Organic Cotton Fraud isn’t the problem – it’s a symptom of a system that’s forgotten farmers
The Cotton Diaries community invites further media investigation into sustainable cotton systems and advocates for farmer-first solutions.
A New York Times article published last week uncovered the prevalence of certification fraud in the organic cotton industry. While we’re pleased that The New York Times turned attention to these issues, we hope this article will act as only the first chapter of a much deeper investigation that places farmers and farming communities at the heart of the story. We want the investigation to dig further into how the fashion industry can create the right ecosystem for farmers to pursue organic agriculture, without losing profits, without having to wait years for benefits, and without surveillance systems overtaking support systems.
At Cotton Diaries, it’s our mission to make cotton systems more sustainable, and one of the ways we do this is encouraging and supporting journalists to make the narrative around cotton fairer, more nuanced, and fact-driven.
This is a call for journalists, media and researchers to dig deeper.
As we spoke with our community members, friends and wider network about what comes next, some clear themes emerged. Below, we outline three key lenses through which we hope the journalists return to the subject, to present a vision for cotton that supports small scale farmers, protects the natural world and redistributes profit.
Credit: Swaminathan Vaithilingam, Kaskom
Farmer autonomy and the colonial mindset of certification
‘There’s only one problem: Much of the “organic cotton” that makes it to store shelves may not actually be organic at all,’ states the NYT article.
When it comes to the certification system which has been built around organic cotton farming, there are many more problems than one. Perhaps the root of the issue is a situation whereby standards for certification are developed in the West, and when farmers don’t or can’t comply at scale, the West seems to respond with ‘more surveillance’.
Fraudulent certification, which is the subject of the NYT piece, is a symptom of a wider system which sees Western (primarily European) countries dictate standards to farmers in places like India, Burkina Faso, Turkey and elsewhere. When farmers – who bear the cost and burden of converting their crops to organic standards – fail to meet requirements, surveillance and GMO tests are proposed as a solution instead of the very real and needed support from brands and governments that small scale farmers need in order to meet organic standards.
A top-down organic system where Western centric NGOs generate rules, checklists and tests for farmers (who in some cases have been producing cotton and food crops for generations before the advent of GMO seeds and chemical pesticides) is one way to do business. Yet if organic is truly about preserving soil health, respecting nature and improving farmer wellbeing, it must adapt to respect traditional knowledge. We hope that this article signals a moment for the organic certification system to revisit its standards, and include more input from farmers to shape organic criteria that’s achievable, profitable, and sustainable for them to implement.
The article does make an important point about brand culpability, stating, “...Increasingly brands were using their market power to negotiate the price of organic cotton down to the same price as conventional cotton or even cheaper because of its lower quality”. Here, the problem becomes about power. It takes the shape of an inverted pyramid whereby big brands hold the purse strings, Western NGOs, national and international governments and certification and accreditation bodies dictate standards, and farmers ultimately bear the cost of it all.
The paradox of purity and GMO tests
The NYT article points to GMO-testing as a fraud-proofing practice that can screen cotton for ‘organic purity’. The practicalities of testing for purity, however, negate organic’s own intentions to be a natural alternative to chemical farming.
“You could have planted completely clean [non-GMO] seed and had a bee come over to you from your neighbour's farm, pollinating one of your flowers, and your whole crop that was developed under organic principles and certified is going to be rejected.”
Image Credit: PAN UK
As one of our community members highlighted this week, “You could have planted completely clean [non-GMO] seed and had a bee come over to you from your neighbour's farm, pollinating one of your flowers, and your whole crop that was developed under organic principles and certified is going to be rejected.” Under a costly surveillance system that relies on GMO tests, farmers who better nature by going the organic route will essentially need to kill off the pollinators in their environment in order to comply. The notion of purity testing negates the reality of our natural world, in which ecosystems are interconnected and can’t exist under laboratory settings.
Purity, in an even wider sense, remains a problematic standard by which to measure organic products. This is because it’s a concept designed for the consumer and not the farmer, nor the soil. As uncovered in recent research we profiled by Cotton Diaries community member Dr. Jessie Luna, the prioritization of a ‘pure’ organic product over a product that actually leaves a positive impact on people and planet is flawed. While the NYT article tells consumers that their organic cotton t-shirt probably isn’t pure, consumers should be more concerned with whether or not that t-shirt indebted or empowered farmers, contaminated or regenerated soil, and helped or harmed climate change.
Following the money
When a company purchases organic cotton, they pay what’s known as a premium, an additional amount of money as compared to conventional cotton. The presumption is that this premium is paid because organic cotton costs more money to grow and certifications entities levy fees on suppliers at all stages of the chain. However, this premium can exceed by far the true cost of what it takes to grow, process and certify this organic cotton in the chain. The money that should be allocated to farmers for growing organic cotton too often fails to reach them and support their needs. Simply put, the organic cotton system has become highly profitable for those furthest away from the farm.
As Pesticide Action Network UK Executive Director, Keith Tyrell puts it, “Organic cotton is a multi-million dollar business. Someone is making an awful lot of money out of this, it’s just not the farmers!”.
“Organic cotton is a multi-million dollar business. Someone is making an awful lot of money out of this, it’s just not the farmers!”
- KEITH TYRELL, PAN UK
He was echoed by Crispin Argento, Managing Director of The Sourcery, “Imagine what we can do if this money were actually invested in farmers, and we had a sensible, modern and trustworthy chain of custody system that actually provided transparency, traceability and incentivized progress over fraud... If this money was invested at the farm, we could actually call cotton ‘sustainable’.”
Invest, from the ground up
In some capacity, the NYT article acknowledges that the system falls short of providing farmers with the investments, tools and support they need to go organic. “...Some industry insiders believe the only way for a brand to ensure its organic cotton is actually organic is to invest in farmers directly through credible organizations before any seed is even sown.”
“Organic is much more than just removing pesticides”, says Tyrell, “It requires farmers to be given an alternative pest management option. This requires training and support, and this costs money. Brands need to step up to the plate and pay for this (some already are). It’s not just the organic premium (which some - but not all - brands are willing to pay, and which reaches some - but not all - farmers). It’s about long term investment in farmers and their communities.”
This sentiment is supported by another community member: “Instead of brands spending lots of money with certifications, they should invest on agricultural teams and farmers.”
“Everyone wants to go window shopping when really you have work ground up”
- NISHANTH CHOPRA, OSHADI COLLECTIVE
Image Courtesy @Oshadi Collective
To conclude…
Both irresponsible conventional (chemically-intensive) cotton farming and a surveillance-driven approach to organic cotton share a unique feature – the exertion of human interference over nature and labour – which is inherently at odds with the initial intentions of organic farming and millennia of traditional practices.
Note: We hope the points raised here act as an open invitation for investigative journalists and media to dive further into the complexities of organic cotton certification and help us shape a fairer narrative around sustainable cotton. To get in touch, please email: hello@cottondiaries.com.
This article reflects the multitude of perspectives within the Cotton Diaries community and its expanded network. What stands true for some members, may not be applicable to others. Instead, this response is a collation of opinions and experiences from our network, which spans cultures, geographies and points in the supply chain.