Barriers to Organic Certification for BIPOC Farmers

We acknowledge that systemic racism has kept the organic movement from reaching its full potential.

According to 2017 Ag Census data, 

  • 92% of organic farmer owners identify as white, 

  • fewer than 1% of organic farmer owners identified as Black or African American, and 0.5% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. 

  • 98% of agricultural land is owned by white landowners.

Racist systems and policies have led to today’s inequities: we must consider how to support an equitable playing field. In this blog post, we outline some of the main barriers to organic certification. The information here is gathered from several sources, including:


#1) Land access

Land access is one of the greatest barriers to farming for all farmers, but Black, Indigenous, and other farmers of color (BIPOC farmers) experience this challenge at even higher rates than white farmers, due to histories of chattel slavery, violent land theft, discrimination from state programs, and more.

The National Young Farmers 2022 Survey shows that: 

  • 59% of all young farmers named finding affordable land to buy as “very or extremely challenging." - 65% of BIPOC farmers

  • 33% of young, BIPOC farmers shared that maintaining access to land was very or extremely challenging, compared to 17.4% of White farmers.

Secure land tenure is important for all farmers, but especially for organic producers, because of the time it takes to transition to organic, and the fact that soil health is built over time, and is not something you can take with you from farm to farm. Secure land tenure is almost a prerequisite for transitioning land to organic production.

#2) Access to capital  

National Young Farmers 2022 Survey found that 44% of survey respondents said that finding access to capital to grow their businesses was very or extremely challenging, and the rate increased to 54% for BIPOC farmers, 59% for Black farmers.

(OFRF) 2022 NORA report found that 27% of all organic farmers listed access to capital as one of their main challenges, and that rate increased to 53% for BIPOC farmers. 

The survey findings indicate BIPOC farmers are grappling with foundational challenges related to land, capital, and operating costs, which must be overcome before they can seriously consider organic certification and the costs associated with it.

These barriers certainly play a role in the disproportionately low percentages of certified organic farmers who identify as BIPOC. The country’s well-documented, extensive history of racial discrimination and economic disparity has made it much more difficult for BIPOC farmers to obtain the capital and financial resources they need to launch, maintain, or expand a farming or ranching operation. It also made holding onto one’s land far more difficult for BIPOC families and farmers due to laws and policies that stripped land ownership and rights, leading to extensive land loss over the 20th century. 

Congress and the White House have tried to make steps towards addressing this disparity, but these attempts have for the most part been blocked by lawsuits. 

In addition, some of the farmers who would certify organic are undocumented, and so are unable to access the financial incentives and capital programs available from the government.  

#3) Alignment of values

The organic program was birthed out of values, then put to paper. Now, more than 20 years later, for some the experience of the program is very regulatory and does not infuse the foundational values into its practices. The value-based culture of organic is sometimes missing from the culture of certification. Farmers who prioritize feeding and nourishing their people, the community around them, may be less motivated by a larger market share or a premium price associated with their products.  

Smaller-scale, diversified farmers are more likely to have personal relationships and credibility with their consumer, and thus feel less pressure to have an external arbiter of the value of their product. “They know I grow organic.” 

There’s also a lack of trust with USDA given the history and legacy of discrimination USDA itself has acknowledged, and the idea of having a program embedded in this agency scrutinize everything in their farming operation may not be appealing to BIPOC farmers. 


#4) Language & Cultural sensitivity  

The lack of materials in languages other than English is often brought up as a barrier, and has led to changes we applaud (for example, the USDA National Organic Program has made materials available in Spanish). However, we can’t stop there - there's an assumption that if we just provide materials in Spanish, everything can go exactly as it would with another population.

For example, some immigrant farmers need to know these rules–and from their perspective, they’re coming with *no* institutional knowledge. What would it look like to really reshape the process to start with where they are?

In addition to the language barrier, we’ve included “cultural sensitivity” for lack of better term, in this category. Though there is no data on certifier staff demographics, there’s an assumption that most certifiers and inspectors are white. The ease of working with someone from your background or someone that looks like you is often taken for granted by white folks. Having more certifiers and inspectors of color could make a significant impact on making the space feel more welcoming to producers of color.

Some of the regulatory language can be very off-putting, especially for communities who have been systematically discriminated against or experienced police brutality and incarceration at disproportionate rates. The organic certification language was sometimes referred to as “carceral” by BIPOC farmers, with words such as “inspection”, “non-compliant”, “regulatory” being used so much in the certification process.  Even more than that, some BIPOC farmers have said they experienced a posture of policing from some inspectors.

#5) Organic Certification process is burdensome

The organic certification process requires extra time that most limited resource farmers don’t have. If farmers are already fighting for access to land, access to capital, access to USDA programs, etc., finding the time to navigate the organic certification process may not be worth the perceived value added.  

This barrier can be even greater for farmers with a language barrier, some older farmers, and/or small farmers with limited access to technology. 

#6) Gaps in partnership, outreach, and relevant Technical assistance

 This gap varies widely region by region. For example, at a pre-NOSB meeting in Atlanta in the spring of 2023, we heard from local farmers about the significant lack of local organic expertise and experience, the lack of resources and relevant research adapted to their region, climate, and markets, and the lack of local certifiers. This lack of local certifiers make it both hard to access relevant information, but also expensive to pay for an inspection. 

There is also a significant lack of long-term, authentic partnerships with local organizations serving and representing BIPOC communities. Although USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach is working  to reach underserved farmers, BIPOC farmers and young farmers are often not on the radar of county offices. According to the National Young Farmers 2022 Survey:

  • 71% of young farmers are unaware of USDA programs that could help them., and

  • 72% percent of Black young farmers reported never or rarely receiving outreach about federal farm programs.

There are many organizations representing and serving BIPOC farmers. If we want the organic movement to be truly equitable and inclusive, we need to make sure that organic resources and information are available and relevant to organizations who already serve BIPOC farmers, and have the relationships and trust that is needed.  

 

Most, if not all of the barriers are barriers for all farmers, but the barriers are even more burdensome, or experienced at higher rates, for BIPOC farmers. Addressing these barriers would help all farmers. Addressing these barriers is a crucial step towards a more equitable organic movement. However, it cannot be the only step. We need to remove the barriers that have excluded people from the organic movement, to build relationships and trust. Then, together, we can talk about our greater goal and shape our path towards a just and healthy food system for the people and the planet. It is wrong that we have been acting as organic movement out of relationship with BIPOC people - we need to change this and hold ourselves accountable.




Alice Runde