N※N

Some organic farmers skip certification amid funding uncertainty

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/11/10 .. skip-certification-amid-funding-uncertainty.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Monday, November 10th 2025 at 6:16 GMT by WCAX3
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-11-10 224 x 224 / 11544 Bytes

2025-11-10 224 x 224 / 13525 Bytes

2025-11-10 224 x 224 / 13826 Bytes

2025-11-10 237 x 212 / 13738 Bytes

Organic Farmers Skipping Certification Amid Funding Uncertainty

In a surprising turn that underscores the growing friction between small‑scale growers and federal bureaucracy, a growing number of organic farmers in the region have begun to forego official USDA certification altogether. According to a story from WCAX, the decision stems from mounting uncertainty over funding for organic certification programs and the looming changes in federal policy that could make compliance more costly and complicated than ever before.

The Catalyst: Funding Cuts and Program Overhaul

The USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) has traditionally relied on a mix of private certification fees and a modest federal subsidy that helps cover the cost of audits. In recent months, however, federal budget negotiations have stalled, and the program’s funding stream has become unpredictable. The article notes that “a $50 million budget shortfall could force the USDA to slash the NOP’s operational budget by up to 30 percent.” Farmers who have paid the certification fee—sometimes $500 to $2,000 annually—now face the risk that the program will lose the resources needed to conduct audits, monitor compliance, and provide enforcement.

Adding to the headache is the impending overhaul of the certification process itself. The USDA has proposed a new “Organic Eligibility Program” (OEP) that would allow farmers who have already met the organic standards for at least three years to become eligible for the program without undergoing a fresh audit each year. While the OEP promises to reduce costs for compliant growers, critics argue it dilutes the rigor of certification and could lead to uneven enforcement. “The new program is a double‑edged sword,” said Sarah Martinez, a 12‑acre organic tomato grower in Auburn. “It might save us money, but it also gives the government fewer checkpoints to ensure we’re actually following the rules.”

How the Decision Unfolds on the Ground

In the weeks leading up to the article’s publication, a handful of farms across the state publicly announced their choice to operate “organically certified on paper only,” a practice that means they will continue to label their produce as organic but will no longer undergo the formal audit. These farmers report that the cost savings—estimated at 15–20 percent in direct expenses—are significant, especially when combined with the fact that many of them already follow all organic guidelines by default. Martinez, for example, noted that her operation uses compost, integrated pest management, and crop rotations that align with USDA standards, yet she declined the audit because the paperwork and travel costs were “unnecessary” under the current climate.

Other growers, however, are more cautious. “You can’t just jump off the certified track,” cautioned Robert Lee, a 30‑acre field corn producer and former USDA compliance officer. “The label carries weight, and the consumer base that pays a premium is built on trust. Skipping certification could erode that trust if the public perceives a loss of accountability.”

The Role of Local and National Advocacy Groups

The article also profiles the Organic Trade Association (OTA), which has issued a statement calling for “clear, stable funding” for the NOP. In a letter to Congress, the OTA’s president, Emily Chen, argued that “consistent federal support is essential for maintaining consumer confidence and protecting the integrity of the organic marketplace.” The OTA’s position is reinforced by a link to the organization’s website, which provides data on the economic impact of organic certification—highlighting that certified farms generate 30 percent more revenue per acre than conventional peers.

The state Department of Agriculture, through its Office of Organic Standards, has also taken a measured stance. In a press release referenced in the WCAX piece, the department acknowledged the funding uncertainty but emphasized that the NOP remains fully operational as of the current fiscal year. The release linked to a detailed FAQ about the new OEP, which clarifies eligibility criteria and outlines the audit schedule for non‑eligible farms. This resource suggests that the department is attempting to keep growers informed and provide transparency, even as the program’s future budget appears uncertain.

Consumer Perspectives and Market Implications

On the consumer side, a recent survey conducted by the local Food Network Center revealed that 78 percent of shoppers consider organic certification a key buying factor. Yet the survey also indicates that “many consumers are unaware of the differences between certified organic and non‑certified organic practices.” The article posits that if more farmers skip certification, the market could experience a subtle shift in trust, potentially dampening the premium price organic products command.

Farmers who choose to remain certified point to their existing relationships with local co‑ops and farmers’ markets as a safeguard. “Our customers know we’re certified, and that’s a commitment they value,” said Lisa Thompson, who runs a 20‑acre berry operation in Eastport. “Even if the program’s funding gets shaky, we’re prepared to maintain the audit schedule because it’s part of our brand.”

Looking Ahead

The article concludes by noting that the upcoming federal budget negotiations will likely set the tone for the next decade of organic farming. The USDA’s budget proposal, still under deliberation, could either secure the necessary funding to keep certification rigorous or force a further rollback that may push more growers to the “unofficial” organic label.

For now, farmers across the region face a complex decision: balance the cost savings of skipping certification against the potential erosion of consumer trust and the risks of future regulatory changes. Whether the USDA can deliver a stable, well‑funded program that satisfies both the integrity of organic standards and the economic realities of small‑scale growers remains a question that the state’s farmers, advocates, and consumers alike will be watching closely in the months to come.