind their deadlines by 25 months and two months, respectively. But, both of these pieces of policy face a real deadline come December. Just as frost signals the arrival of a new phase in the agricultural year, the pending deadlines for these federal actions marks a pivotal moment for the future of agricultural research, climate resilience, and conservation programming.

Why the Farm Bill and Appropriations Processes Matter

Both the Farm Bill and the federal appropriations processes are the primary drivers of agricultural research policy, especially for those interested in organic production systems. At OFRF, our core concerns are:

  • Building resiliency to both climate and supply chain disruption through organic management and more localized food systems.
  • Investing in research for organic agriculture in order to provide answers to pressing environmental and production challenges. 
  • Supporting the expansion of organic production to meet increasing market demand for organic products.
  • Making sure organic producers, and those interested in transitioning to organic production, have the research tools and opportunities needed to thrive.

Our existing Farm Bill and Appropriations Priorities still call for both legislative vehicles to authorize and then robustly fund organic agriculture research programs that our farmers so desperately need. 

Unfortunately, progress on these crucial processes has been slow, and now Congress has just a couple short months left to meet the December deadlines. A delay beyond that will have real-world impacts—stalled funding could limit the USDA’s ability to support conservation programs, climate-smart practices, and organic research that underpins a resilient agricultural system.

Like our late first frost in the NE, increased federal investment in agricultural research is long awaited. Every dollar invested in research funding generates $20 in public benefits. Despite this high return on investment, funding for agricultural research has fallen by nearly a third over the past two decades. Today, organic produce makes up more that 15% of the total market, and yet less than 2% of USDA’s research budget is allocated to organic topics, and less than 1% of the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) budget is dedicated to organic research.

An Opportunity to Act During Congressional Recesses

As we’ve highlighted before, Congressional recess is a unique opportunity for you to engage directly with your elected officials, as many will be back in their home states and districts. It’s a great time to attend town halls, community events, listening sessions, or other scheduled appearances to hear from them and, most importantly, to have your voice be heard. Organizationally, OFRF is working to bring Members of Congress to organic research fields, joining with coalitions to express our appetite for a Farm Bill now, and bringing the stories of research projects to decision makers across the federal government this Congressional Recess. 

Whether you’re a farmer, a researcher, or simply an eater, this is your chance to ask questions and emphasize the importance of strong federal support for organic agriculture research. Explain that organic agricultural research is not just for certified organic operations but benefits the entire agricultural sector by promoting climate resilience and sustainable practices. Check your local news sources for upcoming Town Halls and other events with your representatives.

Questions to ask your representatives:

  • How are they prioritizing funding for organic agricultural research in the upcoming Farm Bill and appropriations processes?
  • Will they commit to increasing investments in organic research to help meet national climate, conservation, and nutrition goals?
  • What specific steps are they taking to ensure that USDA programs support organic practices and long-term soil health?

Just as we all are noticing our signals of changing seasons in our home environments, these federal deadlines mark an important milestone for agricultural policy. December is fast approaching, and how Congress decides to act will shape the future of agricultural research for years to come. To continue the growth and success of organic agriculture and the businesses that rely on it, we need public investments that support the researchers who are answering crucial agricultural questions.

If you’re interested in getting involved or want to know more about advocating for organic research investments, please reach out to us. Let’s work together to secure a sustainable and resilient future for agriculture, one where organic practices receive the support they need to benefit all.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

By |2025-02-28T14:53:30+00:00October 10th, 2024|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

From Classrooms to Congress

An Intern’s Journey into Food and Agricultural Policy with OFRF

By Julia Nelson, Summer 2024 Policy & Advocacy Intern

After spending a chunk of my first year of graduate school learning about food and agricultural policy in the U.S., I began my internship at OFRF with the goal of understanding how those policy mechanisms play out in the real world for the different parties involved in the process. Over the past 12 weeks, I have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to OFRF’s advocacy work focused on increasing funding for organic research in the most important U.S. agricultural policies – the agricultural appropriations and the Farm Bill. Through this experience, I have had the chance to practice a range of policy skills such as: writing catchy and persuasive email campaigns, synthesizing complicated federal data into a leave-behind document that tells a compelling story, and engaging in conversations with coalitions and members of Congress. 

One major goal of this work is to spread awareness to Senators and Representatives on the various agricultural committees that funding organic agricultural research doesn’t just support the scientific community, but also contributes to the local economy and helps the country move closer to climate goals. Through this process, I have also been able to experience firsthand the nuts and bolts of the federal policymaking process and better understand how major political events (such as a looming presidential election) affect the pace of advocacy work. 

