4“
I 3;;

 

b-__

‘Q‘

w

ww-

 

.. .
‘4’."335
; n

'2‘...

i‘ is“.
13%

ff ';
35:.

9
-s
‘i

31‘
us“

X

1.x
._ m

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

WHERE ARE THE MOVEMENTS GOING?: COMPARISONS

AND CONTRASTS BETWEEN THE TEIKEI MOVEMENT IN

JAPAN AND COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE IN
THE UNITED STATES

presented by

NAOKI OKUMURA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Resource Development

 

Major Professor’s Signature

W24, 2001/

Date

 

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/C|RC/DateDue.p65-p.15

WHERE ARE THE MOVEMENTS GOING?: COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS
BETWEEN THE TEIKEI MOVEMENT IN JAPAN AND COMMUNITY
SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES
By

Naoki Okumura

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Resource Development

2004

ABSTRACT
WHERE ARE THE MOVEMENTS GOING?: COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS
BETWEEN THE TEIKEI MOVEMENT IN JAPAN AND COMMUNITY
SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES
By
Naoki Okumura

The two alternative agriculture initiatives were created from people’s concern for
the industrialization and globalization of food systems: the Teikei movement in Japan and
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in the US. Teikei and CSA, which were
initiated in the early 1970’s and the middle of 1980’s respectively, successfully expanded
as an alternative food distribution. However, the original phiIOSOphy of Teikei and CSA
largely degraded. Moreover, the Teikei movement struggles with large active
membership decline. This paper raises the questions. Where are Teikei and CSA going?
Will CSA face the similar membership erosion like Teikei a decade later?

This paper reviews the history, concept and current situation of Teikei and CSA.
Then, the similarities and differences in Teikei and CSA are explored concerning their
history and concept, and the relationship between (1) farmers and consumers, (2) farms
and communities, (3) farms and the organic agriculture movement. While consumer-led
Teikei focuses on organic agriculture, farmer-initiated CSA advocates local food systems.
However, both Teikei and CSA intensified commodity-focused, market relationship
between farmers and consumers in spite of the notion of mutual commitment. Moreover,
Teikei and CSA farmers worked harder and gave more commitment exploiting their
health. It is more important to steadily increase community farms to keep the integrity

and viability of the Teikei and CSA movements.

COPyright by
NAOKI OKUMURA
2004

Dedicated to my grandfather, Tadashige, died in July, 2003

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is the final work of my study in the US. for four years. I believe I have
learned more than I have in my life and have had a lot of support from my family, friends,
professors and farmers. Dr. George Rowan always took into consideration my academic
work since I came to the US. four years ago. He is not only my academic advisor but
also my mentor who took care of my daily life in the US. I would like to acknowledge
my committee professors, Dr. Jim Bingen and Dr. Laura DeLind. Dr. Bingen always
encouraged me about my thesis work. Dr. DeLind helped me learn a lot about Teikei and
CSA and led me to focus on my thesis. I also would like to thank Dr. Kim Chung, who
patiently took care of my study about community development class, which I was most
interested in.

Judy Reinhardt and Jim Schwantes always welcomed me and my wife, Noriko, to
visit their CSA farm, Sweeter Song Farm in Cedar, Michigan. I met Judy and Jim at the
small farmer conference in Michigan in January 2003. They invited us for dinner with
tasty, fresh food from their farm. I could often refresh my mind and stomach before
leaving their farm. They also took care of me and my wife well when we even had a car
accident on the way to their farm.

I also would like to thank Kristen Markley, a manager of Sweet Meriam’s Farm in
Beaver Springs, Pennsylvania. I met her in the Michigan Conference on Organic
Agriculture in March 2003. I stayed on her farm for several days when the summer farm
festival was held. Her CSA had most member involvement among the CSA farms I had
ever seen. I could share some work with her members in weeding, harvesting, and

produce distribution. I realized how tough it is to grow produce organically through

fighting against many bags around me; however, beautiful scenery surrounded by
mountains and lightning bugs in the evening relieved my mind. I enjoyed talking with
the members and a yoga class which was instructed by a member in the farm. I also
learned a lot about farming from two interns at the farm, Steve from New Zealand and
Henna from England.

I also appreciate Professor Hiroko Kubota, a director of Japan Organic
Agriculture Association (JOAA) and Shinji Hashimoto, a Teikei farmer. We all
participated in the first international symposium on local contracts between farmers and
consumers in southern France in February 2004. Professor Kubota gave me a great deal
of information about the Teikei movement and an opportunity to speak about Teikei and
CSA in the Japan Organic Agriculture Research Conference in December 2003. I was
also inspired from Shinji’s ambitions for the future of Teikei. He also told me the real
picture of Teikei farmers. He gave me much enthusiasm to work for the development of
agriculture in Japan.

My friends, Masa, Osamu, Junichi encouraged me a lot about my study and thesis
work when we were studying in the library. Masa, as a doctoral student at MSU, gave
me a lot of advice and many insights on my topic for the process of thesis writing. We
traveled together visiting CSA and local farms in the summer of 2003. Chifumi also
inspired me about agriculture in Japan, especially organic agriculture in Okinawa.

I had a lot of help with my writing from Colleen and Chad at the MSU Writing
Center. They have read through my thesis and worked with me on English grammar,

vocabulary and paragraph organization.

vi

Finally, I could not complete my work without my family support back in Japan.
They have always supported my study at MSU even though it took a great deal of time to
complete my work. I also would like to thank my wife, Noriko, for patiently waiting for
the completion of my thesis work. We got married just before completing this thesis and
we will start our new life back in Japan. I would like to start my new learning journey in

Japan and work for the development of Japanese agriculture.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Problem for Current Food Production and Distribution Systems ...................... l
1.2 Community Supported Agriculture and the Teikei Movement ................................ 6
1.3 Research Questions and Directions .......................................................................... 9
1.4 Thesis Overview ..................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: History and Philosophy of the Teikei Movement ........................................... 12
2.1 Introduction: the Teikei Movement in Japan ......................................................... 12
2.2 Original Concept and Philosophy of the Teikei Movement ................................... 15
2.3 How Does Teikei Work? ........................................................................................ 18
2.4 Emergence of the Teikei Movement ....................................................................... 21
2.4.1 Industrialization and Globalization of Food Systems in Japan ........................ 21
2.4.2 Initiation of the Japan Organic Agriculture Association and the Teikei Groups
................................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.3 Influence of Mass Media in the Teikei Movement .......................................... 25
2.5 The Teikei Movement and the Consumer Cooperative Movement ........................ 27
2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 31
Chapter 3 Change and Current Situation of the Teikei Movement .................................. 32
3.1 Relationship between Farmers and Consumers ...................................................... 32
3.1.1 Background of Teikei Participants ................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Four Types of Teikei Groups in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan .............................. 35
3.1.3 Stagnation of the Teikei Movement ................................................................. 37
3.1.4 Movement Leadership by Consumers ............................................................. 39
3.1.5 Communication Gap between F arrners and Consumers .................................. 40
3.2 Relationship between Teikei Groups and Their Communities ............................... 44
3.2.] Group Activities of the Teikei Movement. ...................................................... 44
3.2.2 Empowerment of Consumers and Isolation of Farmers from Rural
Communities ............................................................................................................. 45
3.2.3 Case Study of the Teikei Movement in Takahata Village, Yamagata Prefecture
................................................................................................................................... 47
3.3 Relationship between Teikei Groups and Organic Agriculture Movement ............ 60
3.3.1 Three Major Booms of Organic Agriculture .................... 60
3.3.2 Diversification of Marketing Channels for Organic Produce .......................... 62
3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 64

viii

Chapter 4 History and Philosophy of CSA Movement ..................................................... 66

4.1 Introduction: CSA Movement in the US. .............................................................. 66
4.2 Original Concept and Philosophy of CSA .............................................................. 68
4.2.1 Initiation of Community Farm ......................................................................... 68
4.2.2 Perspectives for CSA by Robyn Van En and Trauger Groh ............................ 69
4.2.3 Purpose of CSA activities ................................................................................ 71

4.3 How Does CSA Work? ........................................................................................... 75
4.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 78
Chapter 5 Change and Current Situation of CSA ............................................................. 80
5.1 Relationship between Farmers and Members ......................................................... 80
5.1.1 Background of CSA Participants ..................................................................... 80
5.1.2 Diversification of CSA Characteristics ............................................................ 82
5.1.3 CSA as Marketing Strategy ............................................................................. 84
5.1.4 Unequal Commitment of CSA Farmers and Members .................................... 85

5.2 Relationship between CSA Farms and Their Communities ................................... 89
5.3 Relationship between CSA Farms and Organic Agriculture Movement ................ 92
5.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 95
Chapter 6: Comparisons and Contrasts of Teikei and CSA .............................................. 97
Teikei in Japan .......................................................................................................... 98

6.1 Comparison of Philosophy and History in Teikei and CSA ................................... 99
6.2 Comparison of Change and Current Situation in Teikei and CSA ....................... 102
6.2.1 Relationship between Farmers and Members ................................................ 102
6.2.2 Relationship between Farms and Their Communities ................................... 107
6.2.3 Relationship between Farms and Organic Agriculture Movement ................ 112

6.3 Reflections and Continuing Questions .................................................................. 115
6.3.1 Study Reflections ........................................................................................... 115
6.3.2 Future Study Recommendations .................................................................... 121
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 124
Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 125
Appendix B ................................................................................................................. 126
Appendix C ................................................................................................................. 129
Appendix D ................................................................................................................. 131
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 146
English Literature ........................................................................................................ 147
Japanese Literature ...................................................................................................... 151

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Development of Community Supported Agriculture Worldwide: The Main

Countries ..................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. The Ten Principles of Teikei .............................................................................. 16
Table 3. Food Self-Sufficiency Rate in Japan .................................................................. 22
Table 4. Population and Farming Land in Developed Countries (Year 2000) ................. 23
Table 5. Obstacles Organic Farmers Faced for the First Time ......................................... 33
Table 6. Focal Points and Reasons for Agricultural and Organic Produce Purchase ....... 33
Table 7. Types and Characteristics of Teikei Groups ....................................................... 36
Table 8. The Focus of Activity in the Teikei Movement .................................................. 44
Table 9. Purpose of CSA Activities .................................................................................. 72
Table 10. Two Models of Alternative Agriculture in Japan and the US. ........................ 98

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Total Number of Teikei Consumer Groups ....................................................... 13
Figure 2. Model of the Teikei Movement ......................................................................... 18
Figure 3. Rate of Food Self-Sufficiency in Developed Countries .................................... 22
Figure 4. Farming Land Area in Japan (Year 2002) ......................................................... 22
Figure 5. Decision-Making Process in Teikei ................................................................... 41
Figure 6. Decision-Making Process in CSA ..................................................................... 76

xi

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 The Problem for Current Food Production and Distribution Systems

Fresh food, on the average, travels 1,300 miles from producers to shelves in
grocery stores in the US. where most states produce about 10-15% of their own food
(Paxton 1994; UME 2003). New food technologies as additives, radiation and
conservation are created not for the purpose of quality but for the purpose of long-
distance transportation, longer storage and a pleasing appearance (Groh and McFadden
1997:6). Most of what we pay for food goes not to producers but to the middle operators
and companies that process and transport the food. In fact, 90 percent of the food value
of processed products goes to the chopping, blending, cooking, extruding, packaging,
distributing, and advertising (Henderson and Van En 1999:17). Farmers, who actually
grow food, do not get paid enough to keep their operation (Henderson and Van En 1999).
Consumers spend their money for symbols rather than substance and they pay for food
with fewer calories, less salt, and no saturated fats (DeLind 2003a).

The family farms have been victims of a relentless marketplace in the US. Small
and middle-size family operated farms are rapidly diminishing. Public policy has been
pushing farms to “get bigger or get out” since the 1950’s (Henderson and Van En
1999:13). Corporate farms prioritize short-run economic advantage over the long-term
considerations of the relationship between farming system and the earth (Groh and
McFadden 1997zxiii). As few as fifty thousand farmers supply 75 percent of agricultural
production in the US. from 50 percent of the farmland with high-tech based efficient

production technologies including genetically engineered seeds, chemical pesticides and

fertilizers (Henderson and Van En 1999:11). In an industrialized agriculture, an
estimated 300,000 farm workers suffer from pesticide-related illnesses every year in the
US. (Williamson, Irnbroscio, and Alperovitz 20021258). People are losing control in the
food systems which are dominated by several multinational corporations which control
the trading market, storage, transport and food processing (Henderson and Van En 1999).

Many food products are imported to the US. These products are not only coffee,
chocolate, and bananas, but also produce that can be raised nationally (Henderson and
Van En 1999). Tomatoes come all the way from Mexico following the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
allowed apples from China to crowd out the apples produced in the US. (Henderson and
Van En 1999:3). Food travels longer distances following the free trade agreements.
While large corporate farms in the US. produce tons of crops most of which are exported
to other countries, at the same time it imports a lot of other agricultural produce such as
fruits and vegetables.

The large corporate farms in the US. supply their crops to Japan. Japan largely
depends on food from the US. and other countries. The food consumed in Japan travels
much further than in the US. Tim Lang, a food policy researcher at Thames Valley
University in England, proposed the concept of food mileage that is calculated as the
distance food travels multiplied by the amount of food imported. In 2000, food mileage
per person in Japan was 4,000tkm (ton kilometer'), while its rate in the US. was 500tkm
(MAFF 2003). The calorie-based food self-sufficiency rate in the country, which started
to decline in the 1960’s following the trade-based economic development, is now below

40 percent (MAF F 2003). National food security is threatened. The dependence on food

 

' 1 km (kilometer) is 0.625 mile.

from overseas spoiled Japanese agriculture and influences the food stock in the
international agricultural market which supplies food not only to Japan, but also to many
poor countries which have less food.

Much money goes to food processing as well in Japan. Most farmers are part-
time because they do not get paid enough from farming. The farming population is aging
and few young people start farming. Many farmers suffered from chemical pesticides
and fertilizers and food was seriously contaminated due to these chemicals and additives
when the industrialization of agriculture started in Japan in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Many
farmers were serious because of debt incurred by the cost of new technology. Loss of
new farmers in Japan implies that people see no hope for Japanese agriculture and no
pleasure in industrialized factory-like farming.

Both Japan and the US. have become more dependent on food which is produced
far from consumers due to the prosperity of large agri-industry and the globalization of
food systems. However, the concern of people regarding the detriment of current food
systems and agricultural industrialization created two alternative agriculture initiatives in
Japan and the US. These initiatives, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and the
Teikei movement, seek to establish new agriculture in which producers and consumers
are drawn closer to each other.

Producers and consumers create a direct relationship for the distribution of fresh
and safe food in CSA and Teikei. The Teikei movement emerged in the 1970’s and CSA
was initiated a decade later. Many Teikei farmers are interested in the reasons for the
current popularity of CSA in the US. How can they revitalize the Teikei movement?

Many Japanese agriculture-related articles recently introduce the philosophy and concept

of CSA in the US. and Show its popularity in the country (Furusawa 2001; Honjo 2000;
Kodama 2003; Miyoshi 1998; Sawanobori 2003; Groh and McFadden 1996; Steinhoff
1998; Tsutaya 2003; Yamamoto 2001). The Japan Organic Agriculture Association

(J OAA), which is the national representative of the Teikei movement in Japan, invited a
CSA leader, Elizabeth Henderson, from the US. to visit. She gave a lecture on CSA and
alternative agriculture marketing for Teikei farmers and members (J OAA 2003;
Henderson 2003a and 2003b).

An older Teikei participant mentioned (J OARC 2003) that the significance of the
Teikei relationship was realized again in Japan inspired by the recent popularity of CSA
in the US. Many Japanese people came to visit the US. for their business and some of
them, who were interested in fresh food and farming activities, participated in CSAs
during their stay in the US. These people often became interested in the Teikei
movement in Japan. The author was inspired by the idea of CSA in the US. and
moreover, very surprised to know about the Teikei movement which is a similar
movement in my home country, Japan.

The movement of direct local contract or partnership between farmers and
consumers began to spread worldwide. Association pour le Maintien de l’Agriculture
Paysanne (AMAP), which is a French version of CSA, recently emerged in Aubagne,
southern France. AMAP is becoming a viable strategy to protect local family-operated
farms from the inflation of land price and the resort development pressure along the
Mediterranean coast areas of south France. Alliance Paysans Ecologistes
Consommateurs (APEC), which is a representative of AMAP, shows the number of

CSAs in several countries.

 

 

Table 1. Development of Community Supported Agriculture Worldwide: The Main

 

 

Countries
Country Japan UK Quebec (Canada) France USA
Number of CSA 500 to 1,000 100 60 30 1,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: APEC 2004 (Estimation 01/2004)

The first international symposium on local contracts between farmers and
consumers was held in southern France in February 2004. The leaders and researchers in
the initiative came from various countries such as Japan, United States, Canada, United
Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, France, Brazil, Senegal, Morocco and many more. The
success of CSA in the US. appears to influence the direct partnership between farmers
and consumers in other countries. Edith Vuillon, who is a French architect in the urban
planning project in New York City, was inspired by many CSA projects going on in New
York City. She helped the initiation of AMAP in France. A representative at the
symposium from Buschberghof CSA in Germany mentioned that the cooperative
activities in Germany were not organized like CSAs; however, the original idea of CSA
in the US. was inspired from the cooperative activities in Germany. He says Trauger
Groh brought the idea of CSA to the US. from Germany and they now learn about local
economy and agriculture from the active CSAs in the US. CSA, or similar type
activities, began to develop in many countries to support their local farmers and
agriculture that struggle with the globalized food systems and industrialized agriculture.

It is becoming more important to explore the common implications to keep the integrity
and viability of the initiatives worldwide to support local agriculture and food systems in

each country.

 

1.2 Community Supported Agriculture and the Teikei Movement

Concerned with the growth of industrialized agriculture and the decline of small
family farms, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) was brought to the US. in the
middle of the 1980’s. CSA is an organization of food producers and consumers
(described as shareholders or members) who share the responsibilities, risks, and benefits
of farming (Cone and Myhre 2000; DeLind 2003a; Groh and McFadden 1997). CSA
provides fresh food, protects farmers and farmland, detaches from corporate food and
shares in a farm and its produce. CSA activities facilitate the revitalization of local
economy, democratic food distribution, environmental protection and the accessibility of
fresh and safe food. CSA has successfully grown as an alternative food distribution
system over the last decade (DeLind and Ferguson 1999). CSA has now expanded to
more than 1,000 in the US, especially concentrated in the Northeast, the West Coast,
and the cities of Madison, Wisconsin and Minneapolis, Minnesota (Groh and McFadden
1997; Ostrom 1997).

An agricultural movement of direct partnership between farmers and consumers
in Japan is called the “Teikei” movement. The philosophy of Teikei movement has many
similarities with the concept of CSA. Robyn Van En mentioned “I was amazed how
similar each of our concerns and visions were for Teikei and CSA and for the future of
agriculture as the basis of all culture (Henderson and Van En 1999:xvi).” Trauger Groh
explains that a new agricultural practice through direct partnership of farmers and
consumers, “known as community farms or CSAs, started as simple, isolated test plots”
in the 19703 in Japan and Europe, and arrived in the mid-19803 in the United States

(Groh and McFadden 1997:vii).

Teikei means “partnership” or “cooperation” in Japanese. Robyn Van En
(Henderson and Van En 1999:xvi) translated it with a more philosophical meaning as
“food with the farmer’s face on it” following the explanation of a Teikei member, Mrs.
Setsuko Shirane. She realized the face-to-face relationship between farmers and
members is the most critical aspect of the Teikei movement (Kubota 2003). The Teikei
movement was initiated in the early 1970’s through the cooperation of farmers who were
concerned with the industrialization of agriculture and consumers or housewives who
sought safe and organic products (Arakawa 1995; Hatano 1998b; Kubota 2001; Aoki
1998). The movement largely expanded in Japan over decades under the influence of
active housewives in the consumer cooperative movement of the country.

Both CSA and Teikei advocate the mutual relationship between farmers and
consumers. However, CSA is often created by a farmer and local neighbors while Teikei
is formed between several farmers and consumers or farmers’ groups and consumers’
groups. Members in CSA usually prepay for their shares all at once before the growing
season, but consumers in Teikei pay for their shares on a monthly basis.

