From the Farm to the Federal Government:
Higher Standards Mean Better Business

An Interview with Jon Tester, Organic Farmer and Montana’s Newly Elected Senator

If Jon Tester doesn’t like the way things are going, he isn’t afraid to change them. In 1987, when he and his wife, Sharla, were getting sick from chemicals used on their farm in Big Sandy, MT, he changed the way things had been done on his family farm for more than three generations and converted to organic farming. When he didn’t like the way the government was handing things, well, he decided to get involved and change that, too.

Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, you can’t help but like Jon Tester. He is a good guy. But to the organic industry he is more than that—he is an ally within a conglomerate of governmental bureaucrats who is not afraid to stand up for the standards and represent the spirit of organic.

Twenty years after converting his first field to organic, Tester now farms 1,800 acres of organic wheat, barley, lentils, peas, millet, buckwheat, alfalfa and hay. His commitment to organic goes beyond the field though. He helped develop the Montana Organic Certification program and also has served as the national treasurer for Organic Crop Improvement Association International and sat on committees for the Big Sandy Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the Chouteau County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). In addition, in 2005 Tester and his wife Sharla were named outstanding agricultural leaders by the College of Agriculture at Montana State University.

Some of the items on Tester’s agenda as a Senator include encouraging the use of renewable energy sources and revamping federal farm policy to steer resources toward small farmers rather than agribusiness.

IFOAM Executive Director Angela B. Caudle praised the election of Jon Tester. “IFOAM looks forward to working with Senator-elect Tester to develop and promote organic agriculture both in the United States and internationally” she said. “His understanding of soil ecology and the economics of organic production systems will undoubtedly bring a fresh perspective to the U.S. Senate and contribute to the establishment of more sustainable agricultural programs.”

Between hundreds of interview requests and driving to Billings, MT to personally thank voters, Tester took some time to talk to OP.

OP: As a U.S. Senator, what are your concerns for organic farming and the organic industry as a whole?

Tester: For both the consumer and all of us in production and processing, it’s critical that we ensure that standards stay high and we maintain competition in the marketplace.

Also, we need to make sure that organics are part of the discussion as far as trade goes. I am not saying we lower our standards to meet someone else’s or we encourage someone in the EU or Pacific Rim to lower their standards—I think we need to maintain the highest possible standards and move forward along those lines. If the marketplace is fair then things work themselves out. It’s when deals are made to get things cheaper that it starts becoming unfair. Also, sometimes harmonization works one way but doesn’t work the other way. If we are harmonizing to get product in from another country but no one is ensuring that the market is available to our producers for export that’s not fair.

OP: It has been said that one of your biggest concerns has been for the small family farmer and as conventional agribusiness gets bigger and bigger organic farming has often been called the last refuge for these smaller operations. Do you think that organic offers benefits to the small family farmer and what do you see as the advantages and disadvantages?

Tester: Organic benefits the small family farmer in many ways, no doubt, although there has been consolidation in organics as well and that is something we have got to be careful of. If we ever lose competition in the marketplace we are done. We must not allow the kind of market consolidation that has happened in conventional.

If Wal-Mart is looking to get into the organics business not based on quality of production methods, but based on how cheap it can be produced, then that’s a problem. You cannot produce organic food on the cheap. If Wal-Mart wants to make it cheaper on their end that is fine, but don’t do it on the back of the organic farmer because if you do they’ll go broke and you won’t have that organic farmer there anymore. What I have seen in the conventional food supply is that the farmer gets what is left over and that has caused the situation where there has been a lot of consolidation both on the farms and in manufacturing. Ultimately, it ends up where you have people producing under the price of production and then the government has to step in with a farm program. If that farm program wasn’t there then you’d have people going out of business in wholesale fashion. You can’t do that with organics or you’ll end up with the same sort of program design as conventional and that just won’t work in the organics industry.

As far as Wal-Mart, I think that opening up the market is a good thing, but it’s a double edged sword. All I know is that in order to make a living in this business you’ve gotta have some profitability, like any other business. One of the things that we need to insist on is that there is fair market value for the products we produce. In the effort to get things cheaper the consumer loses the true value of the product.