Another hope of mine for this internship was to develop my professional skills in a way that would prepare me for future roles at nonprofit organizations or in public service. Because of its importance in the nonprofit world,  I was interested in learning more about development and funding during my time at OFRF. I had the opportunity to help the Development team with prospect research, which meant I spent time researching and identifying foundations that were and were not a good fit for our needs. I enjoyed getting a sense of the funding landscape for organizations who work on organic agriculture and hope to continue working with grants in some capacity in my future career. 

Additionally, I had the opportunity to put the data management and analysis skills that I have acquired through various statistics and economics classes to work. I helped with a few different data projects for the Policy team and the Research & Education (R&E) team, cleaning and categorizing large amounts of data on organic research from USDA and universities. The goal of my project for the Policy team was to be able to provide an honest estimate of the amount of federal funding that has gone towards organic agricultural research. The purpose of my work for R&E was to help populate OFRF’s soon-to-be organic research hub, which aggregates educational resources on organic agriculture to provide farmers with a one-stop shop of quality information. These projects reminded me of the importance of data in storytelling, illuminated the hard work that goes into any useful website that aggregates different resources, and reminded me that I need to keep up with my Excel skills. 

Finally, on a different note, I appreciated being able to gain insight into how a remote, national organization operates and builds community. As I gear up for entering a workforce that is becoming increasingly virtual, it’s been helpful to see positive examples of how you can connect and develop relationships with coworkers without being face-to-face. I have really enjoyed the catch-ups that happen during staff meetings and our informal community-building Zoom calls. 

Looking into the future, this experience has cemented my interest in pursuing the ‘policy’ part of my MS degree in Food and Nutrition Science & Policy after I graduate. My time with OFRF has reinforced my passion for working at the intersection of climate and food systems.  As I begin the final year of my graduate program, I will be focusing my time on gaining the policy & organizational leadership skills I need to pursue a career at a government agency or nonprofit organization based in my home area of New England. I could not be more grateful to OFRF for providing me with an enriching internship experience, and also for the support and inclusivity of all of the team members I collaborated with throughout the summer.

By |2025-02-28T15:19:19+00:00September 19th, 2024|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

Organic Practices and Systems on Non-Certified Land

A Call for Insights from Split and Non-Certified Operations

Gordon’s Policy Corner, September 2024

Our mission at OFRF is to “foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems.” Organic certification has long been celebrated for its benefits to a variety of ecological and social systems; but we know that these benefits are not limited to fully certified organic farms. We understand that for a variety of reasons an operation will only have a portion of their land certified, or possibly forego certification entirely, but still operate as an organically-managed system. For those of you who manage operations like this, you have a unique perspective to observe and compare the impacts of organic practices across different types of land management systems.

We want to hear from producers like you about your relationship with and utilization of organic agriculture research. Research focused solely on conventional or chemical-based agriculture often cannot be applied to organic systems because it relies on inputs that are prohibited in organic farming. However, the opposite is not true: many organic practices can be beneficial for conventional farming operations as well. By understanding how split operations utilize organic principles, we can strengthen the case for increased funding in organic agriculture research that serves the entire agricultural community.

tractor driving across agricultural farm field

There are insights to gain from both split and non-certified organic operations about the benefits of organic.

Split Operations and the Potential of Organic Agricultural Systems

Split operations, where some fields are certified organic and others are managed using conventional chemistry- and genetic-based agricultural systems, provide an opportunity to offer valuable insights into the real-world application and benefits of organic farming practices and systems of management. This dual approach is a ripe opportunity for the observation of the effects of organic principles, such as cover cropping, complex crop rotations, reduced chemistry-dependance, and integrated pest management on their non-certified land. 

We’re eager to hear your experiences and results from grasping this opportunity! The potential for healthier soils, increased resiliency of ecosystems, and even reduced input/fuel/labor costs is real.

Help Us Understand the Broader Impacts of Organic Research

Do you operate a split or non-certified operation that uses organic principles and systems? Do you know someone who does? We’re trying to hear from these operations to better understand how they might be using organic research in their decision making. Their experiences can help us better understand how organic agriculture research benefits the entire agricultural system, not just certified organic producers.

Quantitative analysis already shows that organic research benefits all of agriculture by developing methods that can improve soil health, enhance biodiversity, reduce input costs, and increase resilience against climate change. These benefits are not exclusive to certified organic farms—they are valuable to all farmers who are looking for sustainable, long-term solutions. Now we need your stories to make the qualitative points that illustrate these benefits!

