April 2005
UC study shows farmworkers not addressed by organic agriculture
Because organic agriculture rules prohibit many toxic pesticides, and organic producers are perceived as social activists, consumers may assume that farmworkers get more benefits from organic production than conventional agriculture. However, organic certification doesn’t specify working conditions for farm labor.
“Agriculture in general doesn’t provide employment benefits found in most other sectors such as medical insurance and retirement plans,” said Gail Feenstra, food systems analyst with the UC Davis-based statewide Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP) and co-author of the study.
“We found that even though organic products often bring higher prices, in most cases, it doesn’t make enough for small- and mid-sized farmers to be ‘socially sustainable,’” Feenstra said. “Organic growers themselves may not have health insurance, and often can’t pay for worker insurance.”
Feenstra; Christy Getz, assistant Cooperative Extension specialist at UC Berkeley; and Aimee Shreck, SAREP postdoctoral researcher, analyzed surveys from almost 200 California organic farmers to find out what conditions laborers face and what the farmers thought their “social responsibility” to workers should be.
The study results were surprising, Shreck said.
Even though fair, safe, healthy and equitable working conditions for hired labor are considered central to agricultural labor certification programs, less than half the surveyed growers wanted them to be required, she said.
“It is important to recognize that growers may agree with these ideas, but they disagree that organic certification is the way to address them,” Shreck said. “Some told us that even though they personally believe organic agriculture should provide fair and healthy working conditions for farmworkers, they find that it just isn’t economically possible for them at this time given the realities of the market.”
The majority of those responding were small- and mid-sized growers who farm 50 acres or less and report less than $50,000 in annual sales. Two-thirds of the responding farmers hire workers in addition to their own families.
“We asked about specific areas that could be adopted by organic certifiers, such as a requirement to provide health insurance or pay living wages,” she said. Most respondents felt that such measures would be too hard on them financially.
“Amazingly, about 40 percent of the respondents ‘strongly disagree’ with one of the proposed requirements, to ‘respect farmworkers’ right to bargain collectively,’ even though it is already required by California law [under the Agriculture Labor Relations Act of 1975],” said Getz.
Findings from this study provide insight into what organic agriculture might mean for farmworkers, she said.
“We did find important exceptions to these results -- farmers whose practices are atypical, yet show that under some circumstances an organic production system can be environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable,” Getz said. “We’re looking more closely at these examples.”
The authors concluded that to create production conditions that are favorable to a broader view of “socially sustainable,” change is needed in the entire food system.
“Labor issues within the sustainable agriculture and organic communities must be examined in the context of the entire food chain -- production, processing, distribution and consumption,” Getz said. “That’s when ag will be truly sustainable -- ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible.”
To read more on study methods and data, link to "Farmworkers in organic agriculture: Toward a broader notion of sustainability," at: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/newsltr/v17n1/sa-1.htm.
Media Contacts:
Lyra Halprin, (530) 752-8664, lhalprin@ucdavis.edu
