We Are Not Doing Enough

An interview with Gary Hirshberg, President and CE-Yo, Stonyfield Farm


In the early 1980s, Gary Hirshberg was a board member of the Rural Education Center—a nonprofit organization devoted to teaching rural and homesteading skills with an emphasis on organic food production, where he used organic yogurt as a tool to teach people about sustainable agriculture. More than 25 years later, he’s still doing the same thing, only on a much larger scale.

Hirshberg is the president and CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm, the world’s largest organic yogurt maker, in Londonderry, NH. He oversaw Stonyfield’s growth from a seven-cow organic farming school in 1983, to its current $250 million in annual sales. Stonyfield has enjoyed a 12-year compounded annual growth rate of 26.6%. This growth was achieved by consistently producing a great-tasting product and through innovative marketing techniques that combine the social, environmental and financial missions of the company.

Today, Stonyfield’s products include all-natural and certified organic yogurts, smoothies, cultured soy, frozen yogurt, ice cream and milk, all sold across the U.S. One of the company’s five missions, “to serve as a model that environmentally and socially responsible businesses can also be profitable,” has driven some of the company’s most compelling programs—including its research into the impact of packaging materials on the environment that has served as a model for companies throughout the industry.

But Hirshberg isn’t ready to settle down and enjoy his success. He believes the industry isn’t doing nearly enough to tell its story and to validate and promote the health benefits of organics. He’s concerned that bickering is causing the organic industry to lose sight of its goals and he is daring everyone in the trade to invest the time, the energy and the dollars to define the infrastructure and information necessary to move the organic industry into the future. He recently met with Organic Processing Magazine to discuss his thoughts.

OP: You have been quoted as saying that the organic industry hasn’t done enough to gather science on health and other benefits of organic. What do you think needs to be done and why?

Hirshberg: As an industry we’ve got a long way to go. We’ve grown up as a movement with passion and emotion but we are not doing as much as we need to do to advance and build an infrastructure for our future.

Organics today rely largely on the perception that there is an absence of negatives—no pesticides, no herbicides, no antibiotics or growth hormones—but we have made no investment in documenting the positive argument for organics. Positives, such as improved health, are very different from the absence of negatives.

In Europe they are gradually building evidence about positive health benefits of organic, such as the fact that dairy products from grass-fed cows have higher levels of betacarotene, omega 3 fatty acids and macro- and micronutrients than from conventional grain-fed cows. But we haven’t assessed the data or done that kind of research here [in the States]. I understand these kinds of studies can take a decade or more to complete but that’s all the more reason to get on with it.

If we were the pharmaceutical industry and “organic” was a pill, you can be sure we would have invested millions of dollars to research and promote its positive health benefits. We have a passionate constituency. Organic consumers are label readers and they are gluttons for information. I have no doubt that if we had the data at hand we could reach millions.

OP: Along with positive health benefits, you’ve said that one of the key benefits of organics is that it offers advantages in reducing the use fossil fuels and climate change. Do you believe organic consumers will think this is as compelling as the absence of toxins?

Hirshberg: I believe climate change will be the number one health and environmental issue during the next 100 years, and it’s important for the organic industry to get itself well positioned with the data and documentation to make its case. We need to do a lot more research into the area of fossil fuel use and climate change. This is a great opportunity for us to show that investment in organic foods reduces fossil fuel use.

My background is in climate change, and I know intuitively that by producing and shipping cases of pesticides, tons of fertilizer and truckloads of herbicides around the planet we are wasting fossil fuels. When you stop using these products you produce less CO2, and by trapping carbon in the soil, which is the basic tenet of organic farming, you don’t burn it up and release it into the atmosphere. That has a dramatic role to play in climate change. And by its very nature organics means less transport of fossil fuels and all related costs.

OP: Who should be conducting these studies?

Hirshberg: When I say “we as an industry need to respond,” I mean that members of the organic industry need to underwrite research projects that can be run by university groups, such as Cornell University or University of California-Davis, and I think it needs to be mobilized and organized by groups like the Organic Trade Association (OTA).

It’s unfortunate that there are a number of organizations like OTA, the Organic Center, and the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) all trying to execute pieces of the same puzzle. These organizations’ agendas overlap, and as a financier it seems ridiculous to me to write checks to all three for redundant overhead. I’m in favor of more integration. We don’t have a bottomless pit of money to support these organizations. There is not enough to go around. I’d rather give the Organic Center twice as much money if I knew it would go to twice as much research, which it could if there wasn’t so much overhead.

The industry needs to coordinate its efforts to provide support for organic research, then publicize those findings as much as possible. As an industry we’ve shown ourselves to be adept at getting mobilized. Our members are very good at providing money and resources. It begins with the leadership of OTA and with industry leaders who have the ability to write the checks and the stature to put the challenge out there to the rest of the industry to do the same.

Of course, I don’t expect all the money to come from industry members. We suffer greatly in comparison to conventional agriculture when it comes to getting our fair share of federal dollars. Stonyfield, like a lot of other companies, writes big checks to the government every year. We’d like to see more of that money moving back in the organic industry’s direction in the form of grants for research.

OP: What role can university extension programs play in promoting the benefits and investment in organic farming?

Hirshberg: We’ve had a supply crisis in the industry for some time. We done a good job mobilizing conventional farms to convert to organic to increase our long-term supply prospects, but it’s going to be years before supply catches up with demand, and we need the extension programs to do it.