Many Teikei farms are quite small and intensively farmed. It is common to have
a group of several farmers, dispersed throughout the countryside, networking with groups
of many households to supply a consistent and diverse selection of products throughout
the year (Henderson and Van En 1999:xvi).

Farmers and consumers create a mutual relationship through supporting the farms
financially and sharing farming and produce distribution work. Teikei and CSA are
hybrid institutions that not only engage in food production and distribution, but also

conduct educational activities and community outreach programs (DeLind 2003 a; Hatano

1998b). Teikei groups engage in group studies about food safety and health concerns;
and they conduct rallying and lobbying to protect local agriculture and rural environment.
CSA groups work for food and farming education such as home food processing classes
and opening farms and improve local food security by providing fresh fruits and
vegetables to food pantry and soup kitchens. Because of this mutual partnership in
Teikei and CSA, they differ from other direct marketing strategies such as farmer’s
markets, farm stands and mail deliveries of produce.

Both Teikei and CSA largely expanded after a decade of their initiations.
However, many leaders and researchers in Teikei and CSA have lamented that the
original philosophy of the movements disintegrated following the growth of the group
size and the popularity of the movements (Henderson and Van En 1999; Groh and
McFadden 1997; Kubota and Masugata 1992). For example, Teikei and CSA members’
engagement in farming work is not obligatory but optional. The larger the network of the
Teikei groups became, the less farmers and consumers kept a face-to-face relationship
(Kubota and Masugata 1992). CSA struggles with high member tum-over rate and fails
to include low-income families (DeLind 2003a; Hinrichs 2002). The dilemma emerged
when the ideals of Teikei and CSA were practiced in a market-centered, commodity-
driven society. Participants in Teikei and CSA had to struggle with the adj ustrnent of

their practice between economic interest and civic responsibility or community building.

1.3 Research Questions and Directions

Then, the question, which is the theme of this paper, emerges. Indeed, the
number of the Teikei and CSA groups largely increased. However, have the two
movements of Teikei and CSA been developed or disintegrated? A similar question
follows. Are Teikei and CSA developing toward the “farms of tomorrow”? Have these
initiatives empowered local farmers and provided an alternative to an agriculture
dominated by the globalized food system?

This paper explores these questions by reviewing the philosophy, history and
development of Teikei and CSA. The paper focuses on:

1) How did Teikei and CSA start?

2) What is important within Teikei and CSA philosophy?

3) How were Teikei and CSA organized?

4) How did they evolve and grow?

The paper attempts to clarify the following points by comparing the two

movements of Teikei in Japan and CSA in the US:

a) What does this mean?

b) What implications can be drawn?
c) Problems

d) Strengths and weaknesses

This paper also raises an additional question; do Teikei and CSA have the same
fate? The Teikei movement was initiated about a decade earlier than CSA. While the
Teikei movement largely increased its membership after a decade of its initiation, the

movement currently struggles with the degradation of its viability. CSA is becoming

popular in the US. However, will the CSA movement also face the same situation as

Teikei ten years later?

10

1.4 Thesis Overview

The problems for current food systems and the significance of the alternative
agriculture models, CSA in the US. and Teikei in Japan, were described in the last
chapter. The research questions to be explored in this thesis were also set forth. In
Chapter 2, the original philosophy and history of the Teikei movement in Japan are
described. The difference between the Teikei movement and the consumer cooperative
movement is also described. Chapter 3 discusses the current situation of the Teikei
movement and how the movement was developed or changed over time. Chapter 3
considers changes in: (1) the relationship between farmers and consumers, (2) the
relationship between Teikei groups and communities and (3) the relationship among
Teikei groups, the Teikei movement as a whole and organic agriculture.

While Chapter 2 and 3 focus on the Teikei movement, Chapter 4 and 5 discuss the
CSA movement. Like the previous chapters, Chapter 4 describes the original philosophy
and history of CSA. Chapter 5 considers changes in CSA. Again an attention is paid to
the relationship between farmers and members, the relationship between CSA
farms/groups and community, and the relationship among CSA farrns/ groups, the overall
CSA movement and organic agriculture. In the final chapter, Teikei and CSA are
compared with respect to their: (1) original philosophy and history, (2) relationship
between farmers and consumers/members, (3) relationship between farms/ groups and
communities, (4) relationship among farms/ groups, the overall movement and organic
agriculture. Reflections and conclusions are included in this chapter as are

recommendations for strengthening the two related movements.

11

Chapter 2: History and Philosophy of the Teikei Movement
Chapter 2 and 3 discuss the Teikei movement in Japan. This chapter focuses on
the concept and philosophy of the Teikei movement and the background of the
emergence of the Teikei movement. The last section of this chapter also discusses the

difference between the Teikei and consumer cooperative movement in Japan.

2.1 Introduction: the Teikei Movement in Japan

Though the idea of community-based agricultural systems is as old as agriculture,
direct local partnership initiatives between farmers and consumers were begun in the
1960’s in Germany, Switzerland, and Japan (Groh and McFadden 1990). The partnership
between farmers and consumers in Japan is known as “Teikei” or “farmer’s face on it
[produce].” It is called “Sansho-Teikei.” In Japanese, “Sansho” means producers and
consumers, and “Teikei” means cooperation or partnership.

The Teikei movement was initiated through the cooperation of farmers who were
concerned with the industrialization of agriculture and the degradation of rural society,
and consumers, who were often housewives, sought organically grown and safe food
(Kubota 2001; Hatano 1998b; Aoki 1998). The Teikei movement represents a direct
relationship between consumer members who commit themselves to pay the full costs of
ecologically sound and socially equitable farming and farmers who have the
responsibility to provide safe and organically grown food to the consumer members
(Kubota 2001; Hatano 1998b; Aoki 1998). Consumers and farmers create a mutual

commitment in the Teikei relationship. They share works, feelings and risks in their own

12

 

food production and distribution. Moreover, they also engage in the issues they are
concerned such as environmental protection and food safety.

The Teikei movement largely expanded under the influence of the active
consumer cooperative movement in the 1970’s and the early 1980’s (Kubota 2003) (see
Figure 1).

Figure 1. Total Number of Teikei Consumer Groups
250
200

150
100

01
O

 

Number of Consumer Group

63 Q <f.) Q (I/ 5‘ <0 Q) ’\ Cb Q Q
Q) ’\ ’\ ‘2) Q) ‘b Q) Q) Q) ‘2) ‘b 9

I I I

Source: Kubota and Masugata 1992

The size of the consumers’ groups ranges from less than 10 families to more than
5,000, and there are 500 to 1,000 Teikei consumers’ groups (JOAA 1993). Many Teikei
groups around the Tokyo metropolitan area had created the relationship between large
farmers’ and consumer members’ groups including consumer cooperatives such as the
Seikatsu Club in which the consumer members often lived far from the farmers.
However, the Teikei groups in the Kansai areal had tended to maintain the relationship

between small consumers’ and farmers’ groups in which the members lived relatively

 

' The Kansai area is the second largest economic area in Japan located in the west part of the country
including Osaka, Kyoto, Hyogo, Shiga, Nara, and Wakayama prefectures.

13

close to the farmers (Hatano 1998a and 1998b) (see the map of Japan listed in Appendix
A). The next section discusses the original concept and philosophy of the Teikei

movement.

14

2.2 Original Concept and Philosophy of the Teikei Movement

Ideas from Buddhism, embedded in Japanese society, emphasize the local
nutrition cycles and sustainability in society, and influence the philosophy of Teikei
movement. The Buddhism philosophy of “Shindo Fuji” means the soil and human soul
cannot be separated but stay together. People can stay healthy with the produce grown
with the soil on the land on which they live. “Chisan Chisho” has a similar meaning that
it is a natural rule to produce and consume locally.

Teruo Ichiraku, who is the founder of the Japan Organic Agriculture Association
(J 0AA), proposed the ten principles of Teikei at the 4th Annual Organic Farmer
Conference in Japan in November 1978 (see the principles listed in Table 2). The
principles reflect the actual practice of the pioneer Teikei groups. It was proposed for the
development of the Teikei movement with its integrity.

The principles express: (1) Teikei is not a food business relationship but a mutual
relationship between farmers and consumers for the practice of organic agriculture; (2)
farmers and consumers have to discuss the plan for planting a wide variety of crops, and
consumers have to buy all crops the farmers produce and depend their diet on the food
from the Teikei farms as much as possible; (3) The fee needs to be decided by discussion
between farmers and consumers and it basically has to have a stable fixed price.
Consumers pay fees based on their appreciation of farmers, not the cost of operation; (4)
Teikei participants has to keep a small group. When the membership increases, the

participants need to create another group.

15

Table 2. The Ten Principles of Teikei

 

1. Principle of mutual assistance

The essence of this partnership lies, not in trading itself, but in the friendly relationship
between people. Therefore, both producers and consumers should help each other on the basis of
mutual understanding. This relation should be established through the reflection of past experiences.

2. Principle of intended production
Producers should, through consultation with consumers, intend to produce the maximum
amount and maximum variety of produce within the capacity of the farms.

3. Principle of accepting the produce
Consumers should accept all the produce that has been grown according to previous
consultation between both groups, and their diet should depend as much as possible on this produce.

4. Principle of mutual concession in the price decision

In deciding the price of the produce, producers should take full account of savings in labor and
cost, due to grading and p ackaging processes b eing c urtailed, a 3 well a s 0 fall t heir produce b eing
accepted; and consumers should take into full account the benefit of getting fresh, safe, and tasty foods.

5. Principle of deepening friendly relationships

The continuous development of this partnership requires the deepening of friendly
relationships between producers and consumers. This will be achieved only through maximizing
contact between the partners.

6. Principle of self-distribution
On this principle, the transportation of produce should be carried out by either the producer’s
or consumer’s groups, up to the Iatter’s depots, without dependence on professional transporters.

7. Principle of democratic management

Both groups should avoid over-reliance upon limited number of leaders in their activities, and
try to practice democratic management with responsibility shared by all. The particular conditions of
the members’ families should be taken into consideration on the principle of mutual assistance.

8. Principle of learning among each group
Both groups of producers and consumers should attach much importance to studying among
themselves, and should try to keep their activities from ending only in the distribution of safe foods.

9. Principle of maintaining the appropriate group scale

The full practice of the matters written in the above articles will be difficult if the membership
or the territory of these groups becomes too large. That is the reason why both of them should be kept
to an appropriate size. The development of this movement in terms of membership should be promoted
through increasing the number of groups and the collaboration among them

10. Principle of steady development

In most cases, neither producers nor consumers will be able to enjoy such good conditions as
mentioned above from the very beginning. Therefore, it is necessary for both of them to choose
promising partners, even if their present situation is unsatisfactory, and to go ahead with the effort to
advance in mutual cooperation.

 

 

 

Source: Henderson and Van En 1999:215; Kubota 2001; JOAA 1993

16

Buntaro Tsukiji, a scholar of the cooperative research institute and a leader in the
J OAA, wrote about the model of Teikei relationship (Tsukiji 1976) (see his concept of
Teikei groups in Appendix B). His idea of a Teikei farm was a community farm model in
which a farmer and several consumers create a local partnership for their food production
and distribution. He advocated in the article: (1) staying small, (2) distributing food
locally, and (3) sharing mutual trust and dependence through communication (face-to-
face relationship) between farmers and consumers.

He recommended that each Teikei group should stay small. He questioned the
large Teikei groups involving agriculture and consumer cooperatives because he was
concerned that it would not nurture mutual trust and dependence between farmers and
consumers due to large size of groups (Tsukiji 1976).

In the case of his story, farmer A provided his produce to the ten consumer
households near his farm. It was easier for these consumers to come to the farm for
farming assistance and dialogue with the farmer because the group was not large and they
did not live far from the farm. Because the consumers visited the farm themselves, they
realized the difficulties in organic farming such as labor shortages and pest control issues.

Communications between farmers and consumers are critical for the practice of
the Teikei movement. Tsukiji (197 6) states that in the best scenario, the consumer
members willingly offer the farm management help and financial funds for the farm
operation. This scenario would only emerge from the mutual trust and dependence
between farmers and consumers through their communication. The consumer members
feel that the farm also makes their life better, thus they want to support the farm

financially. The next section discusses the actual Teikei practices and how Teikei works.

17

2.3 How Does Teikei Work?

Figure 1 shows the Teikei model which was proposed by Yasuda (1994). He has
published many papers as a researcher about the significance of organic agriculture and
the Teikei movement in Japan since the initiation of the movement. He worked hard with
his college students creating a Teikei network of urban consumers and organic farmers in
west Japan.

Figure 2. Model of the Teikei Movement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Area of Action Aim of Action Goal of the movement
Production Creation of alternative skills
Creation of alternative marketing _
Transportation and transportation system H Creation of a
nature-centered,
sustainable

3 Distribution Reform of distribution SOCIBIY

E

52’

8 Consumption Reform of the diet

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

(Adapted and translated from Yasuda 1994:17)

Teikei consumer members try to share the financial risk of organic agriculture
with the farmers. Teikei members usually do not prepay the cost of farming operations
before the growing season, but pay for the produce on a monthly-basis. However, they
are expected to buy all the food the farmers produce whether the amount of food is large
or not, and the appearance of produce is good or not. This principle secures the economic
basis of Teikei farmers. Some Teikei groups also contribute savings to the farm
emergency fund.

Teikei members engage in the production and distribution work of fresh organic

produce. They participate in farming assistance activities referred to as “En-no” several

18

times a year. The activities are the essential feature of the direct relationship of Teikei
between the consumers and farmers. Farming help is the best way for members to
communicate with their farmers and observe how produce is grown. It also provides
agricultural education through hands-on farming experience. Consumer members often
participate in the produce distribution at the delivery pick-up point. The bulk of produce
previously ordered by the members is dropped off at several pick-up points. The
members come to the points and distribute the produce.

Teikei consumer groups usually have a committee group to organize the
consumer members and manage the Teikei relationship with the farmers. Consumer
committee groups usually have a meeting before the growing season with the organic
farmers and their groups. The consumers and farmers discuss the amount, variety and
price of produce in the meeting. Consumer members try to follow the farmers’ proposal
of the amount, variety, and price of produce; however, consumer members tell the
farmers how many units of produce they want.

Teikei groups consider organic agriculture a starting point towards the realization
of sustainable society. Teikei farmers and consumers, for example, try to consume less,
re-use materials, use natural soap and compost their garbage in their daily life. The
farmers and consumer members create self-study groups about agricultural and
environmental issues. Some active Teikei groups even engage in political action through
their resistance to food transportation from overseas and the building of nuclear power
plants in their fanners’ villages.

This section showed the Teikei partnership is more than direct marketing, in

which the farmers and consumers share risks, responsibilities and benefits of organic

l9

farming. The next section discusses the background of the emergence of the Teikei

movement.

20

2.4 Emergence of the Teikei Movement

2.4.1 Industrialization and Globalization of Food Systems in Japan

The year 1968 is known as the year of pollution in which the first environmental
health diseases by cadmium and mercury, and PCB poisoning were recognized in Japan.
These diseases were caused by residues of industrial chemicals in food. In the following
year, the first agricultural chemical poisoning appeared in school children. BHC, an
agricultural chemical, remained in the milk served for school lunch (Arakawa 1995). The
Teikei movement emerged in the background of high social consciousness of
environmental pollution by the rapid industrialization of Japan.

Japanese society was largely impacted by the involvement of food system
globalization and agricultural industrialization due to the trade-oriented rapid economic
development and industrialization. Agricultural industrialization was structurally and
systematically promoted by the national government in Japan. Agricultural extensionists
were sent to rural areas, and agricultural cooperatives were organized under the
supervision of the government (Arakawa 1995). The number of mechanical tillers
increased almost ten times from only 9,621 in 1949 to 88,000 in 1955. Five years later,
in 1960, it increased to 612,000; then to more than two million in 1964, and finally in
1974, a record high of 3,370,000 (Yarnashita 1986:133). The use of chemical fertilizers
drastically increased as a substitution for organic fertilizers. Nitrogen increased 180
percent, potassium, 340 percent and phosphorus, 300 percent (Ono 1994:245).

Japan started importing food extensively in the 1960’s in the export-oriented

economic development. The Japanese food self-sufficiency, measured in terms of

21

original calories, dropped rapidly; from 79% in 1960, to 53% in 1980 and 46 percent in
2000 (MAF F 2003) (See Table 3 and Figure 3).

Table 3. Food Self-Sufficiency Rate in Japan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1960 1980 2001
Rate of Food Self-Sufficiency (based on
calorific value) 79% 53% 40%
Grain Self—Sufficiency Rate (excluding
feeding grain) 89% 69% 60%
Total Grain Self-Sufficiency Rate

82% 33% 28%

 

Source: MAF F (The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan) 2003

Figure 3. Rate of Food Self-Sufficiency in Developed Countries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

200 l
A __7__ #_#H# w A *_i’__~ .1
,>,~ 160 « —- _- ~ e— ~ v v 1Canada
E
.g 140 . n~ — — — ——.—‘ -+ IFrance
’5 120 — A — Us.
a; - I
33100» _- - H I
'0 30 *
8
E: 60 I 4 ,Switzerland
0 l
2 40 4 ‘Japan
g 20 l
o . .. .-i
N ’\ o '5 e 9 q, 63 <2: N ’\ o '
'96 '3be '96 \‘S\ ,9“ NE (T '93) \9‘6 9% '99 '9‘? '9” (19° ‘
Year .
Source: MAFF 2003 (based on F AO Food Balance Sheets)
Figure 4. Farming Land Area in Japan (Year 2002)
. Crop Field 217
Paddy F1919 262 cro field 113 Total Farming Land 479
1 cl r l p
(p ante rrce red 170) orchard 35 (ten thousand ha')
grazing field64

 

 

 

 

Source: MAF F 2003

 

' 1 ha (hectare) is about 2.5 acres; 1a (are) is about 0.025 acre.

22

 

group in Yasato-village, Ibaraki prefecture and Miyoshi-village, Chiba prefecture also
started their activities around the same time (Hatano 1998a; Ogawa and Yasuda 2000).
The first organized Teikei partnership was made between the consumers’ group in Tokyo
and the organic farrners’ group in Miyoshi-village, Chibal in 1973. The first Teikei
relationship in the Kansai area, the second largest urban area in Japan, was initiated
between the consumers’ group in Kobe-city and the organic farmers’ group in Ichijima-
village, Hyogo prefecture in 1974 (Ogawa and Yasuda 2000).

Many Teikei groups around the Tokyo metropolitan area have created the
relationship between large farmers’ groups and consumer members’ groups including
consumer cooperatives such as Seikatsu Club in which the consumer members often live
far from the farmers. However, the Teikei groups in the Kansai area have tended to keep
the relationship between small consumers’ groups and farmers group in which the
members relatively live close to the farmers (Hatano 1998a) (see the map of Japan in

Appendix A).

2.4.3 Influence of Mass Media in the Teikei Movement

Publications and media also facilitated the emergence and development of Teikei.
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was translated into Japanese in 1962 and the book
inspired many people in Japan about the concerns of environmental pollution. F ukugo
Osen (Multi-synthesized pollution) by Mrs. Sawako Ariyoshi, called a Japanese version
of Silent Spring (Shinchosya 2002), appeared serially from October 14,1974 for eight and
a half months in the Asahi Shinbun newspaper, a major media in Japan. The publication

advocated the pitfalls of industrialized agriculture and food systems, and revealed the

 

' Chiba prefecture is located next to Tokyo prefecture, included in the Tokyo metropolitan area.

25

harm of chemical additives and residues dominant in current food and life supplies. Her
work had a large impact on Japanese society, especially on urban consumers who had
concerns about chemical pollution in food and the environment. Many farmers and
consumers, who actively started the Teikei movement and consumer cooperative
movement, were inspired by the publications.

The previous sections discussed the concept and practice of the Teikei movement
and the background of its emergence. The next section in this chapter discusses the
Teikei and consumer cooperative movements. The Teikei and consumer cooperative
movements are often confirsed because they have many similarities. However, they are
different. The consumer cooperative movement became more well—known and popular

among housewives in Japan.

