I had a fascinating, “for background only” conversation yesterday (Dec. 5). Background interviews are one step up from “off the record,” which means that I can talk about our conversation, I just can’t tell you who the second party was. And background and off-the-record interviews are invariably much more interesting than on-the-record ones, naturally.
The interview was part of my research on “green” plants for the second article in Project: Green. An issue that keeps cropping up is how do you define when a plant has been grown in a sustainable manner?
For organic edible plants, there are nationally recognized programs in place with strict criteria. But each grower with a sustainable program has its own definition, whether it stems from the pots used, fewer inputs, plant selection, and on and on.
Programs that verify sustainability
There are certification programs out there. One is MPS, a European program that awards growers points for sustainable practices, with the highest combined total at 100 points. The giant international company, IKEA, for example, will buy plants in Europe only from MPS growers that rate an A.
The certification program that seems to be edging ahead here in the States, though, is Veriflora, which exists for the floral industry. Which leads me back to my background-only interview today with a man I will call Mystery Man.
Company offers standards for green industry
Mystery Man told me that California-based SCS (Scientific Certification Systems), a for-profit certification company, has created suggested standards for accepted sustainable practices for our industry and submitted them to ANSI (American National Standards Institute). SCS administers the Veriflora program. It’s also the company that verifies Starbucks’ suppliers use fair trade practices, and it certifies Home Depot’s new Eco Options program. There’s a rumor floating around that Wal-Mart is weighing whether to require its plant suppliers to be certified by Veriflora.
ANSI, if you recall, was the group that set the plant container volume standards for our industry that put everyone in a tizzy a year ago.
What has Mystery Man worried is that from what he can tell, SCS did not seek input from growers, either agricultural or horticultural, in creating the criteria for sustainable growing. If ANSI approves of SCS’s version, Mystery Man pointed out, then that version will become the reference point that government groups may use, and it can become a true standard that the industry is expected to abide by. Just like those plant pot volume standards.
Mystery Man wouldn’t be so worried if he hadn’t read the document over.
Too broad a base? As written, he told me, it would apply to those who grow or handle plants in pots -- pretty much the entire horticultural industry. It also applies to a very broad group of growers, applying the same requirements to food growers, greenhouse growers and field growers.
Reasonable labor rules? The criteria includes labor rules that go well beyond state and national levels, such as growers providing paid maternity leave if you want the highest rating. Genetically modified (GM) plants would be banned in this proposal. The problem with that is how do you define “genetically modified”? By the strictest definition, most hybrid plants are genetically modified. So who defines GM, and how?
One clause reflects how SCS drew from international sources: companies that do not have adequate schools or hospitals within an acceptable range will need to build schools and hospitals to provide for employees. That makes sense for a Nike factory on an isolated South Pacific island, but not for a grower in an isolated part of South Dakota or Montana.
Time to take notice
He is also suspicious of how quietly SCS submitted the proposed criteria to ANSI. Although the report was sent in April, a press release did not go out until late September. The first public forum for feedback was a month later in Berkley, Calif. Some industry folk that Mystery Man knew saw the press release, looked up the report, and began voicing concerns about what they saw.
By submitting the proposal to ANSI in April 2007, SCS started a 36-month clock where it must gather input on the document. The input will come from the public, from environmental groups and producers.
Mystery Man pointed out that much of the first year of that review period has already been used up. You can only assume that the last few months will be needed for the final wording before the revised and final draft is given to ANSI. So the horticultural industry has only about a year and a half to figure out how to make sure it’s voice is being heard.
Our industry, obviously, cares about sustainability and wants to improve current practices. But we’re in danger of letting those who do not understand growing define how to run our industry.
The answer is to figure out exactly what sustainability means to our industry. We need to create a criteria that is both ambitious in raising the sustainability bar and realistic about what growers are capable of doing financially.
-- Carol
Recent Comments