Your Story Matters

Time and again, we hear in Washington that appropriators are hesitant to increase budgets for organic research programming because it is seen as too “niche” or doesn’t apply to all agricultural operations. If you or someone you know has a story to tell on this topic, it will be a crucial piece in helping us demonstrate the importance of organic agriculture research for the broader agricultural landscape. 

Let’s work together to ensure that the benefits of organic agriculture are fully understood and leveraged for the good of all farming systems! Please reach out at gordon@ofrf.org.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

By |2025-02-28T14:24:17+00:00September 9th, 2024|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|

The Impact of Agricultural Research on USDA Conservation Programs

Gordon’s Policy Corner, August 2024

As we have discussed before, climate change and ecosystem degradation are some of the most potent challenges facing our food and agriculture systems. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, NRCS) offers technical and financial assistance programs, like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), aimed at directly addressing those challenges. These programs help farmers adopt sustainable practices and systems, address resource concerns like water quality and soil health, and both mitigate and adapt to our changing climate. But, for these programs to be truly effective, they must be grounded in robust scientific research. Public investments in agricultural research, especially in systems approaches like organic agriculture, are essential to ensure these initiatives can achieve their full potential and are based on evidence that reflects climate-smart systems.

The Underfunding of Agricultural Research

Agricultural research is an incredibly valuable investment. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in public agricultural research generates $20 in public benefits. That is why it is so troubling that public agricultural research budgets in the United States have fallen by nearly a third in the past two decades. This decline threatens the development of new technologies and practices that are crucial for sustainable agriculture. With reduced funding, researchers struggle to address emerging issues such as climate change, soil degradation, and water scarcity. As a result, farmers are left without the tools and knowledge they need to adapt and thrive in a changing environment.

Adding to the challenge, the nature of agricultural research funding is changing. Increasingly, private sources are directing funding away from public welfare and toward profit-driven goals. This shift means that research priorities are often set by business interests rather than public or farmer needs. As a result, much of the funding goes towards innovations that enhance profitability for corporations like genetic development and new chemistries for pesticides rather than addressing critical issues such as sustainability and climate resilience.

The Importance of Organic Agriculture Research

Organic agriculture research is particularly important because it benefits all farmers, not just those who farm organically. Organic practices, such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, and  ecological weed management enhance soil health, improve biodiversity, and reduce dependency on chemical inputs. These practices can be and oftentimes are adopted by conventional farmers as well, promoting sustainability across the agricultural sector. In contrast, research focused on chemical-based agriculture is not applicable to organic producers, as it relies on inputs that are prohibited under organic standards. This discrepancy highlights the need for more inclusive research that supports a broad range of farming systems and addresses the diverse needs of the farming community.

Despite the broad benefits of organic agriculture research, it receives disproportionately low funding. Currently, less than 2% of the USDA’s research budget is allocated to organic topics, and less than 1% of the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) budget is dedicated to organic research. This significant underfunding limits the potential for organic farming practices to be fully explored, developed, and disseminated and likely undermines the effectiveness of conservation and climate programs.

Investing in organic agricultural research is crucial for the success of conservation and climate programs in agriculture. These investments ensure that programs are grounded in reality, based on the latest scientific findings, and equipped to address the diverse needs of farmers. By increasing funding for agricultural research, particularly in organic agriculture, we can develop effective, inclusive, and innovative solutions that promote sustainability and resilience in the agricultural sector.

Recognizing this importance, OFRF has recently entered into a cooperative agreement with NRCS to ensure that their programs, standards, and staff understand organic’s conservation benefits. This critical work underscores the necessity of continued robust research investments to develop and promote effective agricultural practices.

How You Can Help

Public investments in agricultural research are not just beneficial; they are necessary. They provide the foundation for effective conservation and climate programming, ensuring that our efforts to combat climate change and promote sustainable agriculture are both practical and impactful. It is time to recognize the critical role of research and take action to secure the necessary funding to drive progress in the agricultural sector.

Together with the National Organic Coalition (NOC) and many other partners, we are asking Congress to give organic its fair share of investment in the Farm Bill. You can join us by asking your Member of Congress to support organic research in the Farm Bill.

Will you take action today? The button below makes it quick and easy!

Be well,

Gordon

By |2025-02-28T14:54:41+00:00August 8th, 2024|Gordon's Policy Corner, News|
Go to Top