26

Table 4. Population and Farming Land in Developed Countries (Year 2000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Japan US. UK. Gem France
Population 12,693 28,323 5,963 8,202 5,924
(10 thousand)
Total Land Area 3,779 96,291 2,429 3,570 5,515
(10 thousand ha)
Farming Land Area 483 41,825 1,696 1,707 2,97
(farming land/total land, 10 (13%) (43%) (70%) (48%) (54%)
thousand ha)
Farming Land per Person 3.8 147.7 28.4 20.8 50.2
(agrerson)

 

Source: MAFF 2003 (based on FAOSTAT)

Food mileage is high in Japan. The concept of food mileage was proposed by
Tim Lang, a food policy researcher at Thames Valley University in England in 1994.
Food mileage is calculated as the distance food travels multiplied by the amount of food
imported. High rate of food mileage increases the environmental cost. In 2000, food
mileage per person in Japan was 4,000tkm (ton kilometerl), while its rate in the US. was
500tkm (MAFF 2003).

Some farmers and their families became sick due to agri-chemicals and were
against the MAF F policy for the industrialization and globalization of food systems in
Japan. Consumers were concerned about the negative impact of chemical additives and
residues in food on the health of their family, and sought safe and fresh food. The
movement was initiated by these concerned participants of farmers and consumers. In
other words, the Teikei movement was the farmers’ and consumers’ collective action

against the globalization of food systems.

2.4.2 Initiation of the Japan Organic Agriculture Association and the Teikei Groups
The emergence of Teikei movement was facilitated by founding the Japan

Organic Agriculture Association (J OAA) in October 1971. The J 0AA was initially a

 

' 1 km (kilometer) is 0.625 mile.

23

 

forum in which cooperative movement researchers, naturalists, nutrition specialists, rural
health specialists, leaders and researchers in natural and organic farming discussed the
future perspectives of Japanese agriculture with concern of the growth of high
industrialized agriculture and food systems (Kubota 2001). The JOAA is a non-profit
organization to promote organic agriculture and the Teikei movement. The JOAA
recently has taken an important role to formulate (or lobby) the criteria for the organic
certification system in Japan. The members in the JOAA also took a political action
against the genetically engineered food. The J OAA has about 3,000 members, and
producers occupy 20 to 25% of its membership (J OAA 1993).

Teruo Ichiraku, the founder of the J OAA, was a cooperativist and worked for the
Norinchukin (Japan Agricultural Co-operatives) Bank and the central office of Japan
Agricultural Co-operatives as an executive director. He was worried about the modern
agriculture heavily depending on harmful pesticides and chemical fertilizers while he had
executive positions in the agricultural cooperatives which promoted agricultural
industrialization with the MAP F (Kubota 2001). After retiring the positions, he strongly
advocated with other scholars and researchers in the J OAA how important it is to practice
organic agriculture to produce safe food and to distribute food locally (Kubota 2001).
Some farmers who met the JOAA leaders were deeply inspired by the passion of these
leaders, and formed organic farmers’ groups to start organic agriculture in their villages
(Aoki 1998; Hoshi 1998).

The Takahata-village Organic Agriculture Association in Yamagata prefecture
and the Hyogo Prefecture Organic Agriculture Association emerged in 1973. These

organizations took leadership in the Teikei movement. The well-known Teikei farmers’

24

2.5 The Teikei Movement and the Consumer Cooperative Movement

The Teikei movement and consumer cooperative movement have developed
together through mutual influence. They have many similarities but they are different.
Teikei is a partnership between farmers and consumers which promotes mutual support
of the farm economy and healthy food production as well as trust between farmers and
consumers. However, the consumer cooperatives are buying groups of consumers.

Members in the consumer cooperatives might make a contract with Teikei organic
farmers to purchase organic produce; however, they also make other contracts with many
factories to get daily life supplies. While members in the consumer cooperatives have a
business relationship with farmers to have high quality produce, the members in the
consumer cooperatives are not as close to the farmers as Teikei members. Thus, some
Teikei farmers’ groups consider it troublesome to make a contract with the consumer
cooperatives (Hoshi 1998).

Seikatsu Club, an urban housewives’ consumer group, is well known in the Teikei
movement. The Seikatsu Club started in 1965 and provides healthy foods, value-added
products and daily life supplies to upwards of 200,000 member households (Worth 1993).
However, the club is not a Teikei group but a consumer cooperative group.

The initiation of the Teikei movement is often misunderstood as the beginning of
the Seikatsu Club activities. Teikei was initially created by individual farmers and
consumers. Some consumers went to rural areas and asked farmers to start organic
production for them. These consumers began group purchases of organically grown milk
and eggs. This relationship later developed into Teikei groups. The first organized

Teikei group is known as the relationship between the consumers’ group in Tokyo and

27

the organic farmers’ group in Miyoshi-village, Chiba, which was started in 1973 (Ogawa
and Yasuda 2000).

Teikei became organized relationships between farmers’ groups and consumers’
groups. The participation of consumer groups from the consumer cooperatives, which
have a large number of membership like the Seikatsu Club, facilitated the huge expansion
of the Teikei movement. The involvement of the consumer cooperatives promoted
consumers’ leadership in the Teikei movement. Kubota (2003), a director of the Japan
Organic Agriculture Association, understands the emergence of the Teikei movement
from a long history of consumer movements which already existed in the 1940’s and
1950’s in Japan. There were a lot of potential active consumers who were empowered
from the consumer movements in Japan. They were participants of the consumer buying
groups or the Teikei and consumer cooperative movements. In this sense, the Teikei
movement was created when the consumers asked organic producers to create a
relationship for their own food production and distribution.

Consumer members’ groups in the Teikei movement often use the system of
group pick-up, a system developed in the consumer cooperative movement in Japan.
Here, groups of six to thirteen families place and receive orders for food and other
products at pick-up points. These groups are called han in the cooperative movement
(Worth 1993). The trucks from the consumer cooperative distribution centers drop off
the bulk of products which was previously ordered by the han groups at the pick-up
points each week. The consumer members distribute the products by themselves at the
point. Many Teikei groups also use the han system to distribute their organic produce.

Communication mostly happens between truck drivers, who are often Teikei farmers, and

28

the consumer members, and within the consumer members on pick-up days in the Teikei
movement.

The consumer cooperative movement facilitated the democratic management of
food and life supply distribution. The Japanese consumer cooperative movement has 13
million members involved in 665 local cooperative societies, which operate 2,300 stores
with over 50,000 employees. Over five million households participate regularly in nearly
one million han (Worth 1993).

The consumer cooperative movement was very popular among urban housewives.
Many hi gh-story apartments were built in urban areas under the rapid economic
development of Japan in the 1970’s and the early 1980’s; the influx of new residents in
urban areas was great, and residents formed these new communities in apartment
complexes during the period. The housewives of the new communities actively
participated in the consumer cooperative activities to prepare safe food for their families
and community building. They knew each other through the activities in their new
neighborhoods. Some of them made good use of the cooperative groups to start other
activities such as community festivals and group studies. The cooperative movement
facilitated the new formation of social capital in urban communities.

I remember my mother also participating in the consumer cooperative activities
when I was a child. My mother joined a women’s new resident group meeting when my
family moved to a newly-built l 1-story apartment around the end of the 1970’s
(Okumura 2003). The group decided to start a consumer cooperative activity which was
popular everywhere in Japan. My mother seemed excited to participate in the activity,

especially when she went down to the first floor of the apartment building which was a

29

drop-off site on the distribution days. My mother really enjoyed the activity, and it was a
good chance for her to make new friends. As a child, I believed everything from co-op
was good, safe, and nutritious. I knew my mother was satisfied with the products and

activities of the co-op.

30

2.6 Summary

This chapter discussed the concept, philosophy and history of the Teikei
movement in Japan. The Teikei movement was initiated in the beginning of the 1970’s
by farmers who were concerned with the industrialization and globalization of agriculture
and the degradation of rural society, and consumers who were concerned with food safety
and environmental issues. The original philosophy of the Teikei movement advocates the
local food distribution and the mutual relationship between farmers and consumers. They
share costs and work for their farming operation within the relationship. This sharing
relationship between farmers and consumers makes the Teikei movement different from
consumer cooperative movement and other direct marketing for agricultural produce.
Moreover, Teikei groups engage in their food production and distribution as well as
outreach activities such as the group studying about environmental concerns and political
action for food safety.

Organic farming has been practiced in the movement as a strategy to resist the
industrialized agricultural production and distribution. The Japan Organic Agriculture
Association (J OAA), a representative organization of the Teikei movement, promoted the
development of organic agriculture in Japan through the Teikei movement. The direct
connection between farmers and consumers in the movement created the marketing
channel for organic produce which had not existed before. The Teikei movement largely
increased its membership during the 1970’s and the early 1980’s following a great
demand for organic produce.

The next chapter discusses the change from the initial concept and the current

situation of the Teikei movement.

31

Chapter 3 Change and Current Situation of the Teikei Movement

This chapter discusses the current situation of the Teikei movement from three
viewpoints of the relationship between (1) farmers and consumers, (2) Teikei farm/ group
and community, and (3) Teikei farm/ group and organic agriculture movement. The
chapter shows the consumers’ groups had more leadership in the movement. The
movement gradually began to focus more on consumer’s interests and organic business,
thus the movement lost its viability due to degradation of the philosophy. The chapter
also includes the case study of the Teikei movement in Takahata village, Yamagata
prefecture which was actively led by the local farmers. The case shows the relationship

among Teikei farmers, urban consumers, and other farmers in the rural community.

3.1 Relationship between Farmers and Consumers

3.1.1 Background of Teikei Participants

Teikei farmers had been well aware of chemical hazards of industrialized food
production and were concerned about their health in the movement (Tabeta 1981; Hatano
1998b). Tabeta (1981) found that 25% of organic farmers had an experience in which
they or their family members became sick due to agri-chemicals. Hatano (1998b)
describes the farmers’ reasons for the participation in the Teikei movement: (1) health
concerns of part—time farmers, (2) criticisms of conventional agriculture by firll-time
farmers, and (3) nature lovers and naturalists among new farmers.

Organic farmers participated in the Teikei movement because the Teikei

relationship created a distribution channel for organic produce which had not existed

32

before. In other words, organic farming practice in Japan was promoted by the Teikei
movement. Table 5 shows the difficulties organic farmers faced in their farming practice
in the early stage of the Teikei movement. Organic farmers initially struggled with less
developed organic farming skill and no supply system of materials for their farming.
They also had difficulty to have an understanding of organic farming from other farmers.

Table 5. Obstacles Organic Farmers Faced for the First Time

 

a) Technical problems such as undeveloped organic farming method, production
decrease in a transitional period, and emergence of pests and diseases.

 

b) Structural problems in farming operation related to difficulty in making compost
due to mono-cropping and no livestock and difficulty producing organic food for
livestock.

 

c) Labor shortage such as more farming labor needed for composting and weeding.

 

(1) Economic instability vis-a-vis undeveloped marketing system for organic produce
and concern about income decrease due to the reduction of productivity.

 

 

e) Relationship with other farmers in community specifically related to criticism of
organic agriculture from other farmers, differences of opinion on pesticide
spraying], difficulty of finding organic farmers within a community, and help and
understanding about organic agriculture by family members.

 

Source: Tabeta 1981

Table 6. Focal Points and Reasons for Agricultural and Organic Produce Purchase

 

 

 

 

 

Focal points when Reasons to buy organic Reasons not to buy organic produce

consumers buy produce

agricultural produce

1. Freshness (54)2 1. Seems to be safe (82) 1. Suspicious about organic produce (40.2)

2. Safety (14) 2. Good for health (73) 2. High price (39.3)

3. Price (14) 3. Everything organic is good 3. Suspicious about certification (29.5)

4. Nutrition (5) (32) 4. Suspicious about safety (26.2)

5. Season (5) 4. Seems tasty (25) 5. Not available at near grocery stores (23.8)
5. To support farmer (19) 6. Suspicious about organic produce which isn’t
6. Seems fresh (16) distributed through the Teikei relationship (6.6)
7. Seems nutritious (l l) 7. Complicated organic produce handling (4.9)

 

Source: Hatano 1998b:54 (Based on the research by the MAF F and the city of Tokyo)
Most consumers are urban residents. It is known that many of these consumer
participants in the Teikei and consumer cooperative movements are high-educated,

middle class urban housewives. Teikei consumers are interested in safe and healthy

 

' See a good example in the case study of the Teikei movement in Takahata village in section 3.2.3
2 The number in parentheses means percentage

33

 

 

produce from Teikei farmers in the movement (see Table 6). They actively participated
in the movement to prepare safe food for their families and learn about environmental
issues in a highly industrialized society (Hatano 1998b).

Hatano (1998b) separates characteristics of Teikei farmers and consumers into
these categories:

(1) Politically active, socially concerned people who have political backgrounds, and
have worked for other collective actions.

(2) Politically passive, socially concerned people who try to find solutions for
conflicts in modern society by going back to nature and a more sustainable life

(3) People who are passionately concerned about their health

Many participants in the Teikei movement had an experience for other collective
actions such as picketing against airport and nuclear power plant constructions.

Many Teikei farmers feel continuous support fiom consumer members’
encouragement to keep the organic farming practices and continue with the Teikei
relationship. The Profile of Organic Farmers in Japan (J OAA 2001) shows that the trust
and respect from the consumer members support the farmers in the Teikei movement.
For example, one farmer says he is always excited to see the faces of the members when
he delivers organic produce to the Tokyo metropolitan area once a week. He appreciates
this relationship with consumer members, which has not only supported his organic
farming practice but also kept encouraging him (he has had a tough time because of the
loss of his wife in a car accident). Other farmers feel their lives are supported by their
members not only economically but also emotionally. For example, one farmer

succeeded his parents in their organic farming. The farmer says his parents found

34

meaning for their life by providing good food to their members. This strong relationship
with the members and passion for organic farming continuously revitalizes their everyday
life. Many Teikei farmers feel their life is economically and emotionally supported by

their consumer members through the face-to-face relationship in the movement.

3.1.2 Four Types of Teikei Groups in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan

In Hyogo prefecture1 which is one of the states in which the Teikei movement is
most active, Hatano (1998b) estimated that Teikei groups were serving almost 10,000
households. A chronological summary of the history of the Teikei groups in Hyogo by
Hatano (1998b) follows: (1) the Teikei relationship between consumers’ and farmers’
groups emerged in the 1970’s; (2) the relationship between consumers’ groups and
several farmers appeared in the early 1980’s; and (3) the Teikei group between
consumers’ groups and the individual farmer appeared in the late 1980’s. Hatano
(1998b) mentions that diversification of the Teikei groups occurred not by the structural
change of the current groups but by the emergence of new groups.

Hatano (1998b) classified the current Teikei groups in Hyogo prefecture into four
types according to the characteristics of the groups: Original, Enlarged, Revised and
Institutionalized. Hatano found these four different characteristics in the Teikei groups
have a relationship with the emergent date of the groups. Table 7 shows the

characteristics of these four Teikei types.

 

‘ Population in Japan is 130 million; Hyogo prefecture (state) has 5.6 million including the Kobe urban area
of 1.5 million.

35

Table 7. Types and Characteristics of Teikei Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of group Original Enlarged Revised Institutionalized
(Emelgnce date) (1970’s) (Early 1980’s) LLate 1980’s) (1990’s)
Stage of Teikei Beginning Developing Diversified Re-developing
movement when
the group emgged
Developed area Close to urban Sub-urban and Urban, sub- Close to urban
area rural urban and rural
Price decision- Producers and Consumer-based Producer- Producer-based
making consumers based
ermally
Way to determine Operational cost- Market price- Flexible Operational cost-
price based based based
Delivery Both producer Mainly producer Mainly Full-time worker
management and consumer consumer in group
Producer group Organized Un-organized Organized or Organized
structure individual
Participants of Only consumers Producers are Only Some producers
consumer group also members consumers are also in a

 

 

 

 

committee

 

(Adapted and translated from Hatano 1998b)

The original type of Teikei groups which emerged in the 1970’s, retain the Teikei

principle that both producers and consumer members equally share responsibilities, risks,

and benefits of organic farming. The producers and consumer members determine the

price of their organic produce based on the operational costs of the farm. The enlarged

type of Teikei groups in the early 1980’s does not necessarily follow this principle. The

groups emerged when the Teikei movement was expanding. The consumer members

have more stakes in decision-making on the price based on the usual agricultural market,

and the producers take a great role in produce delivery. These types of Teikei groups are

more market based, and depend largely on farmer labor work. The revised type of Teikei

groups in the late 1980’s attempted to return to the original principle in which the

producers can make decisions on the price of their produce, and the consumer members

try to be more involved in the delivery work.

36

 

The latest Teikei groups which emerged in the 1990’s (Institutionalized) have a
well-established structure of operation. The groups employ hill-time staff to support the
management of the Teikei relationship doing such things as recruiting members,
collecting memberships, accounting for operational cost of the groups, and delivery of the
produce. While the original, enlarged and revised types of old Teikei groups lost many
consumer members, the new Teikei groups (Institutionalized) increased its membership.
The new Teikei groups are growing because consumer members find it easier to
participate because of the reduced work share of the operation. The new Teikei groups
let farmers decide the price and the amount of produce within share. These new Teikei
groups in the 1990’s appear to be an established enterprise for organic produce
distribution.

Hatano (1998a and 1998b) mentions the producers and consumer members try to
spend more time on communication, farm visits, activities of group studies and advocacy
of food and environment issues due to the reduced work of organic distribution and
operational management. However, it is questionable that the new types of Teikei groups
can keep these other activities viable because of the lack of consumer participation in the
Teikei operation.

While farmers and consumers initially tried to share their work for the Teikei

operation, consumer participation gradually decreased.

3.1.3 Stagnation of the Teikei Movement

The Teikei movement currently struggles against the large decline of consumer

membership. Many urban housewives had been an active core of the Teikei movement

37

(Arakawa 1995; Hatano 1998a and 1998b; Kubota 1998 and 2001). However, many of
these housewives left the Teikei groups due to job opportunities and the grth of the
commercial organic produce market (Hatano 1998a and 1998b; Kubota 1998 and 2001).
More consumer members have difficulty spending enough time for the Teikei activities
and the availability of organic food in grocery stores reduces the participation of
consumers in the movement.

Hatano (1998b) provides the main reasons the consumers have left the Teikei
groups. These reasons were; (1) too much produce, (2) inconvenience of distribution, (3)
volunteer work (farming help and management of the Teikei relationship), and (4)
member’s disagreement with the goal of the group.

The Teikei groups easily lose consumer members who are not interested in
volunteer work and just seek safe and healthy organic produce when organic produce is
available in grocery stores. Organic farming has been practiced in the Teikei movement
as a strategy to change the technology-based industrialized agriculture. The movement
also used “organic” as a marketing strategy to recruit consumer members. While Teikei
had been the only channel for organic produce distribution, the Teikei groups lost a lot of
membership due to the current availability of organic produce in regular retailers.

While the Teikei movement has been in practice for more than 30 years, it has not
become popular among farmers in Japan. Nakajima (1998) mentions that the JOAA,
which is the national representative of the Teikei groups, advocated the non-economic
significance of the Teikei movement without a financial strategy in conjunction with the
movement development. One Teikei farmer complained that consumer members do not

let farmers think about the economical side of the Teikei operation while the consumers

38

often advocate non-economic benefits of the movement (J OAA 2004). It is questionable
if consumer members really have a good financial consideration of Teikei farms. In fact,
the major concerns for consumers who buy organic produce (from Teikei farms) are
freshness and safety while supporting farmers is very low for the reasons (see Table 6).
Though Teikei farmers had to work harder in organic farming, they did not establish the
Teikei operation effectively.

Aoki (1998) reports health illness of Teikei farmers due to hard working in
organic farming. While consumers easily decide if they keep membership or not for the
next year, farmers cannot. It was not Teikei consumers but farmers who worked hard in

organic farming and financial management of the farms (Aoki 1998).

3.1.4 Movement Leadership by Consumers

The farmers and consumers agreed about the concept and philosophy of the
Teikei movement and shared the work and burden of organic agriculture when the
movement was initiated. However, the leadership of the movement was gradually taken
over by consumer members (Hatano 1998b; Aoki 1998).

There are several reasons for the consumer leadership. First, the Teikei
movement had a lot of influence for its development from the consumer cooperative
movement as mentioned in the previous chapter. There was a soil for many active
consumers from the long history of consumer movements since the 1940’s and 1950’s
(Kubota 2003). Especially, the Teikei movement largely expanded its membership by the

participation of the groups from the consumer cooperatives.

