The Shadow in the Field: Unearthing the Gaps in Organic Growers Group Certification

The allure of organic certification lies in its promise: food grown without synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or GMOs, adhering to strict environmental and ethical standards. However, when it comes to Organic Growers Group Certification, a process designed to simplify certification for small farmers, cracks in the system reveal a less-than-ideal reality.

Imagine a farmer in a remote village who is part of an organic growers group. He has attended meetings, followed guidelines, and harvested his produce with the understanding that it will fetch a premium price under the organic label. But in many cases, the journey from field to market reveals a story riddled with gaps, manipulation, and missed checks that undermine the integrity of the certification process.

The Inspection Dilemma: Who Gets Checked?

Under the Organic Growers Group Certification scheme, third-party certification bodies (CBs) are tasked with ensuring compliance by conducting annual inspections. According to organic certification guidelines, the farmers selected for inspection must be chosen by the certification body based on a risk assessment of criteria outlined by the Internal Control System (ICS). The ratio percentage based on the risk of farmers group (Bigger the group, Higher the risk) to be inspected is determined by these risk factors and the total number of farmers in the group. This approach ensures that the selection process is fair and unbiased, free from potential influence by the operator managing the growers group. However, when this policy is not strictly followed, significant issues arise.

A critical flaw in some cases is that the list of farmers for inspection is instead provided by the operator, not independently selected by the CB. This deviation from protocol creates opportunities for bias and manipulation, with the potential to shield certain farmers from scrutiny. While regulations require a representative sample of farmers to be inspected, anecdotal evidence suggests that as many as 80% of farmers in a group may never see a CB inspector on their fields or neither the ICS internal auditors. Their practices remain undocumented and unchecked, relying solely on the operator-managed ICS. Without third-party oversight, the ICS becomes a system vulnerable to exploitation and at the outmost is the competent authorities lacking competency to handle the ground level issues, "its difficult to create policy but to execute it effectively, who and how is it ensured the system is Robust.

Commingling and Conventional Product Manipulation: The Elephant in the Room

In a system where most farmers evade direct scrutiny, operators are left with significant power over the integrity of the supply chain. Commingling of organic and conventional products becomes an all-too-real possibility. Operators, aware of the lack of oversight, can intentionally or unintentionally include conventional produce in organic shipments, undermining consumer trust.

Furthermore, stories from the field suggest that some operators may exploit the anonymity of uninspected farmers, falsifying records to inflate organic produce volumes. In such cases, conventional produce is quietly mixed into the system, riding on the premium price tag of organic certification. This manipulation goes undetected because the stringency of inspection is often compromised.

The Cost of Stringency: A Double-Edged Sword

While rigorous inspections are vital to maintaining the integrity of the certification process, the associated costs can have far-reaching implications. Stringency by third-party certification bodies should not become a baton to enforce or inflate inspection rates to unmanageable levels. Inspection fees, coupled with the rising costs of testing, shipping, customs procedures, warehousing, and logistics, have made certification an expensive affair. These costs ultimately trickle down to retail prices, burdening consumers and limiting the market for organic products.

If these expenses continue to escalate unchecked, the organic certification system risks becoming unsustainable. Farmers may abandon certification due to its prohibitive costs, and the system itself may face a permanent halt. Retail prices can only be increased to a certain extent before they alienate consumers, threatening the very existence of the organic certification framework.

The Missing Link: Farmer Payments and Accountability

One of the most telling gaps in the system is the financial disconnect. How many farmers within a group actually sell their organic harvest? How many receive the promised premium for their efforts? These questions often go unanswered. Farmers may remain unaware that their produce has been sold under an organic label or might receive payments that do not reflect the market value of certified organic goods.

The lack of transparency in payments creates a breeding ground for exploitation. Operators, wielding unchecked power, can easily manipulate records to their advantage, leaving farmers with meager returns while reaping profits from falsely certified goods. For many farmers, the certification process becomes a bitter reminder of unfulfilled promises and systemic neglect.

The Human Cost of Oversight Failure

For farmers who genuinely adhere to organic practices, these systemic flaws represent more than financial loss. They erode trust in the certification process, disillusioning those who entered the system with hopes of better livelihoods and recognition for sustainable practices. It also tarnishes' the reputation of organic certification as a whole, casting doubt on its ability to uphold the very standards it claims to represent.

Bridging the Gaps: A Call for Reform

Restoring trust and integrity in Organic Growers Group Certification requires a collective commitment to strengthening policies and practices. Certification bodies must strictly adhere to the principle that farmer selection for inspection is based on risk status and determined solely by the third party. This approach removes any influence or bias from operators and ensures that the process remains transparent and accountable.

At the same time, inspections must strike a balance between rigor and feasibility. Overburdening the system with excessive inspection demands will only exacerbate the financial strain on all stakeholders. A more practical approach would be to optimize inspection strategies, focusing on high-risk areas while leveraging technology and data analytics to enhance efficiency.

Transparent systems for tracking farmer payments are equally critical. Farmers deserve to know how their produce is sold and at what price. This transparency ensures that premiums for organic goods reach those who worked for them. Leveraging digital traceability tools can help build a tamper-proof supply chain, ensuring that every step—from farm to market—is documented and verifiable.

Lastly, consumer awareness plays a pivotal role. Educating consumers about the challenges and complexities of organic certification creates informed demand for stricter oversight and better practices. Holding certification bodies accountable becomes a shared responsibility when consumers actively support reform efforts.

A System Worth Saving

The story of Organic Growers Group Certification is a cautionary tale of good intentions compromised by weak implementation and oversight. However, the solution does not lie in abandoning the system but in strengthening it. Farmers, operators, certification bodies, and consumers all have a role to play in ensuring that organic certification lives up to its promise. Only through collective effort, transparent practices, and a balanced approach to inspections can we ensure that the organic label remains a symbol of trust and integrity, benefiting both producers and consumers alike.

Azolafam lead by John-Jerry (Tochukwu) Ugwu crossed attention of how their services would evolve a Farm to Fork (FTF), Transparency, Trackability, Traceability to bridging the gap between Farmers, Third party bodies, First party bodies, Second party bodies, Govt organisations in the Safe food Organogram.

Organil Services highly recommend Mr. John Jerry & team of people Intelligent, Innovative, down to earth connected to mother nature especially to the farmers our custodians of the earth, sole intention of creating balance between latest technology and centralising the following with a app :

1.Transparent Marketplace: Azolafam bridges the gap between farmers and buyers, fostering sustainability, profitability, and community growth.

2. Empowering Farmers:We empower farmers by creating a mobile platform for them to meet and transact business with buyers at the best price.

3. Innovation in Agriculture:We drive innovation in the agricultural industry, bringing light to the agricultural sector of the world.

4. Sustainable Agriculture:We aim to create a future where agriculture is sustainable, profitable, and accessible to all.

References of https://www.azolafam.com/ contact @john-jerry , Azolafam Limited