OP: Seeing that you have been involved in the organic movement for over 20 years, how have you seen things change and do you have any comments about the role that the USDA plays in developing and guarding the rules for the organic industry?

Tester: When I first got involved there were all sorts of different standards and rules. These days standards are more standardized but I am not quite sure if there has been aggressive enough work in the USDA to make sure that we do our best to ensure that our standards are marketable around the world. If you have standards other countries don’t respect then that creates another set of problems.

There always has been and there always will be people that try to weaken the standards, but the standards are the foundation for our business. They are what gives the consumer confidence and we need to do everything we can to ensure that those standards are strong to meet the needs of the consumer as well as soil health issues. When you see the standards becoming weakened you have to step up to the plate and do something.

I think standards should be even tighter. If you take a look at people who got into this along time ago, they did things because it was the right thing to do. Green manure is a prime example. It isn’t something that’s required, but it should be so that farmers are continually building their soil and making it better. Creating a better, more nutritious product for the consumer is what this is all about.

It’s a touchy subject because you don’t want the government coming in and saying ‘you gotta do this, you gotta do that,’ but there are some people out there on the edge who want to do just do the bare minimum to get the certification and I am not one of those people.

OP: The organic industry is growing by leaps and bounds, yet still doesn’t receive anywhere near the funding and support from the government that conventional farmers receive. Do you see a way to rectify this?

Tester: I think where the government needs get involved most is funding for research—research dollars for cropping systems, potential issues that revolve around GMOs and such. Farmers, especially in organic, really need to learn more about cropping systems that build the soil and these systems are different for every part of the country. This research would give farmers the resources they need so they don’t have to learn it all by trial and error.

The government could also help farmers pay for certification costs, but if we can keep competition, and good prices in the marketplace I don’t think there would be as much of a need for direct payment as there is in conventional. In conventional there is no competition. Prices have become lower than the cost of production.

OP: With the increasing demand for organic raw materials there is a need for more organic farmers. Do you have any insight for those thinking about making the conversion?

Tester: If the research is there then farmers have the information they need to make that decision. The conventional market is pretty decent right now and when conventional prices are decent people don’t want to convert. It’s when conventional prices are bad that is when they look to convert, but that is the worst time because they’re applying organic technique but still getting conventional prices. If they are making the change entirely for financial reasons it’s not going to work anyway.

Many farmers say, “Wow, I’m only getting $4 a bushel for my wheat and if I convert to organic I can get $6.50.” People who do that aren’t in organics very long because there is much more to it than money—there is maintaining soil health, soil building, water quality, crop rotations—and if you are comparing apples to apples then it just won’t work. I’ve seen it happen time and time again when someone says, “Wow, I am going to hit it big with organic prices,” but than they find out it’s much more complicated then they thought.

Research would help them know their options. These days there are better resources out there with the Organic Trade Association, IFOAM and through some of the certifying agencies, but there still needs to be more research.

OP: As an organic farmer, what are some pointers you can give to processors on how to most effectively work with those in production?

Tester: I think it deals with good communication. Processors should know their farmers and the best way to do that is by having on-site visits. I know it’s a pain in the neck and it costs money to do that but it is money well spent. It does two things—it lets the processor know and understand what is going on the farms where they are getting their products and it brings the farmer and the processor together and makes them more like a team.

Also, standards need to be held high and processors are as much a part of that as we are in production agriculture. Some folks like to try to cut corners and overlook things but it can’t be done in organics because the consumer is expecting a product that meets a lot of different benchmarks whether it’s in sustainability, soil health or just in good quality food. I would just encourage them to go for the highest possible standards.

OP: What would you like to see for the future of organic farming and the industry as a whole? What role do you see the government playing?

Tester: I see the government playing a role in research and trade primarily. If we grow in a reasonable manner as the marketplace grows and it’s not hindered by the government then we are in good shape. The role I see for government is making sure that we have high standards, good research and good trade agreements. If we have these things I think organics will do just fine.