39

Secondly, while the Teikei farmers were oppressed by the MAF F policy of
agricultural industrialization, The National Consumer Affairs Center of Japan (N CAC),
which is a government agency whose responsibility is protect the rights of consumers,
funded the research on food safety issues and the consumer participation of the Teikei
movement. The research activities of NCAC supported the active engagement of Teikei
consumers. This unbalance of the contradictory government policies of MAFF and
NCAC increased the consumer leadership dominance within the Teikei movement. The
government policy was more food safety focused and supported the protection of

consumer health rather than the political and financial support of Teikei organic farmers.

3.1.5 Communication Gap between Farmers and Consumers

While the original concept of Teikei was a local group of farmers and consumers,
many T eikei partnership had become a group relationship between consumer groups and
organic farmers groups following the increase of participants in the movement. Each
Teikei relationship consists of several organic farmers’ and consurners’ groups. The
meetings of Teikei operation are held by the committee members from farmers’ and

consumers’ groups in this relationship (see Figure 5).

40

Consumers’

Group

 

ommittee Members

Committee Members from
Consumers’ Group and
Farmers’ Group

Figure 5. Decision-Making Process in Teikei

Hatano (1998a and 1998b:24) noted four factors essential to Teikei practice: (1)
equal relationship between farmers’ and consumers’ groups, (2) price determination and
financial security in poor production for farmers (3) determination of produce amount
and security of food supply in poor production for consumers, and (4) facilitation of
participation and group study activities as a collective action.

The group relationship of farmers and consumers in the Teikei movement enabled
them to fulfill factors (2) and (3). They can manage the risk of their operation because
Teikei groups can maintain the farmers’ income and keep the variety and amount of
produce even in poor production seasons by networking between several farmers’ and
consumers’ groups in different regions.

However, the produce which consumers receive comes from various farms so that
consumers are physically and mentally distanced from their farms compare to the small
relationship of local farmers and consumers. Moreover, the decision-making process by
the committee members becomes complicated.

Many Teikei groups around the Tokyo metropolitan area have created the

relationship between large farmers’ and consumer members’ groups including consumer

41

cooperatives such as Seikatsu Club in which the consumer members often lived far from
the farmers. However, the Teikei groups in the Kansai area have tended to keep the
relationship between small consumers’ and farmers’ groups in which the members lived
relatively close to the farmers (Hatano 1998a and 1998b). Thus, the size of the
consumers’ groups ranges from less than 10 families to more than 5,000 (JOAA 1993).

Large size and a long distance relationship between farmers and consumers
around large cities like the Tokyo metropolitan area made it difficult for the members to
participate in farming assistance activities and visit their farms. Aoki (1998 and 2000)
mentions that this long distance relationship made communication difficult between
farmers and consumers. Less communication caused the misunderstandings between
farmers and consumers and sometimes became a huge conflict like the Teikei relationship
between the farmers in the remote rural village of Takahata and the urban consumers (see
Section 3.2.3).

Aoki (2000) points out that J OAA had no consensus about the distance of food
transportation from farmers to consumers. The produce grown “organically” was
prioritized than the one grown “locally” following the demand increase of organic
produce. Many Teikei groups developed the large network of Teikei farms for a stable
distribution of various organic produce. However, Teikei farmers and consumers became
distanced physically and mentally from each other.

This section described the relationship between farmers and consumers. While
farmers and consumers are equal stakeholders of the movement in the original concept,
the leadership had been gradually taken over by the consumers. The consumer

participation in Teikei operation decreased following the enlargement of the movement.

42

Thus, Teikei operation depended more on the work of farmers. Moreover, large network
of organic produce distribution in the movement promoted the far relationship between
Teikei farmers and consumers. The next section discusses the relationship between
Teikei farm/ group and community. The section first discusses the group activities of the
Teikei movement. Second, the relationship among Teikei farmers, urban consumers and
their communities is described. As an example of this relationship, the section includes

the case study of the Teikei movement in the rural village of Takahata.

43

3.2 Relationship between Teikei Groups and Their Communities

3.2.1 Group Activities of the Teikei Movement

The Teikei movement has multiple tasks. It not only distributes fresh and safe
food but also engages in many activities in rural and urban community issues such as a
group study of environmental pollution. Consumer members are often leaders of these
activities. Table 8 shows the type of activities Teikei groups engaged in and the number
of groups that participated in those activities.

Table 8. The Focus of Activity in the Teikei Movement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus of Activity Percentage of the group involved
(multiple answeg
Synthesized Detergent Pollution 81.5
Food Additives 79.4
Food Contamination 69.7
Industrial Waste, Resource Scarcity 60.5
Nuclear Power Plant Construction 55.0
Food and Agriculture Issue 55.0
School Lunch 48.7
Chemical Pesticide Issue 36.6
Golf Range, Resort Development 35.7
Global Environmental Issue 35.3
Milk Contamination 35.3
Sewage and Water Contamination 34.9
Price and Label Issue 31.]

 

 

 

 

Source: Kubota and Masugata 1992: 162-163

Environmental issues such as chemical pollution and food contamination are
highly ranked. Interestingly, food issues and school lunch programs are not highly
ranked. The consumer members took a leadership role in advocating these issues. The
leadership of consumers in the T eikei movement facilitated issues framed by consumers.
Food safety concerns and chemical contamination were advocated by consumers in the

Teikei movement.

44

The Teikei groups of farmers and consumers organized activities to oppose the
development of a golf range and nuclear power plant building in some villages of Teikei
farmers (Hirakawa 1996). The consumer members who had previously experienced other
collective actions took a leadership role to develop a strategy to organize the activities.

They often took a conflict type approach in these activities.

3.2.2 Empowerment of Consumers and Isolation of Farmers from Rural
Communities

Urban housewives who were concerned about food chemicals and additives
actively organized their groups to find a good source of safe and fresh food through
creating the Teikei relationship. They made good use of activities to expand community
capacity in their urban communities. The new residents got to know each other through
the activities and expanded community capacity in their neighborhood. In other words,
they formed networks of new residents and improved social capital in their communities.

They believed their actions of buying produce from the Teikei farmers would
change the current situation of the food system. They also saw the Teikei activity as a
social participation and found the meaning of their role in a society (Arakawa 1995). The
urban consumers were greatly empowered through the Teikei movement in the 1970’s
and the early 1980’s with other consumer activities such as consumer cooperative
movement. The research support from the government consumer agency of the NCAC
also promoted their activity.

However, the situation of Teikei organic farmers in rural areas was not the same

as the consumers in urban areas. Teikei organic farmers were opposed to the MAF F

45

policy of agricultural industrialization and thus had no support from the national
government. Teikei farmers also had to be opposed to the local agricultural cooperatives
which were supervised by the national government. The number of Teikei farmers
increased only gradually and the proportion of Teikei organic farmers in rural
communities was not yet significant.

Each rural community had been strongly tied together to cooperate for an equal
water distribution of village irrigation and manage government taxes which were
imposed based on communal groups (Takaya 2002). Many rural communities saw a few
of the Teikei organic farmers in their communities as strange because the majority of
other farmers in the communities considered organic agriculture an obsolete style of
farming under the government policy of new technology-based agriculture. Teikei
farmers had to accept isolation from their rural communities.

The situations of farmers and consumers were different because they usually did
not live in the same communities. Active consumers often could not understand the hard
Situation of their farmers in the rural communities. The case of the Teikei movement in
Takahata, described in the next, shows the relationship among Teikei farmers, urban
consumers and rural communities. The Teikei movement in Takahata is known as a case
which farmers had a leadership of the movement while most of the Teikei groups in other
places were led by consumers. Though the Teikei farmers in Takahata had many
difficulties to manage their relationship with urban consumers and other farmers in the
community, they kept an effort to educate other farmers and vitalized agricultural

activities in the community.

46

3.2.3 Case Study of the Teikei Movement in Takahata Village, Yamagata Prefecture
There are many studies1 of the Teikei movement in Takahata village, Yamagata
prefecture (state). This village provides many insights into the relationship among Teikei
farmers, urban consumers and the rural community in the movement. It is also the site of
many conflicts among Teikei farmers, consumer members and other conventional
farmers. Takahata provides an example of how the leadership taken by Teikei farmers
influenced rural development in the village as well as the importance of social capital and

local government support in the community for the Teikei development.

Introduction

Thirty eight active farmers in Takahata village, Yamagata prefecture, alarmed by
the degrading rural environment and society due to the industrialization of agriculture
promoted by the Japanese government formed an organic farming group in 1973—the
Takahata Organic Agriculture Association (TOAA). This organization followed the
foundation of JOAA (Japan Organic Agriculture Association) which facilitated the
emergence of the Teikei movement in Japan. TOAA started a Teikei movement in
partnership with urban consumer groups.

Many rural villages in Japan struggle with the lack of new farmers, the decrease
of population, the increase of uncultivated land, and the stagnation of rural economies. A
recent government document from the Cabinet Office in Japan (2003) also reported that
social capital in rural Japan is gradually declining. However, Takahata village is a

vibrant community. New, young farmers and retired workers from urban areas are

 

' For example, Aoki 1998, 2000; Hoshi 1998. The case study of Takahata in this section is described
referring to these studies.

47

moving to the village. College students and urban residents visit the village for
ecotourism and agricultural education. The village is also famous for organic agriculture.
Takahata village is known as the pioneer of the Teikei movement. Takahata
farmers also have taken leadership of the movement, though urban consumer groups have
mainly led the movement in other places (Aoki 1998). The community in Takahata
village has witnessed many conflicts. Teikei farmers, especially, have had a hard time
managing relationships with other farmers in the community and urban consumer
members. However, the nature of civil society in the village community, the relationship
between the community and the local government, and the large role played by Teikei
farmers in the movement have, allowed the Takahata community to overcome the
conflicts. Organic agriculture and the Teikei movement have been accepted in the
community because of the education provided by Teikei farmers. The farmers’
community of Takahata village has nurtured their social capital through open
communication among farmers, urban consumers, and local government in the Teikei
movement. The social capital they nurtured largely influences the current vitality of the

village community.

Prehistory of the Teikfiei Movement in Takahata: community group gtivities

Takahata village is a rural township with a population of 27,000 located in the
southeast of Yamagata prefecture in Japan. Community self-study activities such as
reading articles and doing dramas on community issues had often been held in Takahata
village in the end of 1940’s and 1950’s before the initiation of the Teikei movement in

1970’s. A community youth association was formed to direct the energy of young people

48

in the village for the revitalization of the community. The youth association became very
active with 500 members on matters of the national defense of Japan after the 2nd World
War at the end of the 1950’s. The youth association broadened its viewpoint from the
community level to national and worldwide levels as the young people in the association
participated in the political activity during that time period. They always considered the
future of their community in a global context.

The rural village of Takahata was also involved in the rapid economic
development of Japan during the beginning of the 1960’s. The Japanese cabinet under
Prime Minister lkeda formulated a rapid economic development policy and the
agriculture basic law, a fundamental law of agriculture enforced in 1961, facilitated the
industrialization and globalization of agriculture and food systems in Japan.

Highly processed convenient food became dominant on the table of farm
households, and the increase of household expenditures caused the families to work off
the farm for cash income. Many poor farmers had heavy debt because of purchasing
agricultural machines. High labor demand for urban development around the period of
the Tokyo Olympics in 1964 absorbed many rural farmers in urban areas during winter
seasons. Male farmers disappeared from the village during those seasons.

The absence of farmers in the village weakened the activity of community groups.
However, the community leaders tried to keep up community activities. The community
youth association held a three—day community discussion camp every year. Over 100
young people actively participated.

The local government in Takahata village initiated a youth training workshop to

provide learning opportunities to prospective young people in the middle of the 1960’s.

49

The workshop had challenging course work with lectures from well-known scholars. The
local government also started the annual three-day community autonomy discussion
camp in 1969 to make good use of the discussion of community groups in the village for
the planning of community governance. The community leaders and local government
personnel attended the lectures together and discussed urgent community issues and
future perspectives of the community in the camp. The main topic in the camp was the
cooperation of three sectors, agriculture, industry and commerce, for the development of
the community in such various areas as local industry, community life, education, social
welfare and health-care.

The community was concerned about air pollution from a factory next to the
residential area in the center of the township. The community groups started to collect
data through their own research and following-up on research done by their local
government. A community petition forced the government to take action to force the
company to put an air cleaner in the factory. The company finally decided to move the
location of the factory from the township several years later. The community effort
moved their government and the company toward a better environment for the
community.

Takahata was one of the best production areas in Japan with new hi gh-tech based
agriculture in the 1960’s. However, the young farmers started to realize that the source
of environmental pollution was not only from the industrial sector but also from their
farming practices of using pesticides and chemical fertilizers. While agri-chemicals

promoted the productivity of their crops and vegetables, they questioned the chemical

50

pollution of the produce. They found that they increasingly needed more cash for
agricultural machines and chemicals to keep their farming operations.

Farmers decided to stop working in urban areas for cash income and stay in the
village, even in the winter season to follow their daily life more closely in the community.
It was a very hard process for the farmers to make ends meet because their income as
urban laborers was over three times greater than that obtained by farming even if they
raised cows and grew mushrooms.

The young Takahata farmers who had been attending some youth community
activities happened to meet the leader of the cooperative research institute on the way
back home from the Tokyo metropolitan area. The leader passionately advocated to the
young farmers from the village how important it was to produce food locally and the
urgent need to produce safe food and practice organic agriculture. The young Takahata
farmers were greatly inspired by his talk. The leaders of the cooperative research
institute including Teruo Ichiraku, who founded the Japan Organic Agriculture
Association (J 0AA), and Buntaro Tsukiji visited Takahata village to talk with
prospective young farmers. They also met the leaders of local agricultural cooperatives
in the village. The passionate talk for alternative agriculture in Japan made the young

farmers in Takahata take action.

Foundation of the Takahata Organic Agriculture Association
Thirty eight Takahata farmers formed the Takahata Organic Agriculture
Association (TOAA) in September 1973 under the leadership of young farmers in their

20’s. The mission statement of the association advocates (1) the production of safe food,

51

(2) the building of composted soil, (3) the recovery of resource self-sufficiency, (4) the
protection of the environment, and (5) the autonomy of farmers.

The young Takahata farmers practiced organic farming by trial and error because
there was no established farming method. While the conventional farmers in the
community criticized the “old fashioned” style of organic farming in the age of
industrialized agriculture, the young organic farmers had strong enough beliefs to keep
their organic farming practice, even though it required huge amounts of time and effort.
The young organic farmers were asking themselves about the meaning of their practice in
farming.

The first year, organic rice production was about 60 % of conventional production.
However, the production level gradually recovered and the organic method of rice
production proved its strength against cold weather in the third year in which production
by conventional farming was very poor. The farmers in Takahata started to understand

the significance of organic farming.

Teikei relationship between rurfiarmers and Moonjsumers

The Takahata organic agriculture association had no idea how to provide organic
produce to consumers because they initially considered the goal of organic farming to be
the self-sufficiency of agricultural production within the community. However, with the
advice of Teruo Ichiraku, the farmers started to provide their surplus to neighboring
consumer cooperatives through direct marketing. The first year of direct marketing was
successfirl, but little organic produce was sold in the second year because production was

very poor due to drought. The differences in views on the evaluation of organic produce

52

between the TOAA and the consumer cooperatives became apparent. The TOAA
gradually formed a Teikei relationship with consumer groups in Tokyo and Kansai
metropolitan areas five years after the initiation of organic farming. This linkage (social
capital) between rural and urban areas had not existed before in the village. In turn, the

relationship between the village and urban areas facilitated the exchange of information.

Problem in the local agriculturalfimarjkgt

A conflict over the distribution of agricultural produce emerged in the community
following the rapid increase of organic production. There was a problem in
distinguishing organic and conventional products due to the system in which all
agricultural produce was collected together in a central distribution center in the
community. It was difficult to distinguish the nature and quality of organic produce
because agricultural produce was sorted out by size, shape and appearance. Though the
organic farmers in the TOAA wanted to claim the marketing of organic produce by
themselves, they were, at the same time, afraid of alienating the rest of the community by
pushing their claim. In fact, they already felt isolated from the community because of

their farming methods and marketing strategies.

Air sprayg'ng conflict within the Teikei grouggnd the rural community

A huge conflict involving aerial pesticide spraying emerged within the rural
community of conventional and organic farmers. Takahata village has the oldest history
of air pesticide spraying in Japan that started in 1961. Aerial spraying was started due to

the lack of farming labor by the rapid decline of farming population in the village and the

53

increase in production of tasty rice which is difficult to grow. The coverage area for air
spraying gradually increased up to 1,500 ha of the farmland which was almost half the
area of the community in the end of the 1980’s.

Each organic farmer of the TOAA was surrounded by conventional farmers in the
village and could not escape from the pesticides in the air. The organic farmers set up red
flags on their farms as a signal to the crop duster pilot not to spray on their farms.
However, this practice seemed strange to other conventional farmers. Rural communities
in Japan like Takahata village historically developed a tight relationship and strong
cooperation among farmers. Any farmer in the community implicitly followed the same
manner and the individual requests were less respected. Organic farming practice was
considered a disruptive factor for the homogeneous community in Takahata village.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery (MAF F, Department of
Agriculture) in Japan developed a policy of community-based subsidizing to achieve the
total reduction of rice planting acreage within each community. The organic agriculture
movement of TOAA was initiated due to not only the chemical hazard for the farmers but
also because of dissatisfaction with the rice acreage reduction policy of MAFF which
sought to improve the efficiency of agricultural production. An organic farmer of TOAA
was told by other conventional farmers that he had no sake (Japanese alcohol) to drink in
their community meeting because he was not willing to accept the MAP F policy (Aoki
1998). In Japanese culture, this would be considered offensive and a tough experience
for the organic farmers in the communal society. The movement of TOAA was also to
realize a more democratic society which takes individual requests into consideration in

community decision-making.

54

The TOAA took a moderate approach to promoting the understanding of organic
agriculture within the community by (1) setting up red flags on their farm land, (2)
talking with local government and agriculture cooperatives and (3) propagating the risk
of agri-chemicals. However, they could not change the situation concerning the lack of
understanding of organic agriculture in the community all at once.

The reaction of the consumer members of the Teikei group on the issue of aerial
spraying escalated conflict in the village. The consumer members took a radical
approach to stop air spraying immediately. They sent a petitioning letter to the head of
the agriculture cooperative in the community. Unlike TOAA farmers, consumer
members did not know the norms of rural villages in Japan and misunderstood the
communication channel of the rural community. Their action did not solve the conflict
but increased the pressure on the organic farmers of TOAA within the community. The

conventional farmers in the village were both critical and jealous of the organic farmers.

Emergence of the new organic farmer’s group

While the TOAA and the village community could not reach a consensus on air
spraying, a new organic farmer’s group emerged in the TOAA in March 1987. The
group, erada Organic Rice Production Group (erada Group), tried to cooperate with
other non-TOAA farmers and the local agriculture cooperative members who had worked
together in the Takahata community activities. The group took a moderate approach to
organic farming with the acceptance of the minimal use of herbicides. The group put an
emphasis on more involvement and wider networking of farmers in the community rather

than holding the strict organic farming methods that the TOAA advocated. The erada

55

group successfully included a variety of farmers from each small region. Group
membership consistently increased and the group achieved a membership of more than
half of the farmers in the area. The group consequently achieved a large reduction of the

aerial spraying area.

NetwoLing community grorngs with local government support

The emergence of the new organic farmers’ group of erada facilitated the
eventual break-up of the TOAA into several groups in 1996 after its work of 24 years.
Each group started organic farming practices with their own principles in each area.
However, the local government called for organic farming and agricultural groups in the
community to form a coalition to promote organic agriculture as a whole community.
The government set up an office to facilitate organic agriculture in the community. This
was a milestone for agricultural groups in the community and it started horizontal
networking within the community for the first time. The coalition achieved a
membership of more than half of the farmers in the community.

Moreover, several new community activities emerged to revitalize the rural
community such as community learning groups, an agricultural education school, and
community meetings. The new community learning group received half of its
membership from the community and the rest from outside of the community. The group
mainly studied organic agriculture and other environmental issues, education, culture,
health, community building and international exchange. The agricultural education
school was established for urban residents to obtain a hands-on agricultural experience in

Takahata village based on the exchange experience between urban and rural residents

56

which had been nurtured through the Teikei relationship. The people in Takahata also
discussed the future of community building in new community meetings.