The extension programs are so important to the continued growth of organic farming because they are the gatekeepers to the farmers. Through the work I’ve done with farmers, meeting with them and speaking to them about organics, it’s become obvious to me that farmers don’t want to talk to people like me. Sure they want to know what I will do to help them financially but in the end, before they make any decisions, they want to hear from their extension agents. These are the people who farmers rely on when there is a soil problem or if their cows get mastitis. They are the people farmers go to when they have a problem. So it is important that we tap into that.

I recently made a speech to conventional farmers in Vermont—and if there is ever a time to be open to organic dairy farming this is it because conventional milk is selling at 1978 prices with 2006 costs. They were interested in organics but at the same time the first thing they said was “I need to talk to my extension guys.”

Industry people need to do what they can to get the extension voice to be an advocate for organic. We all need to do a better job affiliating with these groups in terms of financial support, participation, field days, farm tours—anything to get them to invest in and talk about organics. If you don’t have money to give, offer food to support seminars or other events.

At Stonyfield, we’ve doubled our support of the University of New Hampshire’s Agricultural Research program, the nation’s first land grant university to have an organic dairy farm. These are the places where extension folks get their data.

OP: How does industry infighting, such as the disagreement over the Harvey v. Johanns case weaken the industry and how do we stop it from detracting from our productivity and unity?

Hirshberg: We are dragging ourselves down with all of the infighting and dirty laundry. Our disagreements are small in comparison with what we agree about but we are letting the disagreements get in the way of our progress.

Yesterday, for example, I was on a call with members of the OTA. They had compelling data that shows all the squabbling over the Harvey case has taken a toll and actually reduced the growth of organics. As an industry, we need to get our house in order. The public bickering is an enormous waste of time and money.

OP: Stonyfield Farm has often been lauded for its successful grassroots approach to marketing. How do you do it?

Hirshberg: Organic companies’ advertising costs are much higher and our margins are much lower than conventional companies, so we have to employ different tactics to get media attention. One thing that I know works is product sampling. But there is always an environmentalist edge to it so people come away knowing that not only is this great yogurt but that Stonyfield is a company that truly cares.

We would drive to rallies and marches in Washington. We would take the product to school, college and Earth Day events. We did an organic vending machine campaign to prove that if you give kids access to healthy organic food they will choose it. We put 44 machines in schools and got 57 million media impressions.

And recently in Chicago we gave samples to people who ride mass transit, because they’re doing something good for the environment. We were thanking them for riding public transit because, by avoiding the use of an automobile, they’re saving the production of about 45 pounds of carbon dioxide and about 78 pounds in total of airborne particulates per year.

We reached 85,000 people in three days and tripled our sales in that market. It also builds loyalty and helps us separate ourselves from all the other yogurt makers. It would have cost us a lot more to get that kind of impact through advertising.

OP: Do you believe there should be a global organic standard?

Hirshberg: Absolutely. It’s obvious to me that we have to address our supply problem by crossing borders but the discrepancies from region to region are a real problem. For example, in Europe organic milk powder is selling at conventional prices because there is no demand for it. We could use that milk powder and the farmers could get premium prices for it, but because their standard is not as rigorous as ours we couldn’t certify it to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards.

We would all win if we could find a way to reconcile. I know it won’t be easy. It will be a process, but it will happen. In the end our differences are less than our similarities and there is a will to get it done.

OP: Do you think the entrance into organics by mainstream companies is helping or hurting the industry?

Hirshberg: Playing Chicken Little and claiming the sky is falling because Wal-Mart is making space for organics is an absurd reaction because it is both inevitable and positive.

Mainstream companies moving into organics is a very good thing. I realize many people want to make this into some scary thing but I don’t share that vision. It’s positive for our industry and our species.

We’ve got to stop looking at ourselves as an exclusive club. We got into organics to change the world, and if you want to be about changing the world then you need to throw open the doors and let everyone in. If the big box retailers embrace organics it just validates the message.

I do think there are fears that the standard will get watered down and I agree we need to be concerned about that but we have several things going for us. Organics is the only industry pushing for more government regulation. We know the standard has to mean something concrete to consumers and the new entrants to the space won’t appreciate that any less than the old-timers.

To every big company that wants to enter our space I say “welcome” and “what can I do to help?” Whatever divisions we may all have about energy, or politics, or waste treatment, these are things we can work out. The important thing is that everyone is at the table to talk about organics.

OP: You mentioned a quote from George Siemen, CEO of Organic Valley, who said, “Pioneers don’t like settlers.” How does that reflect your own opinion of the changes the industry is dealing with as we move forward?

Hirshberg: We’ve all enjoyed the excitement of creating a new approach to agriculture, eating and living. It’s very heady stuff and it’s been exciting to be a part of it. But you are only successful if the revolution becomes part of mainstream. Otherwise, it’s just a blip in history.

A lot of folks are in it for the excitement of the revolution but they are not necessarily dedicated to organics as a new way for society to be. It’s great to keep fighting the fights—whether it’s about climate change, or reduction of fossil fuel use and so on, but we have to make this industry comfortable for the settlers. We need to take the core of what we do and make it an inviting place for people to be. Then we will have a chance to make things better for those who come after us, and after all, that’s the fundamental reason this industry came to be.