Many students and residents in urban areas came to visit the village by themselves
through college fieldwork and agricultural tourism. Some of the frequent visitors decided
to live in the village based on their experience. About 40 urban residents moved to the
village within five years and several marriages between urban and rural families were
also made [which was not typical in Japan since more young people move to the cities]
(Hoshi 1998). The village was revitalized by the new community activities and the

people from urban areas.

Implications from the Teflgei Movement in Takahata village

The Teikei farrners’ group of Takahata Organic Agriculture Association (TOAA)
is the pioneer of the Teikei movement. Many active farmers in Takahata had been
involved in organic agriculture in Japan. The examining case of Takahata shows us
many obstacles in the development process of the movement among the Teikei farmers,
the urban consumers and other farmers in the community.

Today, the government is currently more supportive of organic agriculture as
sustainable agriculture due to the change of its policy toward more environment-focused
agriculture in the beginning of the 1990’s. However, the Teikei farmers had to start
organic farming with little support from the government and other farmers in rural
communities.

Moreover, the distant relationship between Teikei farmers and consumers was

problematic, and it became a large obstacle for the development of the Teikei movement

57

(Aoki 2000). While the original Teikei model advocates the local relationship of farmers
and consumers, the relationship, in fact, was often created between the Teikei farmer
groups in rural areas and the consumer groups in urban areas who lived far from each
other like the Teikei movement in Takahata. The case shows there was little
communication between the Teikei farmers and consumer groups and less respect of the
farmers by the consumer members. Moreover, the consumers believed they were doing a
good thing in the Teikei movement, but did not consider the situation of the rural
community. This misunderstanding of consumer members worsened the situation of the
conflict in the community. While the J OAA recently advocates the creation of Teikei
groups locally, Aoki (2000) points out that there had been no consensus about the
distance of food distribution in the Teikei movement.

However, Takahata farmers overcame the struggle. The erada group
successfully used existing community networks to forge a consensus on organic farming
in the community. They successfully educated the other farmers in the community about
the significance of organic agriculture. Putnam (1995) says that successful outcomes are
more likely in civically engaged communities. The Takahata organic farmers were
empowered through the Teikei movement with their leadership and the stock of their
social capital.

The accountability of the local government in Takahata, which has been nurtured
through community meetings, shows that the role of local government is very critical for
community development through community activities. The local government in
Takahata village worked for a consensus on organic agriculture within the community.

The government supported the facilitation of networking among agricultural groups in

58

the community. The local T akahata government provided proper support when the
community needed it and greatly influenced farmer empowerment. Furthermore, the
whole community developed through the Teikei movement.

This section described the empowerment of urban consumers and the tough
situation for rural farmers in the Teikei movement. Teikei farmers had to take care of not
only their crops but also the relationship with their consumers and other farmers in the
community. The case study in 3.2.3 showed the relationship among Teikei farmers,
consumer and rural communities in the movement. Teikei farmers in Takahata
successfully revitalized their community with their leadership in the Teikei movement.
Finally, the next section discusses the relationship between the Teikei farms/ groups and

the organic agriculture movement.

59

3.3 Relationship between Teikei Groups and Organic Agriculture Movement

3.3.1 Three Major Booms of Organic Agriculture

30 years have passed since the Teikei movement was initiated and organic
farming practice was promoted in the Teikei movement for all of these years. Hatano
(1998a and 1998b) characterizes the periods of the development of organic agriculture in
Japan as: organic produce sought by some consumers through the Teikei groups in the
1970’s; the increased demand for organic and the diversification of the quality in the
1980’s; and the standardization of the quality of organic produce through JAS (Japan
Agricultural Standard) in 1990’s.

Kubota (1998) describes the three major booms of organic agriculture in Japan.
The first one was in the beginning of the 1970’s when many housewives sought chemical
and additive-free food because of concerns with environmental and food pollution
associated with the rapid industrialization of agriculture in Japan. The second wave
happened in the 1980’s when consumers resisted imported food due to post-harvest food
contamination and the explosion of the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, Russia. The third
wave of the organic food boom was triggered by the concerns associated with Genetic
Modified Organisms (GMOs) and the globalization of the organic agricultural market in
the 1990’s. The organic booms were triggered by the consumer concerns of food safety.

The consumers and farmers in the Teikei movement believe in the significance of
organic agriculture as well as in the importance of increasing the food self-sufficiency
and the protection of local agriculture in Japan. Teikei members together with other
consumer and agriculture groups took action against the imported food during the 1970’s

and 1980’s (Kubota 2001). They often advocated a message to the public saying that

60

imported food might not be safe because chemical usage restrictions were different
between Japan and other countries.

However, they were very confused during the third period of the 1990’s due to the
availability of imported organic food labeled as safe. This period was the first time the
commercial sector largely supported the produce of organic agriculture and facilitated the
good image of organic farming (Kubota 1998). This is also the first time that consumers
in Japan began receiving information about high quality food even though the food was
imported (Kubota 1998). As described previously, the Teikei movement in Japan has put
the first priority on health concerns of agricultural and food chemicals. Advocates of
Teikei groups had emphasized high quality and safety of organic produce available in the
groups as a member recruiting strategy. However, they are currently struggling to find a
rationale for their produce as they are forced to compete with the availability and
increasingly high quality image of imported organic food.

The pioneers of the movement started organic farming under the belief that
organic agriculture was the authentic way for agricultural development in Japan. The
participants have kept advocating the significance of organic agriculture for over 30 years
in spite of little support from other farmers and government policy. When organic
agriculture was more acceptable by the society in Japan, the Teikei groups had to
compete with imported commercial organic food. Ironically, the globalized food systems
facilitated by the World Trade Organization asked the Teikei organic farmers to accept
the standardization of organic agriculture, though the Teikei farmers started organic
farming as a strategy to resist the involvement of Japanese agriculture in the globalization

of world food systems.

61

While the agricultural policy of MAP F had never supported the Teikei movement
and organic agriculture in Japan since the Teikei movement started, the MAP F
formulated the organic agriculture standards in the JAS (Japan Agriculture Standard)
system in the early 1990’s following the worldwide standardization of organic
agriculture. Thus, many Teikei farmers are reluctant to be certified because they
promoted organic agriculture in Japan. Many Teikei farmers complain the cost and the
less quality of the organic standards because they developed higher skills of organic
farming without the certification system. Teikei groups resist the standardization of

organic agriculture which promotes organic business.

3.3.2 Diversification of Marketing Channels for Organic Produce

Organic food was only available through the Teikei relationships at the beginning
of the 1970’s in Japan. However, marketing and distributing channels for organic
produce, including imported organic products have expanded and diversified. Organic
food is now available through a variety of Teikei groups, consumer cooperatives,
commercial organic retailers, grocery stores and department stores.

Teikei groups such as Daichi, Radish Boya and Poran Hiroba have a large number
of members across the country and supply channels of organic produce from organic
farmers in any region of Japan. Each consumer member receives a box of organic
produce which is individually delivered weekly. Consumer members can attend
gatherings and meetings in Tokyo held only a few times annually. The relationship
between farmers and consumers is more commercial-based in these Teikei groups. Each

member has neither an opportunity to see farmers nor other members in this relationship.

62

These groups are almost offering a privately packaged delivery service of organic
produce.

The activities of consumer cooperatives have also diversified. Some consumer
cooperatives contract directly for a supply of organic produce with farmers in other
countries such as Cuba, where organic agriculture is popular. Food delivery is also
available on the web. First Retailing, which is known as “Uniqlo,” offers a web order
service for high quality produce delivery.

High quality produce through weekly delivery, which used to be a unique
marketing strategy for Teikei groups, is currently available in many other ways. The
Teikei groups struggle with the decline of membership and loss of active consumers due

to their lack of an appealing strategy. They are seeking ways to revitalize their activities.

63

3.4 Summary

This chapter discussed the change from the original Teikei philosophy and the
current situation of the movement. While the Teikei movement was initiated by the
cooperation of farmers and consumers, the readership role was taken over by the
consumers. The consumer participation in sharing work with their farmers for the Teikei
operation decreased and the consumers became more dependent on farmer’s labor.

While Teikei farmers worked harder, they have not established their Teikei operation
effectively. Moreover, the size of Teikei group became larger following the demand
increase for the amount and variety of organic produce and farmers and consumers
became distanced physically and mentally.

Communication difficulty between farmers and consumers due to the distant
relationship led them to misunderstand each other. For example, Teikei consumers in
urban areas did not understand the situation of their farmers and the rural community in
Takahata, and the consumers’ intervention of the village issue enlarged the conflict in the
community. While consumers were empowered by utilizing the Teikei activities for
building urban community capacity and advocating food safety issues with the support of
NCAC, Teikei farmers neither had support for their organic farming fi'om the government
nor other farmers in their rural communities.

While the Teikei movement has been in practice for over 30 years, it has not yet
become popular among Japanese farmers. In addition, the Teikei movement struggles
with the decreasing membership of active consumers following the availability of organic
produce everywhere and the increase of job opportunity for urban consumers who are

often housewives.

64

Knowing the American version of Teikei through academic and popular trade
journals and through local food activists, Teikei groups have become interested in the
viability of CSA in the US. Elizabeth Henderson, for instance, made a presentation
about CSA to the Teikei groups at the J OAA meeting in Japan on November 2002
(JOAA 2003). Teikei farmers and members wonder how the CSA movement in the US.
remains popular and active while the viability of Teikei is now declining. In spite of the
growing interest, the real situation of CSA in the US. is not well known in Japan. In the
next two chapters, the concept, philosophy and history of CSA, and the current situation

of CSA are discussed.

65

Chapter 4 History and Philosophy of CSA Movement
Chapter 4 and 5 discuss the CSA movement in the U.S. This chapter describes
the philosophy and the original concept of CSA. Community farms, which were the
original model of CSA, were established in the early years of the CSA movement. The

purpose of CSA activities and how CSA works are also discussed in this chapter.

4.1 Introduction: CSA Movement in the U.S.

Community Supported Agriculture, or “CSA”, refers to a relationship in which
families directly support a local farm and economy, while the farmer produces fresh and
locally grown food for the families (Groh and McFadden 1990:50). CSA represents a
community-based group of producers and consumers (described as shareholders or
members) who share the responsibilities, risks, and benefits of farming (Groh and
McFadden 1997; Cone and Myhre 2000). The consumers agree to provide direct, upfront
financial and labor support for the local growers who will produce their food. The
growers agree to do their best to provide a sufficient quantity and quality of food to meet
the needs and expectations of the consumers (Groh and McFadden 19901107). In this
way, farmers and consumers create a network of mutual support. Within the general
framework of CSA, there is a wide range for variation, depending on the resources and
desires of the participants so that no CSA is the same as others (Groh and McFadden
19972xiv).

The first CSA farms in the U.S. were started in the mid 1980’s by Jan Vander
Tuin, Robyn Van En and John Root in Massachusetts, and Trauger Groh in New

Hampshire (Groh and McFadden 1997). CSA has grown as an alternative food

66

distribution system over the last decade in the U.S. (DeLind and Ferguson 1999; Ostrom
1997). The number of CSA farms had grown to sixty fi'om 1985 to 1990, and many
hundreds more from 1990 to 1997 (Groh and McFadden 1997). There are now more than
1,000 CSA farms across the U.S., especially concentrated in the Northeast, the West
Coast, and around the cities of Madison, Wisconsin and Minneapolis, Minnesota (Groh
and McFadden 1997; Ostrom 1997). Two percent of the overall population in the U.S. is
now aware of CSA as a form of alternative agriculture, and as a source of fresh food
(Henderson and Van En 1999:xvi).

CSA attempts to protect small farmers and return the food production and
distribution system to local communities. CSA farms promote sustainable agricultural
practices and land stewardship. CSA is a marketing strategy that allows local farmers
and consumers to disengage from the global food system. However, CSA is not only an
alternative food production, but also “a means, with farming at its center, for re-
establishing the connections and responsibilities that extend beyond self-interest and
define community and create commonwealth” (DeLind 2003a). ’

The next section discusses the original concept and philosophy of CSA.

67

4.2 Original Concept and Philosophy of CSA

4.2.1 Initiation of Community Farm

In January of 1986, Trauger Groh, who has been a farmer for forty years and has
been an advocate in the organic, biodynamic and community farm movements, came
back from a community farm in North Germany where he helped to establish a widely-
known community supported farm. He met with a farmer, Lincoln Geiger and several
other families who shared the dream of supporting local farms to the local community.
That was a starting point of the first CSA project in the U.S. The 63 independent families
in Temple and Wilton, New Hampshire, together created a community farm (Groh and
McFadden 1997).

At the same time, Jan Vander Tuin also brought the CSA concept from
Switzerland to the U.S. He learned of a new kind of food production cooperative in
Geneva, Basel, and Vaduz during his stay in the early 1980’s. After studying them, he
helped to establish a similar venture, the Co—operative Topinarnbur in Zurich (Groh and
McFadden 1997). He shared his passion for the idea around Great Barrington, and
introduced the idea to Robyn Van En at Indian Line Farm in C. Egremont, Massachusetts.
Jan Vander Tuin, Robyn Van En, John Root, Jr., and Charlotte Zanecchia formed a core
group. They started the CSA operation with a small apple orchard for the first season,
and gradually introduced the CSA concept to the community. They began to offer
vegetable shares by the spring of 1986 with the assistance of a gardener, Hugh Ratcliffe,
who was a research biologist at Cornell University. Within four years, the Indian Line

CSA expanded from 30 to 150 members (RVECCR 2003).

68

These farms established the model of community farms which dedicated its entire
production to CSA members. Indian Line Farm divided its produce so that each member
received an equal share or half-share. Temple-Wilton Farm allowed members to take

what they needed regardless of how much they paid (Henderson and Van En 1999:7).

4.2.2 Perspectives for CSA by Robyn Van En and Trauger Groh

CSA is a relationship between a nearby farmer and people who eat the food that
the farmer produces. The essence of the relationship is the mutual commitment between
them: the farm feeds the people, the people support the farm and share the inherent risks
and potential bounty of farming. Robyn Van En, a well-known advocate of the CSA
movement, described the relationship as “food producers + food consumers + annual
comnritrnent to one another = CSA and untold possibilities (Henderson and Van En
1999:3).”

Robyn Van En’s vision of CSA is presented by Elizabeth Henderson in their book,
Sharing the Harvest:

The dream C SA is a smoothly functioning organic o r B iodynamic farm
dividing up all its produce among a committed group of supporters who
share with the farmers the risks and benefits of farming. With a market
assured and income guaranteed, the farmers can concentrate on producing
high-quality food and practicing carefirl stewardship of the land. The
members get to eat the freshest, tastiest, most nutritious food they have
ever experienced, as though they were master gardeners, but with much
less work. They and their children learn fascinating lessons about food
production and, by eating seasonally, make a deep connection to a very
special piece of land. They respect and honor the farmers’ skills and hard
work and express their appreciation through friendship, financial support,
and helping on the farm. Members and farmers converge into a vital and
creative community, which celebrates diversity, both social and biological,
and makes food justice and security a living reality. Local, regional, and
even international networks of CSAs and other sustainable food

69

enterprises supply members year—round with ecologically produced and
fairly traded food (Henderson and Van En 1999:29).

With Robyn’s tireless passion and effort, she became a popular and effective
speaker, organizer and educator for sustainable farming and food systems. She directly
helped the development of more than 200 pioneer CSAs across the U.S. She dedicated
her life to establishing and supporting CSA programs in the U.S. until she unexpectedly
died in January 1997 (RVECCR 2003).

Trauger Groh (1990), one of the pioneer members who initiated a CSA farm,
brought the idea of CSA from a community farm in Germany. He saw farmland
increasingly becoming privately owned real estate and farmers ceasing to be businessmen.
He advocated the “need to share the experience of farming with everyone who
understands that our relationship with nature and the ways that we use the land will
determine the future of the earth.” He expressed the need for farming in the following
manner:

We have no choice about whether to farm or not, as we have a choice

about whether to produce TV. sets or not. So we have to either farm or to

support farmers, everyone of us, at any cost. We cannot give it up because

it is inconvenient or unprofitable (Groh and McFadden 1990:6).

The creation of community farms “liberates the farmer to work out of his spiritual
intentions, not out of money considerations.” Members of these community farms work
together toward shared ideals to cover all the costs and share all the risks of their farms.
He realized that the “farms of tomorrow” would be individualized organisms based on

biodynamic farming and that each farm would be a closed system in harmony with an

internal circle of nutrition, producing and recycling its own fertility.

70

Groh said these farms have something to offer beyond good food. He assigned a
broad set of tasks to CSAs: education of the young, the revival of ethics, and the renewal
of human health, culture, the economy, and social life.

[CSAs] embody educational and cultural elements that draw the interest of

many people. Besides clean, healthy, life-giving food, and a strong

contribution to an improved environment, the educational and cultural
elements constitute the third great gift that the farms of tomorrow have to

offer (Groh and McFadden 1990:7).

Groh expressed “the primary need is not for the farm to be supported by the
community, but rather for the community to support itself through farming” (Groh and
McFadden 1990:6).

Within the CSA concept, Trauger Groh considers the whole food and farming
systems in which people, animals and plants interact with each other, and Robyn Van En
focuses on the mutual relationship between people in CSA. While Groh also advocates

biodynamic farming and agricultural education with the ideal for establishing community

farms, Van En has a more practical View for the CSA operation.

4.2.3 Purpose of CSA activities

Food production is the most basic use of the earth’s natural resources and shapes
local landscapes. How each society or country produces and distributes food in large
measure determines its identity (Henderson and Van En 1999:11). CSA is an opportunity
to connect people who care about food systems. Moreover, CSA not only engages in
food production and distribution but also community outreach programs such as farming
education and fresh food supply for the people who have less access to the food. Thus,

CSA focuses on a variety of activities (see Table 9).

71

Table 9. Purpose of CSA Activities

 

a) Supply of safe and fresh seasonal produce

 

b) Support of small and middle-scale local farms

 

c) Revitalization of local economy

 

(1) Local community building through local food distribution

 

e) Facilitation of local food security

 

f) Promotion of democratic food distribution through the direct connection between
farmers and consumers

 

g) Land stewardship through sustainable agricultural practice

 

h) Agricultural education for adults and children

 

 

i) Restorative efforts for elderly, handicapped, and retarded people through their
participation in farming

 

CSAs often provide fresh fruits and vegetables. However, they can offer meat,
eggs, and milk as part of the regular share, or optional shares for vegetarians and meat
eaters. Several local farms may join together with CSAs to supply a wider variety of
products (Henderson and Van En 1999:169). CSA also facilitates local food systems in
cooperation with other local farmers and direct marketing strategies such as farm stands,
farmer’s markets and u-pick farms.

CSA attempts to provide a stable source of income for local farmers who can not
compete against large-scale agricultural enterprises. CSA members can directly support
the growers by avoiding the middle operators such as distributors and retailers
(Henderson and Van En l999:6). It is critical in CSA philosophy to provide affordable
produce and pay a decent living wage for work in agriculture (Henderson and Van En
1999292).

CSA members know the farms their food comes from and how the food is grown.
In this way, CSA provides an opportunity for the members to understand the complexities
of food production. CSA members receive various kinds of produce. Many CSA farms
produce more than 30 kinds of produce, some of which are not available in the

conventional food system. CSA farms often provide recipes for cooking unfamiliar

72

 

vegetables. The produce is distributed according to the growing season, which means
members cook and consume various produce seasonally. Tomatoes are available
throughout the year in grocery stores, but members are aware that organically grown
tomatoes are usually available during the late summer.

Agricultural chemicals are often added to preserve food that is transported. CSA
members purchase organically and locally grown produce, thus avoiding high
environmental and health costs (Henderson and Van En 199916). Some CSA farms keep
the land through community initiatives such as land trusts. The initiatives keep local
arable land out of housing and commercial development and protect the rural landscape.

Moreover, many CSAs donate excess and left-over produce to food banks,
homeless shelters and other charity organizations (Henderson and Van En 19991177;
Williamson, Irnbroscio, and Alperovitz 20022256). Some CSAs also provide a program
to enable low-income people to eat more fresh produce, learn about growing and
preparing food, and connect with local farms by joining CSAs G-lenderson and Van En
19991195). Thus, CSA attempts to work towards community food security (Henderson
and Van En 1999167).

Some CSAs also provide a therapeutic opportunity for physically and mentally
handicapped and chronically diseased people because there are few barriers to prevent
them from farming. People who are tired of working at factories and offices can also
make good use of CSA farms. Biodynamic farms and CSAs can offer educational and
restorative opportunities to handicapped and elderly people as well as to young families
with children (Groh and McFadden 1990116). Several CSAs are operated on college

campuses by students (e. g. Student Organic Farm at Michigan State University). These

73

farms provide students agricultural education, via hands—on farming skills, that cannot be
taught in the educational classroom.

Not all activities described above are happening in every CSA, but each CSA
engages in some of these activities depending on the resources and desires of the
participants. Indeed, any CSAs theoretically engage in a variety of CSA activities
showed in Table 9. However, there is a gap between the ideal and actual practice of CSA.
The actual situation of C SA is discussed in Chapter 5. The next section describes how
CSA works. The members’ commitment to CSA farms through sharing costs and work

with their farmers is critical for keeping CSA going.

74

4.3 How Does CSA Work?

The prominent difference between CSA and other direct marketing strategies such
as farmer’s market and u-picks is that farmers and members create a relationship of
mutual commitment—they share the rewards of farming as well as risks and
responsibilities. The relationship is essential for the CSA operation.

CSA members share the responsibilities of farm operation with the farmers. The
members participate in some part of the farming work and organize themselves for
produce distribution. In the original concept, CSA members actively engage in farming
work while the CSAs which require all members to participate in farming work are not
many nowadays. Some CSAs prepare “work share” which is discounted from the share
which requires no farming work. Members learn the difficulty and complexity of food
production through farming work activities.

Distribution styles depend on each CSA. The members in some CSAs come to
the farm and weigh out their own share. They leave any items they do not want at a
surplus table for someone who can use them. Other farms transport their share of
produce to distribution points from which the members pick up the items (UME 2003).
Members are supposed to participate in some way produce distribution, but farmers and
farm staff recently manage all work for distribution with no members’ help in some
CSAs.

The core group is an important decision making body for CSA (see Figure 6).
The core group consists of farmers, members, distributors and other key administrators.
The group determines short and long-term goals, prepares the budget and harvesting

schedule, and conducts publicity, educational activities and events. The group also

75

organizes member’s farming work and distribution of produce (UME 2003). Some
members in the core group work for publishing newsletters of their activity and recruiting
new members. Community farm has the core group which performs an administrative

role for the operation while CSA which does not have a core group recently increases.

CSA

 

Core Group within CSA
F arm

Figure 6. Decision-Making Process in CSA

CSA members also cover the costs of the farm operation. These are divided up
among them before the growing season begins (RVECCR 2003; UME 2003; Groh and
McFadden 1990:50). Members make a commitment to support the farm throughout the
season, and assume the costs and risks of production such as drought, floods, and pests.
Member shares typically cost from $200 to $600, and can last for 16-52 weeks depending
on the region (DeLind 2003a). The members sign up and pay their shares at one time
before the growing season, or divide payments into several installments throughout the
season (UME 2003). Member’s financial support of CSA is attractive to small local
farmers because they can use the money which was prepaid by the members to cover the
costs of salaries, investments for seeds and tools, machinery maintenance, land payments,

BIC .

76

In return for their financial commitment, CSA members receive a share of fresh,
locally and often organically grown produce once a week from late spring through early
fall, and sometimes throughout the winter and year-round in warmer climates (UME
2003). An agricultural produce share is usually enough to feed a family of four or a
couple on a vegetarian diet. “Half shares” and flowers, fruit, meat, honey, eggs and dairy
products, are also available from some CSAs. Crops are planted in succession in order to
provide a continuous weekly supply of various vegetables. Weekly shares vary by size
and types of produce depending on agricultural production in each season. A wide
variety share of fruits and vegetables encourages integrated cropping and companion

planting, which reduce risk factors and offer many benefits to the soil (UME 2003).

77

4.4 Summary

This chapter discussed the philosophy and the original concept of the CSA
movement in the U.S. CSA is the local enterprise of farmers and consumers which
creates their own food production and distribution. Farmers and members share the
responsibilities, risks, and benefits of farming in the CSA operation. CSA members
directly support a local farm and economy, and the farmer produces fresh, locally and
often organically grown food for the families. CSA not only engages in food production
and distribution but also conducts community outreach programs such as farming
education and local food security. Through these food related activities, CSA tries to re-
connect people and re-build local community with a farm at its center.

The community farm is the original model of CSA in which farmers and members
are connected through their mutual commitment to CSA. This mutual commitment is the
prominent difference between CSA and other direct marketing strategies such as farmer’s
market. Members commit themselves to support CSA farms financially and share
production and distribution work with their farmers. Members learn the difficulty and
complexity of production through participating in some part of the farming work and
communicate with their farmers in produce distribution.

Members also share the responsibility of the CSA administration with their
farmers through participating in the core group. The core group consists of farmers,
members, distributors and other key administrators. The core group which a community
farm has is an important decision making body for CSA. The group determines short and

long-term goals, prepares the budget and harvesting schedule, and conducts publicity,

78

educational activities and events. The group also organizes member’s farming work and
distribution of produce.

CSA has grown as an alternative food distribution system over the last decade in
the U.S. While the original CSA model is a community farm, the characteristics of CSA
became diversified following the expansion of the CSA movement. There is a wide
range for variation, depending on the resources and desires of the participants within the
general framework of CSA described in this chapter. For example, the member
participation in farming work and produce distribution decreased in many CSAs.
Moreover, There are not many CSAs which have core groups. There is a gap between
the ideal and actual practice of CSA.

This chapter discussed the theoretical framework of CSA. The next chapter

focuses on the actual practice of CSA.

79

Chapter 5 Change and Current Situation of CSA
This chapter discusses the change from the original concept to the actual situation
of CSA. The chapter especially focuses on the relationship between (1) farmers and
members, (2) CSA farms and community, and (3) CSA farms and organic agriculture
movement. The chapter shows the mutual commitment of members decreased and they
became more dependent on farmer’s work following the expansion of the CSA
movement. Many CSA farmers and members became connected in a business-sense

rather than a mutual and supportive relationship.

5.1 Relationship between Farmers and Members

5.1.1 Background of CSA Participants

CSA farms are often initiated by farmers. These farmers do not necessarily have
previous farming experience. Laird (1995) conducted a national survey of CSA farms
and found that 79 percent of CSAs were initiated by farmers, six percent by farmers and
consumers together, and five percent by consumers. F orty-nine percent of these CSA
farmers had no previous farming experience. Some of them even had jobs which had
little relationship to agriculture (Laird 1995145).

Laird (1995) also found 59 percent of the CSAs had their own farmland. The
other 41 percent of the C SAs rented the land from private owners, secured property from
land trusts, or it was provided to them by for-profit groups. In this case, rental payment
might be included in a share.

Many CSA farmers increased their job satisfaction since they started CSA; 79 %

of farmers said the satisfaction had increased, 17 percent said it remained the same, and

80

only four percent felt less satisfaction (Laird 1995). However, CSA farmers need to
spend extra hours to grow a wider variety of produce and manage CSA operations well.
According to Laird’s survey (1995), 67 percent of the farmers felt their workload had
increased since they started CSA. Thirty percent felt it remained the same, and only three
percent found they worked less. Eighty-five percent of the 34 new farmers also said that
their working hours had increased. Laird (1995:50) remarks that CSA farmers said
instead of less marketing stress, they needed more time for training apprentices,
educating members, socializing, spending time with family, organizing agricultural
education programs, and giving extra care to farming.

The majority of CSA members is white and middle-class; they also have fairly
high incomes and education levels (Henderson and Van En 1999). People who have
chemical sensitivities, cancer victims, and families with allergic children are attracted to
CSA for the alleviation of their illness. (Henderson and Van En 1999). Many CSAs
increase membership by word of mouth (Henderson and Van En 1999).

Henderson (Henderson and Van En 1999) gives the reasons for member
participation which are fresh locally grown food, organic produce, support for local
farmers, environmental and health concerns, and food safety. It is critical for
membership retention to meet members’ expectations. Generally, many studies indicate
that members join CSA for three major reasons: to obtain fresh vegetables, to protect the
environment, and to support local agriculture (Cone and Kakaliouras 1995; DeLind

2003a; Henderson and Van En 1999).

81

5.1.2 Diversification of CSA Characteristics

CSA farmers have different ideas about how to farm, what they value for
efficiency and quality, how much they want to earn and what kind of assistance they want.
CSA members also have different expectations about food quality, farming education,
and socializing at their farms. Human, financial and natural resources in each CSA are
not the same. Thus, CSAs take on a variety of characteristics in response to their needs
and resources (Groh and McFadden 1990; Henderson and Van En 1999). Moreover,
each CSA is not a static organization but rather a living organism which constantly
develops and changes (Groh and McFadden 1990). The relationship between farmers
and members has also changed following the diversification of CSA characteristics.

For instance, the relationship between farmers and members in the participation of
CSA activities has changed. The level of member participation in either growing or
produce distribution largely differs from farm to farm. Community farm CSA involves
high member participation that requires all members to do some work as part of their
share payment. CSA which involves little member participation is called a subscription
farm CSA in that the farm staff does all the work and members simply receive a share
each week. Many of subscription farm CSA grow produce for 200, 500, 800, and
sometimes 1,000 households (DeLind 2003a). The ultimate non-member participation is
the home delivery in which the farm staff picks produce, sorts boxes, and delivers them
to the doorsteps of the members. Most CSAs include a range of member’s involvement
of volunteering for some work days on the farm, helping with distribution, or providing

an option of reduced payment with “working” shares (Henderson and Van En 1999:7-8).

82

In the eastern U.S. and the Midwest, CSAs came to emphasize principles and
cooperation with concerns about sustainable agriculture and food quality. On the other
hand, in the far west, especially California, some CSAs are organized on a larger scale
with subscription farming for their marketing option, in which the non-economic features
and attractions of CSA are less important (Groh and McFadden 1997; Ostrom 1997).

Organic farms in California began subscription shares to diversify their marketing
channels (Henderson and Van En 1999:8). A subscription model would limit member
involvement and the sense of connection to the farm. A large number of members in
subscription CSAs reduce the intimacy of personal contact between farmers and members.
In addition, CSAs in California have much less emphasis on sharing risk for production.
Dru Rivers of F ull Belly Farm mentions she does not want to emphasize risk sharing
because of availability of organic produce and a lot of competition in the California
organic market (Henderson and Van En 199918). The relationship between farmers and
consumers within subscription CSAs is created more in a business-sense.

CSAs not only in California but also around large cities in other areas of the U.S.
tend to have large memberships. However, the challenge for these CSAs is to retain the
integrity, quality, and essential philosophy as well as education and community building
roles.

A multi-farm CSA is formed by a group of local farmers who form an association
to produce crops for a CSA. Each farm can produce the crops which best suit the farm’s
environment. Thus, the production system is more simple. There are advantages to
sharing the farming work and the financial and production risks among the farmers

(Henderson and Van En 19991185). This cooperation offers wider consumer choice,

83

attracts more members, increases marketing options and results in more income for the
farmers. A multi-farrn CSA may become a social support system for local farmers and
facilitate the development of the local food system (DeLind 2003b).

However, organizational work is required for multi-farm CSAs (Henderson and
Van En 1999). This results in coordinating harvesting schedules and deliveries,
apportioning crops fairly, and agreeing on quality standards and farming methods.

DeLind (2003b) also points out the difficulty of communication in multi-farm
CSAs. She mentions that several farmers’ associations of multi-farm CSAs have had
difficulty deepening the relationship between farmers and members. She argues
members might not know all the farmers, and some farmers might hesitate to
communicate with their members. Communication between farmers and members
becomes more difficult and complicated in multi-farm CSAs.

While CSA farms largely increased in the previous decade, types and scales of
CSA became diversified. In other words, not all CSAs follow the community farm model
which retains the original philosophy of CSA. Overall member participation in farming,
distribution, and administration work decreased and farmers and members are physically

and mentally distanced flom each other following the expansion of the CSA movement.

5.1.3 CSA as Marketing Strategy

CSA farms are often initiated by farmers who own the land and view their farm as
a private enterprise. Though CSA has various tasks of flesh local food production,
educational role and community building, it is of critical concern for CSA farmers to

make a comfortable and dependable living (DeLind 2003a). CSA farmers often adopt

84

CSA as one of the marketing strategies to diversify their income (DeLind 2003a). Laird
(1995) found flom his survey in 1993 that 74 percent of CSA farmers sold their produce
to outside markets such as restaurants, farmer’s markets, food co-ops, local stores, and
natural food stores. Members are purchasing a set of relationships and amenities which
add value to the produce (DeLind 2003). The cooperative relationship of farmers and
members is not flee flom market economies.

In this sense, there is much similarity with other direct marketing such as farmer’s
markets, u-picks, farm stands, and the direct delivery of produce. CSA farmers and
members assume a loosely cooperative relationship in a business sense (DeLind 2003a).
In other words, CSA creates niche marketing, builds a more democratic local food system

and provides good short-term management for local farmers.

5.1.4 Unequal Commitment of CSA Farmers and Members

Member turnover rates are as high as 40-50 percent a year (DeLind 2003a). The
reasons members leave CSA are: moving out of town; having another baby; starting their
own garden; going on vacation; preferring to choose their own menu; and having too
much produce (Henderson and Van En 1999).

CSA members are more likely to be concerned about the value of the produce
than the financing of the farm (Henderson and Van En 1999191). Moreover, CSA
members were far more willing to be “engaged,” “forgiving” and “financially expansive”
before their first seasonal experience than afterwards (DeLind 2003a).

Members’ responsibility for participating in farm work, either volunteered or

required, is becoming the exception rather than the rule (DeLind 2003a and 2003b). CSA

85

 

 

farmers understand their members do not have enough time to engage in farming work.
Laird (1995) mentions only 22 percent of the CSAs be surveyed asked members to
participate in farming work. DeLind (1999b) also noted that of the 35 CSAs she
surveyed in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, 25 had no working members.

As described in the previous chapter, the core group is a decision-making body of
CSA which helps management of the farm. Core groups oflen help CSA farmers with all
tasks of growing, managing and conducting agricultural education at the farms. However,
The number of CSA farms which have core groups is small. For instance, DeLind
(199%) shows only seven of 35 CSAs surveyed in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana had a
group which resembled a core group. The national CSA survey in 1999 reports only
28 % of CSA farms had core groups (CIAS 2003)

While sharing risks and responsibilities is an essential philosophy of CSA, it is
not actually happening. In fact, many CSA farmers eliminated using the words ”shared
risk” on their membership agreement according to the discussions of the CSA list serve
(DeLind 2003a). Some CSAs reduce the risk sharing by purchasing produce flom other
farms to fill out their shares (Henderson and Van En 1999:8). The farmers are also very
careful not to ask their members to take more produce than they want (DeLind 2003a).
At the same time, farmers also limit the produce available for CSA distribution using the
rest for farmer’s markets.

With less member participation and risk sharing, CSA farmers have to work much
harder and make more commitments at CSA farms than their members. It is the CSA
farmers who exploit their health, money and time to keep CSA operations going. In fact,

one of the main reasons farmers gave up CSA is because they found themselves

86

exhausted by doing all the tasks of growing, distribution, organization and management
(Henderson and Van En 1999). They failed to find members or develop a strong core
group that would help their management of CSAs.

In addition to unequal commitment of farmers and members to their CSAs, many
CSA farmers were underpaid for their work and produce. CSA farms could charge more
for what they provide (Henderson and Van En 1999198). It is not CSA members but the
farmers who often go without medial insurance (DeLind 2003a). Henderson (Henderson
and Van En 1999192) also says she had seen only a few budgets that involved a pension
fund for the farmer. CSA farmers as well as other small business owners have to pay for
their own health insurance and prepare for their retirement.

Though providing a decent wage for farming is an essential philosophy in CSA, a
comfortable income for farmers had not been assured yet (Henderson and Van En 1999;
DeLind 2003a). Many CSAs did not include farmer’s salaries or capital expenditure in
their budgets (Henderson and Van En 1999). According to Laird, the average farmers’
annual salary was $11,225 with a range flom $0 to $30,000 (Laird 1995).

Not surprisingly, there is a huge income disparity between farmers and members.
Cone and Myhre (2000119) found that the CSAs with the lowest member participation
had the highest member income. In fact, 33 percent of this group had annual incomes
greater than $100,000. On the other hand, DeLind (2003a) mentions Hu’s research that
found the annual income of CSA farmer was as high as $30,000 in a good season.
However, the average farmer’s annual income ($11,225) as Laird reported is much less

than that amount.

87

While a shared commitment is the original philosophy of CSA, farmers made
more commitments to their CSA than their members. Members began to depend more on
their farmers’ work and the farmers often overworked and exploited themselves. Farmers
and members became connected more in a business-sense than mutual relationship
following the expansion of CSA farms. Moreover, there is a huge income disparity
between farmers and members. A comfortable income for farmers has not been assured
yet. This section focused on the relationship between farmers and members. The next

section discusses the relationship between CSA farms and their communities.

88

5.2 Relationship between CSA Farms and Their Communities

CSA attempts to facilitate community activities through its outreach programs
such as farming education, cooking classes and flesh food supplies to food banks and
pantries. Through local agricultural production, CSA facilitates the development of
farmer’s market and other local direct marketing. In some cases, CSA activities
revitalized other local agricultural organizations (Groh and McFadden 1990). USDA
(United States Department of Agriculture) partially supports research activities in CSA
through SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) program and maintains
the database of CSA farms and farmer’s markets on the website. CSA has potential to
revitalize local communities and local food distribution through its activities.

However, contrary to the notion of wider community involvement, CSAs have not
yet achieved a membership which reflects variety of population economically,
educationally, or ethnically (Hinrichs and Kramer 1998; Cone and Myhre 2000; Hinrichs
2000; DeLind 2003b). As shown in the previous section, most members are white and
middle class, and relatively have high incomes and education levels. While many CSAs
provide flesh produce to food banks and pantries, and some CSAs offer discounted or
flee shares to several low-income families, they have not attained significant number of
membership flom a variety of people. This is a major obstacle in the CSA movement.

It is surprising that CSA members give less priority to community. Though the
surveys indicate that members join CSAs for such reasons as obtaining flesh vegetables,
protecting the environment, and supporting local agriculture (see Section 5.1.1), the
expectation for building “community” in the activities ranks very low (Cone and

Kakaliouras 1995; Cone and Myhre 2000; DeLind 2003a). Moreover, members’ interest

89

in attending festivals and events at the farms is also low (Cone and Kakaliouras 1995;
Cone and Myhre 2000). Cone and Kakaliouras (1995) explain “community” in reality
refers more to a community interest of CSA participants rather than community which is
realized in reciprocal relationship of farmers and members.

While the total number of CSA farms have increased, countless CSAs have failed
and tens of thousands of members have dropped out while these farmers and members
were well aware of the deficiency of the current food system and ready to do something
about it (DeLind 2003a). Farmers and members are often discouraged and exhausted
when they expect to build a sense of community through their participation in CSA
(DeLind l999a and 2003a).

People did not choose to belong to the community in a traditional sense whether
they liked it or not because they depended on it. However, CSA is a voluntary
association in which people have a choice to participate without constraining individual
fleedom, and without which people cannot survive. DeLind (2003a) understands that the
participants of CSA as well as green consumers manage their activism within a globally-
oriented and commodity-driven world without challenging their society collectively.

While CSA revitalized local agricultural marketing and food distribution, CSA
has not achieved community building through farming activities at its center as the
original philosophy advocates. Community building and agricultural education are not
the only responsibilities for farmers who work hard for caring soils and natural produce.
Disruption of the market relationship between farmers and consumers, and development

of long-term and wider community commitment is a challenge for the CSA movement to

90

ensure the potential for changing the current industrialized food system. CSA farmers, as
small business owners, have to balance self-interest and community interest.

While many CSA farms have difficulty to keep community activities, there is
another CSA arrangement. 501c3 CSA maintains non-profit status and focuses more on
community programs such as agricultural education and local food security. This CSA
model tries to maintain the operation financially through farming business and donation.
However, it is more comfortable for the CSA to work on programs of education and
community building which are essential for CSA philosophy because non-profit status
reduces economic pressure on the farm (DeLind 2003b). DeLind (2003b) reports several
501c3 CSAs were formed by faith-based organizations and a few with public and private
trusts in Michigan. All seem to emphasize connections to a living earth and the essential
value of community.

501c3 CSA appears to maintain a deliberate balance between the demands of
private enterprise and the responsibilities of public welfare. The CSA can take the social
and educational burden flom its farmers and constantly and widely provide opportunities
for hands-on involvement to the members (DeLind 2003b). A 50103 CSA model might
be the better way to realize the ideal of CSA compared to other forms of CSAs.

This section focused on the relationship between CSA and community. The next
section discusses the relationship between CSA farms and the organic agriculture

movement.

91

5.3 Relationship between CSA Farms and Organic Agriculture Movement

DeLind (2000) advocates that organic agriculture has to involve social vision,
otherwise the organic industry would be not very much different flom conventional food
systems. National standardization of organic production is very controversial whether the
standardization promotes or degrades organic agriculture movement. While the
codification system grows the organic market and increase the produce labeled “organic”,
the quality of organic produce become diversified and decreased. For example, corporate
large farms and processors which often want to dominate the agricultural market recently
attempted to weaken the National Organic Standard. There is a dilemma that as organic
food and farming are increasingly integrated into the national-level agricultural policy,
they are increasingly threatened by the disintegration of the original principles of organic
agriculture (DeLind 2000). According to Henderson, to whom DeLind (2000) refers, the
main impetus for national organic standards came not flom farmers but flom
environmentalists, consumers and food manufacturers. Thus, the stimuli of
standardization came more flom the concern of food safety and health issues than flom
promoting natural farming and protecting diversified local farmers.

Most CSAs work for maintaining soil fertility which protects both food and the
environment flom contamination through sustainable farming strategies. Some CSAs are
not organic farms but they work toward reducing pesticides and chemical fertilizer and
maintaining their soil naturally. Community farm CSAs, which maintain a close
relationship between farmers and consumers, do not need to be certified because the

members know how their farmers cultivate the land. Indeed, there is no better way than

92

direct observation by farm visits by the members to assure whether their produce is
grown organically (Hatano 1998a).

However, not all CSA farms maintain such a close relationship between farmers
and consumers. Some CSAs try to acquire organic certification for the credibility of their
produce flom their members or consumers. For example, CSA farmers who also want to
sell their produce to a farmer’s market try to be certified. DeLind (2003b) found that as
the number of associated enterprises grew larger, the members began to request organic
certification of their produce in one of three multi-farm CSAs in Michigan. The
members wanted a third party seal to ensure quality because they have less opportunity
for a direct observation of food production. Subscription farm CSAs would also consider
certification because the farmers do not maintain a close relationship with their members.

DeLind (2003b) raises three basic reasons for organic certification flom her CSA
farms survey in Michigan: (1) acquiring certification and maintaining national standards
as a way to politically support the organic movement; (2) certification would help the
farmers attract more members and allow them to charge higher prices for produce; (3)
necessity to have a third party seal to show the quality of produce to customers because
farmers have other marketing channels such as farmer’s markets and restaurants.

DeLind (2003b) also found three main arguments by the farmers who see no
reason to certify: (1) the codification of the organic process attracts large-scale
commercial interests and reduces it to a finite set of materials and techniques which can
be owned and controlled by national and transnational corporations; (2) certification is
simply too expensive and requires too much paperwork; (3) certification is just irrelevant

because CSA members can see how their food is organically grown at the farms. While

93

large farmers can invest their money into organic certification for their produce
marketing, it is too expensive for small farmers to be certified.

CSA has an appealing point as “flesh” and “locally grown” organic produce
which is not the same with long-transported organic produce flom large-corporate
organic farms. The competition between CSA and other organic markets would be more
of an issue in California because many flesh organic produce flom large farms are
available. The issue might become more intense nationally when tasty and fleshly grown
organic produce is available and controlled by an advanced high-tech storage or
production system in addition to easier access to organic food because the major reason

for CSA participation is the availability of “flesh” organic food in CSA.

94

5.4 Summary

This chapter discussed the change flom the original concept to the actual situation
of CSA. CSA has successfully grown as an alternative food distribution system over the
last decade in the U.S., the types and scales of CSA farms became diversified and the
relationship between farmers and members has been changed. Farmers and members are
physically and mentally distanced flom each other following the expansion of the CSA
movement.

Overall member participation in farming, distribution, and administration work
decreased and they depend more on farmers’ work. Most CSAs are farmer-initiated and
farmers often adopt CSA as one of the marketing strategies to diversify their income.
Many CSA farmers and members became connected in a business-sense rather than a
mutual and supportive relationship.

Contrary to the original notion of CSA, most consumer members are not equally
sharing the risks and responsibilities of farming and food production with their farmers.
CSA farmers have to work much harder and make more commitments at CSA farms than
their members. Moreover, many CSA farmers were underpaid for their work and
produce. In fact, there is a huge income disparity between farmers and members.

While CSA revitalized local agricultural marketing and food distribution, CSA
has not yet achieved community building through CSA activities. Surprisingly, the
member’s expectation for building “community” through participating in CSA is very
low. Community building and agricultural education are not the only responsibilities for

farmers but they have to balance self-interest and community interest. 50103 CSA

95

maintains non-profit status and focuses more on community outreach programs. Non-
profit status of the CSA reduces economic pressure on the farm.

Community farm CSAs, which maintain a close relationship between farmers and
members, do not need the organic certification because the members know how their
produce is grown. However, some CSAs try to acquire organic certification for the
credibility of their produce due to the lack of a close relationship with members. CSA
farmers who want to sell their produce to farmer’s market try to be certified.
Subscription farm CSAs would also consider certification because their members usually
do not visit the farms to see how the produce is grown.

Many Teikei farmers believe the CSA movement is successful in the U.S. Teikei
farmers are interested in the viability of CSA and ready to learn flom CSA for the
revitalization of the Teikei movement. However, CSA has not fully realized the original
concept and embraces some problems such as less sharing of responsibilities and
unreliable income of farmers in a real practice. The last four chapters discussed history,
philosophy and the current situation of Teikei and CSA. The final chapter focuses the

contrasts and comparisons of the Teikei and CSA movements.

96

Chapter 6: Comparisons and Contrasts of Teikei and CSA

This chapter compares the concept and the current situation of the Teikei and
CSA movements which have been seen in the previous chapters. First, the philosophy
and concept of Teikei and CSA are compared. In the next sections, the comparison of the
current situation of Teikei and CSA is discussed. Especially, the sections focus on the
similarities and differences about the relationship between (1) farmers and consumers, (2)
farms and communities, and (3) farms and organic agriculture movement. Strengths and
weaknesses, and problems in the Teikei and CSA movement are described. Finally,
perspectives of the Teikei and CSA movement and future study recommendations are

described. Table 10 briefly shows the characteristics of Teikei and CSA.

97

Table 10. Two Models of Alternative Agriculture in Japan and the U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CSA in the U.S. Teikei in Japan
Date started Middle of the 1980’s Beginning of the 1970’s
Original model Community farm model Community farm model
Appealing focus Local food system Organic farming
Leadership Farmers Consumers
Initiation Farmers Farmers and consumers together
Group structure Individual local farmers and Farmers’ and consumers’ groups

members

Relationship Within locality Distant relationship between

farmers and consumers

 

Decision-making

Core group or farmer

Group of farmers’ and

 

 

 

body consumers’ committee members
Major reasons for -To obtain flesh vegetables -To obtain flesh and safe food
consumers’ -To protect the environment -To support farmers
participation -To increase farmer income
market
Background for the -Decline of small family farms -Health concerns flom chemical
emergence -Long transportation of food food contamination
-Loss of food system control -Decline of farming population
-Less quality of food -Industrialization of agriculture
and food system
-Decline of food self-sufficiency
Emphasized -Mutual commitment and risk -Mutual relationship between
difference flom sharing between farmers and farmers and consumers
direct marketing members -Principle to purchase all amount

-Building community through

of products farmers produce

 

 

 

farming activity at its center -Group studying and civic
-Making an annual contract responsibility
through prepaying share
-Community outreach programs
and civic responsibility
Outreach activities -Local food security -Food safety
-Agricultural education -Environmental Pollution
-Self-help type activities -Conflict type lobbying and
rallying
Problems -Less sharing of risk and -Far relationship between

 

responsibility

-Less member participation and
increase of market relationship

-Exclusion of low-income class
-High member tum-over rate

 

farmers and consumers
-Competition in organic market
-Degradation of the movement
viability due to the loss of many
members and active housewives

 

98

 

6.1 Comparison of Philosophy and History in Teikei and CSA

Both Japan and the U.S. have become more dependent on food which is produced
far from consumers due to the prosperity of large agri-industry and the globalization of
food systems. The Teikei and CSA movement emerged through struggles against the
globalization of food systems and the industrialization of agriculture.

Teikei farmers and consumers proposed the development of organic agriculture as
hope for an alternative food distribution and a strategy to rebuild the industrial
agricultural production. They considered that the practice of organic agriculture in the
Teikei movement would enable them to re-establish the relationship between farmers and
consumers and to care for the farm and rural environment which was seriously damaged
by chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Farmers and consumers had to create a direct
relationship by themselves for organic food distribution because there was no marketing
channel for the produce. Thus, the Teikei partnership is understood in Japan as a strategy
for an establishment of organic farming and food distribution.

On the other hand, CSA focuses more on local food distribution and community
building. Farmers and consumers created a direct relationship to support their local small
farms financially. CSA focuses on the creation of an agriculture-centered community in
which farmers and consumers are reconnected and the democratic management of food
systems.

The focus between CSA and Teikei is slightly different: organic agriculture in
Teikei and local food distribution in CSA. While the Teikei movement reconsiders how
to cultivate the land or the farming methodology, CSA tries to rebuild relationships

among food, agriculture and people. However both of them emerged to re-think the

99

current globalized and industrialized food system—one more politically (civically) and
the other more individually (privately).

As Robyn Van En, a leader of the CSA movement said, the concept and original
idea for the future of agriculture are very similar between the Teikei and CSA movement
(Henderson and Van En 1999:xvi). Tsukiji (1976) showed the original Teikei model
which keeps a reciprocal relationship between local farmers and consumers. Ichiraku, a
founder of JOAA, advocated the importance of local food distribution by small local
Teikei groups in the ten principles of Teikei. They believed that the Teikei relationship
provided an opportunity for farmers and consumers to care about their food and
agriculture and creates more farming-focused relationships. On the other hand, Van En
expressed mutual commitment of farmers and members is the essential philosophy of
CSA. Both the original philosophy of Teikei and CSA sought a community farm model
in which farmers and consumers were mentally and physically close to each other.

Teikei members pay for their produce on a monthly-basis but they have a
principle to purchase all of the products their farmers produce. CSA members financially
support their farms by making an annual contract through prepaying for a share. Thus,
Teikei and CSA members financially support their farms and share production risks.
They also participate in farming and produce distribution work with their farmers.

Teikei and CSA are also hybrid institutions that not only engage in food
production and distribution, but also conduct educational activities and community
outreach programs (DeLind 2003a; Hatano 1998b). Though Teikei members were more
concerned about food safety issues and environmental problems in these activities, CSA

groups are likely to work on the issues of local food security and agricultural education.

100

Outreach activities in CSA are more local, self-help type activities; however, Teikei
groups often organize national campaigns and political lobbying for issues which concern
them. Teikei movement participants, especially urban housewives, were politically
aware and cooperated with a large number of active consumers in the consumer
cooperative movement. Important social issues in each age and country influence the
focus of their activities in Teikei and CSA. Because of these community activities and a
mutual relationship of farmers and consumers in Teikei and CSA, they differ flom other
direct marketing strategies such as farmer’s markets, farm stands, u-picks and mail
deliveries of produce.

This section discussed similarities and difference of the original concept and
philosophy in Teikei and CSA. The next sections compare the current situation of Teikei

and CSA.

101

6.2 Comparison of Change and Current Situation in Teikei and CSA

Section 6.2 discusses similarities and differences in the actual practice of Teikei
and CSA. The section especially compares the relationship in Teikei and CSA between
(1) farmers and consumers, (2) farms and communities, and (3) farms and organic
agriculture movement. Many Teikei and CSA farms failed to achieve the original
philosophy of the movements. Both Teikei and CSA members became more dependent
on their farmers’ work and the farmers and consumers are connected in a business-sense

rather than a mutual relationship.

6.2.] Relationship between Farmers and Members

While the Teikei movement is characterized by consumer or member-oriented
leadership, CSAs are often initiated and led by farmers, and considered a survival
strategy for small family farms. Many members of Teikei and CSA are highly educated
and middle class. These members in Teikei were often housewives who sought safe and
healthy food for their families. The participation in the Teikei and consumer cooperative
movements were very popular among these housewives during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
They considered their involvement in Teikei as social participation (Arakawa 1995).

The members’ reasons for participating in the Teikei and CSA movements have
many similarities. Access to flesh, healthy food and supporting farmers are ranked
highly as two reasons for participation in Teikei and CSA. Teikei and CSA farmers
mention their satisfaction increased in their activities and they feel support flom their

members while their work increased for the management of Teikei and CSA.

102

While Teikei and CSA largely expanded since the movements initiated, the types
and scales of Teikei and CSA farms diversified. Teikei and CSA farms that follow
community farm model decreased. Teikei and CSA farms that do not place less emphasis
on a mutual relationship between farmers and members increased. For example, the
participation of Teikei and CSA members in their activities decreased. These members
became more dependent on their farrners’ work. Teikei and CSA members’ engagement
in farming work is not obligatory but optional. CSAs without core groups are increasing.
Aoki (1998) mentions Teikei farmers had to work harder for organic production, farm
operation and relationship management of their members and other farmers in their rural
communities. DeLind (2003a) notes that it is not members but farmers who have to work
hard for not only food business, but also educational tasks and farm festivals that result in
them often burning out at the end. Contrary to the notion of shared work between
farmers and members, farmers tend to exploit their time and work harder for their Teikei
and CSA. Teikei and CSA members are distanced mentally and physically flom their
farms following their reduced participation in their activities.

Ideally, Teikei and CSA members are not purchasing vegetables but investing in a
more organic or sustainable way of life. Weekly produce is supposed to be a return on a
member’s long-term commitment and mutual relationship with their farmers. However,
Teikei and CSA easily becomes a business relationship for selling and buying a quality
product for farmers and members.

As described above, most primary members’ interest for their participation is to
obtain flesh organically grown food. The relationship between farmers and consmners in

Teikei and CSA became more market-centered, and commodity focused and less mutual.

103

Teikei participants focused more on the development of an organic produce distribution
and used their “organic” produce as a membership recruiting strategy. While the J OAA,
which is a national representative of the Teikei movement in Japan, advocated the
significance of the non-economic features of the movement, the actual Teikei practice
was not much different flom other direct marketing. CSA farmers adopt CSA as a
marketing strategy to diversify their income. They limit the produce available for CSA
distribution and use the rest for farmer’s market, local stores and natural food stores.
There are more subscription farm CSAs that have a great deal of membership. In
subscription farm CSAs, the relationship between farmers and consumers is more
commodity-focused and members do not interact a lot with their producers. Farmers and
consumers in Teikei and CSA are connected more in a business-sense than a mutual
relationship.

Hatano (1998a and 1998b124) explained the difficulty of the Teikei movement to
achieve four important elements for its development all at once. These elements are
member/farmer equal relationship, price stability and financial security, stable amount of
food production and supply, and collective identity. The difficulty for achieving all four
elements created various types of Teikei groups. For instance, some Teikei groups
emphasized an equal relationship of farmers and consumers and collective identity, and
other groups prioritized financial security and stability of food distribution. The dilemma,
which Teikei groups did not realize, affected all aspects of the essential Teikei concept.
The CSA movement in the U.S. is not exempt flom this dilemma.

Cynthia Cone (1995) referred to this dilemma as produce or market orientation

versus deep eco-value or philosophical nature. Hinrichs (2000) expressed this

104

relationship as tension between embeddedness and marketness. CSA farmers have to
create a balance between serving members and lowering risk, between managing
production and sharing responsibility, and between personal income establishing and
collective community building (DeLind 2003b). Teikei farmers have similar situations as
well.

It is understandable that Teikei and CSA farmers want to distinguish their produce
on the basis of quality and diversity because they have to compete with the conventional
food system. In addition to their role of food production, Teikei and CSA farmers are
required to take social and educational roles that challenge to reform the current food
system. They need to protect themselves flom such exploitative situations. Thus, Teikei
and CSA farmers formed an association such as a multi-farm CSA to keep their income
and minimize their production risk.

Many Teikei farmers cooperated and created their associations which have many
similarities with a multi-farm CSA to share financial and production risks and provide a
wider variety of produce to Teikei members. One of the reasons for the cooperation
among Teikei farmers is that each farmer owned a small piece of land for farming
purposes. F armers in Japan often formed agricultural cooperatives to organize the
distribution of their produce to the market. Teikei farmers also cooperated together for
the distribution of organic produce.

However, the complexities of group organization caused many problems in their
operation. Some Teikei farmer groups had conflicts due to the different levels of

understanding the Teikei philosophy and the different views of quality standards among

105

the farmers. Multi-farm CSAs also have problems such as more difficulty in operational
management and more relational distance between farmers and consumers.

DeLind (2003b) worries that the convenience of food availability and expanded
choice may lead to increased market competition, enclose local markets and transform an
interactive membership of CSA into a buying club. Indeed, many Teikei groups caused
competition with other local markets and agricultural cooperatives. The competition
between Teikei and other farmers created obstacles to facilitate local network of farmers
and agricultural organizations and lead to a win-win situation for the whole local farming
communities.

In addition, many Teikei farmer groups agreed to distribute their produce not only
to one consumer group but also to also several consumer groups in different regions.
Teikei groups have become large associations of consumers’ and farmers’ groups which
often extend over wide areas. The larger the network of the Teikei groups became, the
less farmers and consumers kept a face-to-face relationship (Kubota and Masugata 1992).
The wide Teikei network for produce distribution made the relationship more
complicated and the communication more difficult between farmers and consumers
compared to CSA in the U.S. that is often created by a farmer and local neighbors. The
relational complexity in Teikei sometimes led to a huge conflict between farmers and
consumers. An example is the Teikei movement in Takahata village.

The decision-making body in Teikei is also more complicated than the core group
in CSA in such a situation (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). A decision-making process in
Teikei is created by farmer and consumer representatives flom their groups while CSA

forms the core group which is in a CSA farm. Teikei committee members of farmers and

106

consumers often live far flom each other, thus they have to spend more time and cost to
have their meetings than the core group members in CSA.

However, the wider network of Teikei groups enabled farmers in remote rural
areas to participate in the Teikei movement. These farmers had difficulty finding
supporters in their neighboring areas in Japan. In this situation, the Teikei relationship
was created between Teikei farmers’ groups in remote rural villages and consumers’
groups in large urban areas. Henderson (Henderson and Van En 1999) explains the
difficulty in recruiting members in remote rural areas in which people are not interested
in the CSA concept and do not care about organically grown produce. Potential CSA
members can be found easier in urban and sub-urban areas than remote rural villages.
While more rural farmers in Japan were involved in the Teikei movement, they had a

communication problem with their urban consumers.

6.2.2 Relationship between Farms and Their Communities

Teikei and CSA are hybrid organizations which engage not only in a food
business but also in social issues and outreach community programs. Teikei groups work
for food safety, health concerns and environmental issues. CSAs conduct programs of
local food security, social justice and agricultural education. Outreach activities in CSA
are more local, self-help type activities; however, Teikei groups often organize national
campaigns and political lobbying for issues which concern them.

DeLind (2003a) refers to Stevenson’s “warrior work” and “builder work.”

For him, warrior work is overtly political in nature, designed to influence

political processes and shape public opinion by exposing and attacking the

concentration of wealth and power within the global food sector. Builder
work, by contrast, is more consumer and lifestyle oriented, seeking

107

economic and political change through alternative market behavior and
patterns of personal consumption.

Though CSA in the U.S. is more like self-help, “builder-type” alternative to the
existing agri-food system (DeLind 2003a), the Teikei movement in Japan is more
“warrior wor ”, especially in its activities such as lobbying and rallying against the trade
companies and government policies which facilitate to import crops and organic produce.
Teikei consumers who had an experience of social movement also organized the lobbying
groups against the development of golf ranges, resorts, and nuclear power plants in the
rural villages of Teikei farmers (Hirakawa 1996). The current Teikei groups take a
conflict type approach to organize activities such as the national campaign against GMO
(Genetic Modified Organism) produce. The Teikei movement was more radical and
political and led by consumer activists.

The situations of Teikei farmers in rural communities and the consumers in urban-
centers were opposite; while the consumers were empowered, the farmers were not.
Teikei groups could not successfirlly revitalize local agriculture, though the new civic
initiatives of Teikei had a potential for it. Conventional local farmers thought the value
added to the produce by being organic would compete with their produce. Teikei farmers
failed to educate other local farmers about the significance of organic agriculture and the
Teikei movement. Conventional farmers also viewed organic farming practice in Teikei
as an obsolete style of farming. Moreover, organic farmers had no support for their
farming flom the government because the government did not support organic farming.
Teikei farmers were not only isolated flom the rural community but also left out flom the

government policy.

108

While many Teikei farmers failed to revitalize their rural communities and local
agriculture, consumer members in the urban areas were successful in building their
neighboring communities through the activities in the Teikei movement. The participants
saw each other for produce distribution on a weekly-basis, and they created other group
activities in their urban communities. As previously described, some of the Teikei
consumers became politically active involving several of their farmers flom rural villages.
Many consumer members or urban housewives achieved their social participation
through the Teikei and consumer cooperative movement (Arakawa 1995). In this sense,
they were empowered through the participation of the Teikei movement.

However, empowered Teikei members could not understand the situation of their
farmers in rural communities due to the distant relationship. The empowerment of
consumers in urban neighborhoods did not necessarily lead to the empowerment of their
farmers in rural villages. The involvement of consumers in farming issues in rural
communities did not help to resolve the conflict between conventional and organic
farming in rural communities. Rather, their involvement made the conflict more
troublesome and complicated because they were seen as outsiders.

CSA is less likely to have such problems in communication because farmers and
consumers live closer. In addition, CSA has more community and political support than
Teikei. For instance, CSA farmers have some political support flom USDA through CSA
research funding such as SARE and information services such as CSA farm database on
their website. However, Teikei farmers had a hard time for their farming activities

without political support flom MAF F in Japan.

109

While the political support for CSA should benefit all, CSA does not include a
variety of people. CSA and Teikei became a niche market for consumers who have high
incomes and education levels. CSAs have not yet achieved a membership which reflects
variety of population economically, educationally, or ethnically. Most Teikei consumers
have high education levels. Organic produce flom Teikei farms is considered more
expensive. CSA and Teikei have difficulty to involve a variety of membership.

Not only a variety of people economically, educationally or ethnically, but also
the membership involvement of various generations are important for Teikei and CSA.
Hashimoto (2004), an active Teikei farmer for over 15 years, is concerned about the
aging membership of the Teikei movement. Many active members are in their 50’s and
60’s. His Teikei farm established a loyal membership that has been active for decades
but less young membership is involved. He estimates the Teikei relationship, which is a
secured income source for his farm, would continue for a decade or a bit more, but he
understands the need to find another way to market his produce in the near future.

Hashimoto (2004) also feels the Teikei activities, which the old Teikei members
advocate, are obsolete. He advocates that Teikei needs new marketing strategy and
community activities which attract more people. While Teikei struggles with
membership degradation, do people in Japan not care about agriculture and food systems
at all? It appears as though they do care. For instance, many people are interested in
hands-on farming experience and agricultural education. The local government of Tokyo
recently started a community gardening program. Many urban residents participate in

growing various kinds of produce in small fields in which local retired farmers supervise

110

and give advice to the participants. Many people are on the waiting list for the program.
Teikei groups can cooperate with these programs for their activities.

One old member criticized young people in Japan saying they have no interest in
food and consuming behavior (JOAA 2004). However, I feel, it is more important for
them to involve new young members through education rather than criticism.

Another Teikei farmer (J OAA 2004) complained about the dominant leadership
of consumers in the Teikei movement. The Teikei farmers could become local teachers
for agricultural education and leaders who facilitate local agriculture though they cannot
achieve these roles. The farmer mentioned he believed his role was to do his best in
organic production and supply safe food to his consumers. However, it was not enough
because the consumers cannot understand their farmers. The issues of concerned in the
Teikei movement were food safety and quality of food, which were often advocated not
by the farmers but by the consumer members. He explained that the farmers also had to
express their ideas and thoughts in the movement though they were already busy with
their farming work.

One of the reasons for the stagnation of the Teikei movement seems that it has
failed to reflect the farmer’s concern and adopt new activities that people are more
interested in. Thus, the movement struggles with the erosion of the membership and its
viability. It is very important for the continuous viability of Teikei and CSA to balance

interests flom various people and generations.

111

6.2.3 Relationship between Farms and Organic Agriculture Movement

All Teikei farmers and most CSA farmers practice organic production in their
farms. There appears to be less competition for organic produce distribution between
CSA and other retailing of organic produce in the U.S., while the competition between
CSA and other organic markets would be more of an issue in California because much
flesh organic produce flom large farms are available. There is much competition in the
organic markets in Japan. CSA has an appealing point as “flesh” and “locally grown”
organic produce which is not the same with long-transported organic produce flom large-
corporate organic farms. However, Teikei farmers face difficulty in attempting to
differentiate their produce flom organic produce at grocery stores and department stores
because the organic produce in Teikei often travels for a long distance between states in
Japan while the farmers worked hard for maintaining quality. The Teikei groups struggle
with finding their own strategy to differentiate their produce flom other commercial
organic produce.

The organic certification system is very controversial in Japan and the U.S.
While the certification system would facilitate the expansion of the organic market,
Teikei and CSA farmers who are reluctant to be certified considers the codification of
organic produce allow large agri-corporations to control the organic market. Many
Teikei and CSA farmers also feel the acquisition of the certification is expensive and
requires much paperwork.

Imported organic produce and the organic certification are huge issues in the
Teikei movement in Japan. The Teikei movement advocated the significance of organic

agriculture as a strategy to compete with the globalized and industrialized food and

112

farming systems. The Teikei farmers worked hard to explain the significance of organic
agriculture for over 30 years even when the society at large did not accept organic
produce. However, the global agri-industry, to which the Teikei participants were
opposed, started the trading of organic produce. The industry also promoted the global
standard of the organic certification for the development of commercial organic produce
with WTO (World Trade Organization) and governments’ policies. Teikei participants
were surprised to find that organic agriculture was becoming industrialized.

Organic agriculture was the centerpiece of the Teikei movement. The name of
J 0AA, which is the national representative of the Teikei movement, illustrates this—the
association was not named the Japan Teikei Association, but the Japan Organic
Agriculture Association. Many organic farmers in Japan, most of whom are Teikei
farmers, complain about the organic certification system because they have maintained
the quality of produce without certification. Many Teikei farmers even keep higher
standards for their organic production compared to the generalized organic standards
(Kubota 2001). Teikei farmers are very upset by the installation of certification system
by the government because the agricultural policy in Japan never supported organic
agriculture while the Teikei movement struggled to survive.

Thus, many Teikei farmers, like some CSA farmers, are reluctant to spend their
money and time for the organic certification because their organic farming practices have
not changed. Teikei farmers resist the codification system of organic produce. On the
other hand, CSA farmers are less nervous to the organic certification than Teikei farmers.

Some CSA farmers might make good use of the system to diversify their marketing

113

channels such as farmer’s markets and restaurants and to support the organic movement
as a whole.

However, some Teikei consumers who are not directly connected to the farms
have asked their farmers to become organically certified. A Teikei farmer who was an
intern in a dairy farm in Wisconsin explained her family farm participated in the large
Teikei farmers’ group (Oura 2003). Her farm had been a Teikei organic farm for thirty
years since her farther became a Teikei farmer. However, the consumer members asked
her farm to be organically certified while the organic farming practice on her farm had
not changed for thirty years.

There is a similar situation happening as well in CSA farms. DeLind (2003b)
explains one of three multi-farm CSAs in Michigan found that as the number of
associated enterprises grew larger, the members began to request the organic certification
of their produce. The members wanted a third party seal to ensure quality because they
have less opportunity for a direct observation of food production.

Teikei and CSA members who are distanced mentally and physically flom their
farms asked their farmers to be organically certified when the codification system of
organic produce was introduced in Japan and the U.S. Their organic farming practice has
not changed for decades even if they are certified; however, those farmers have to spend

more time on paper work and money for the certification.

114

6.3 Reflections and Continuing Questions

6.3.] Study Reflections

This paper attempts to compare the Teikei movement in Japan and the CSA
movement in the U.S. While the social and cultural backgrounds are different, several
similar characteristics were found in the practices of Teikei and CSA. Access to flesh,
safe food and support for local farmers are the main reasons consumers participate in
Teikei and CSA. The farmers tend to share fewer risks and responsibilities with their
members and work harder than members, exploiting their health. The market relationship
became intensified between the farmers and consumers though the original philosophies
of Teikei and CSA expressed their mutual relationship. Thus, the actual practices of
Teikei and CSA have largely changed flom their original concepts following the growth
of Teikei and CSA groups.

Teikei and CSA farmers have to earn a living. It is not easy for CSA farmers to
have enough income flom small community farms. While many Teikei farmers created a
network of their groups to reduce their production risks and keep steady income, the
relationship with their consumers became distanced and increased market relationships.
Many dilemmas exist between the ideal and the reality in the Teikei and CSA practices.
The farmers have to make an effort to do not only farm business but also community
outreach and education. Here, the farmers are required to decide how they operate their
farms while they try to make a balance between profit and social responsibility. The key
thing is that farmers feel happy in their farming practice because it is neither easy nor

profitable to operate Teikei and CSA.

115

Teikei farmers face a very paradoxical situation. While Teikei participants have
struggled against the agri-industry for over thirty years, the corporate-controlled
agriculture did not degrade, but expanded and globalized, and they even attempted to
industrialize organic agriculture. The recent large decline of Teikei members suggests
that the produce flom Teikei farms is no longer attractive to the members or that organic
produce can be gotten elsewhere. It appears to be much easier for consumers to buy
imported organic produce at grocery stores.

The Teikei movement appears to have intensified the market relationship between
farmers and consumers. Many Teikei relationships became just buying clubs of farmers
and consumers who often live far flom each other. Most consumers see little or no
difference between Teikei produce and imported organic produce because both of them
are transported a long distance. The Teikei movement struggles to find an effective
strategy to revitalize their membership.

Does the CSA movement follow the similar scenario of the Teikei movement
which struggles with the degradation of its viability? The market relationship between
farmers and members is more intensified in the CSA movement. It is becoming closer to
the current situation of the Teikei movement.

Thus, it is risky to increase a commodity-focused relationship between farmers
and consumers for the expansion of the movements. The current stagnation of the Teikei
movement showed it was not long-term management. The market relationship between
farmers and consumers in Teikei and CSA would not continue because the choice of
consumers in a market flequently changes. The viability of the overall movements

degrades toward disintegration once the market value of Teikei and CSA start to decline.

116

The market value of the produce from CSA farms has not degraded yet because
the agri-industry does not sell “locally grown” produce. However, the same problem
might emerge when CSA farmers assume a greater market relationship with their
members. The state of California might have such an issue in that the corporate grown
organic produce is not much different flom organic produce flom CSA farms because
many industrialized organic products are available in California. The corporate food
systems might start delivering flesh, locally grown produce by contracting with local
farmers in each region.

While Teikei and CSA can label their produce as “organic” or “locally grown”
for the recruitment of new membership, building a face-to-face, mutual relationship is the
most powerful strategy to keep their members longer. The Teikei movement prioritized
the market value of “organic” rather than a steadily building of mutual relationship
between farmers and consumers. Indeed, the J OAA does not know how many
community farms exist in Teikei. While the community farm is the original model of the
Teikei movement, the number of community farm is not significant in Japan.

It is easier to increase membership through making use of Teikei and CSA as a
marketing strategy. However, it is more important to keep the steady increase of small
local community farms which maintain a face-to-face, mutual relationship between
farmers and members as a model for the movements to keep the integrity and long-term
viability of the Teikei and CSA movements.

Finally, suggestions and recommendations for the development of Teikei and

CSA follow.

117

It is very important for Teikei and CSA to create local networks of other local
farmers and agricultural organizations for the promotion of local-based sustainable
agriculture. Ideally, CSA farmers facilitate local agriculture and empower other local
farmers. It was unfortunate that many Teikei farmers were isolated flom their rural
communities. Henderson (Henderson and Van En 19991182) mentions that it is
important for CSAs to be aware of other struggling local sustainable businesses, such as
food co-ops, so as not to become competitive where cooperation might be possible for the
development of local markets. Community capacity building is essential to enable CSA
activities to work successfully and achieve the networking of local farmers and
agricultural organizations.

Teikei and CSA have great potential toward agricultural education and social
welfare. The educational process of local farmers and consumers on their food systems is
very critical for the food security and sustainability in agriculture in both the U.S. and
Japan. Some Teikei farmers periodically open their farms to provide therapeutic
opportunities for mentally and physically handicapped people (J OAA 2001). Oura
(2003) also mentioned her Teikei farm provides shelter and working opportunities on the
farm for handicapped homeless people with the assistance of the faith-based organization.
Some CSA groups conduct such programs as well. Most of these programs are
financially scarce, thus the government support is important for continuous operations of
these programs. It is also important to cooperate with other local non-profit organizations

to conduct educational and social welfare programs.

118

Government support for the Teikei and CSA activities is very effective for the
development of the initiatives. It also creates a positive image for the initiatives in a
society. For instance, the coordination support by the local government in the Takahata
village helped the networking of the Teikei farmers and other farmers and agricultural
organizations, and facilitated the development of the whole community. It is important to
have a place in which farmers and officials discuss the needs for the promotion of local
agriculture.

USDA supports the national database of CSA farms. People can get information
and find their neighboring CSA farms and farmers. Neither the department of agriculture
(Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry) in Japan nor the Japan Organic
Agriculture Association maintains a web database of the Teikei groups. It is an urgent
need to create such a database in Japan to support the initiatives of alternative agriculture.

Though the Japanese government had only promoted high-tech based agriculture
in the past, they also started to support organic agriculture. However, they still hesitate to
support the Teikei groups because the government thought that the Teikei farmers were
opposed to their policy for a long period. It is very troublesome that the government is
not likely to support organic farmers, most of whom are the Teikei farmers. It appears
the government needs to afford various perspectives of agricultural policies.

Hashimoto (2004), an active Teikei farmer, points out the advantages of farmer’s
markets in the U.S. because CSA farmers can find their potential members in these
markets. Such direct marketing of farmer’s markets involving local farmers has not
developed well in Japan. He considers the potential to market his produce and find his

customers and develop local food markets.

119

The Japan Organic Agriculture Association (JOAA) needs to clarify their
perspectives in the Teikei movement. Organic agriculture, which they advocated as a
strategy to rebuild the relationship among farmers, consumers and agriculture, has
increasingly been industrialized while the Teikei groups became larger and intensified the
market relationship between farmers and consumers. It appears that the JOAA has no
effective perspective to show the significance of the Teikei movement. The J OAA keeps
neither a web-based database of Teikei farms nor the number of community farms in
Japan. While the distribution system of organic produce was largely established, the
community farm model, in which the essential original philosophy of Teikei is embedded,
was dismissed in the enlargement process of the Teikei movement. Community farms
might not be the only model in the Teikei movement. However, it is essential for the
J OAA to look back to the original Teikei model and its philosophy. It is especially
important for the JOAA to take a role for the facilitation of local relationship of farmers
and consumers. The significance of non-economic features of the Teikei movement has
been strongly advocated by the JOAA. However, the J OAA needs to have a real picture
of Teikei farm economy and support the economic viability of Teikei farmers as well.

Initiation of CSA type initiatives in many countries implies people in the world
question the current food production and distribution systems. The initiative would
become a powerful voice against the current globalized and industrialized food systems
through their steady development and networking worldwide. It is very important to
carefully promote the initiatives with a mutual relationship of participants within a long-

terrn perspective.

120

6.3.2 Future Study Recommendations

It is very important to understand how CSA works for the revitalization of local
farms, farmers, economies and communities. There is a need to understand how Teikei
and CSA can cooperate with other local agricultural organizations. Unfortunately, many
Teikei farmers were considered a competitive factor by other conventional farmers in
rural villages in Japan. How about the relationship between CSA farmers and other local
farmers? What kind of conditions are needed for their collaboration?

The J OAA publishes newsletters for Teikei farmers and consumers and hold an
annual conference. The Robyn Van En Center for CSA resources helps to maintain the
CSA database and provide other information to start up CSAs. What kind of other
support can Teikei and CSA organizations provide for the development of Teikei and
CSA?

What kind of role can government take to support Teikei and CSA initiatives,
other than providing informational service and research funding? Furthermore, how can
Teikei and CSA collaborate with their government programs in educational and social
welfare activities.

Teikei and CSA farmers in urban and suburban areas appear to find their potential
members more easily. Is there little possibility for remote rural farmers to find their
potential members? Moreover, how can remote rural farmers in Teikei and CSA build
close relationship with their consumers. How can Teikei and CSA involve families who
are not economically well-situated? There is a need for Teikei and CSA to include

people in various situations.

121

How can we put the limitations to the scale and cooperation of such regional
multi-farm CSAs and Teikei farms? The key for maintaining the integrity of Teikei and
CSA movements is to keep the organizational form and relationship between farmers and
members as simple as possible, and keep a moderate group size within a local community.

It is also important to investigate the decision-making process in Teikei and CSA
groups. While consumers took a leadership role in Teikei movement, most CSA farms
were initiated by farmers and they took many roles for CSA Operation. How are the
directions of the Teikei and CSA formed in Teikei and CSA groups? Do farmers and
consumers keep an equal relationship in a decision-making processes in the movements?

Teikei research has focused more on the meaning of the Teikei movement in a
society at large and the technical side of organic farming, the economic viability of
Teikei farms has not been revealed yet. There is a need for more detailed studies of
financial situations in Teikei farms. The research about the tum-over rate of membership
as well as demographic characteristics of Teikei farmers and members are also needed.

This paper discussed the similarities and differences of the Teikei and CSA
movement. Direct relationships between farmers and consumers have started to emerge
not only in Japan and the U.S., but also in Europe and other countries. For example, it
appears to be an inspiring study to compare the relationship between farmers and
members in the United States and the United Kingdom. Another research question
follows: do the farmers in AMAP, a French version of CSA, also use the initiative to
diversify their marketing channels? How are these consumer members in Europe

attracted to participate in these initiatives?

122

 

It is very important to understand how we can keep the continuous viability of the
worldwide initiatives of Teikei, CSA or AMAP. It is also important to explore the
effective strategies for cooperation in the international network of CSAs for the
development of worldwide local food systems. These initiatives have a potential to
become a powerful counterpart of the current globalized and industrialized food and

farming systems.

123

APPENDICES

124

Appendix A

Map of the Regions and Prefectures (States) in Japan

Hokkaido

ff"

China Russra

    

P’yongyang
(North KYa)
Sea of Japan
K Yamagata
Kobe 9)
(HyogO) J
apan Ibaraki
Seoul E
(South Korea)c) Chiba
T kyo
East China (
Sea
a Philippine Sea
‘90 K shu
Kansai Area: Osaka, Kyoto, Hyogo,
Shiga, Nara, and Wakayama prefectures
Oki awa

125

Appendix B

Concept of the Teikei Group proposed by Tsukiji Buntaro
(Adapted and Translated flom Tsukiji 1976)

From agri-chemical neurosis to organic agriculture

Farmer A is 32 years old living in a sub-urban area. He has 1.5 acres of paddy
fields, 2.5 acres of crop fields (including 1.2 acres of feeding crop fields), and ten herds
of milk cows. He started organic agriculture ten years ago. The definition of organic
agriculture did not exist when he changed farming styles, and he also did not try to define
his agriculture. O ne (1 ay, h e w as intoxicated b y the a gri-chemicals and s uffered flom
health damage for several days. He became annoyed by ain-chemicals since his
experience. The pesticide spraying was done by the community group due to the lack of
farmers, but the other farmers in the village knew the situation that farnrer A damaged his
health by the chemicals and felt sorry for him. The other farmers understood his
unwillingness to use agri-chemicals well and let him decide whether to use the chemicals
in his farm.

The farmer’s field had a lot of diseases and pests, and poor agricultural production
for the first time. However, he kept farming without agri-chemicals and the production
of his farm gradually recovered several years later. He managed to shift to farming
without pesticides during those years; he started to raise more milk cows, increased
feeding crop fields and stopped shipping his green produce to a central market system.
For a while, h e increased feeding c rop fields b y two more acres, and grew c rops and
vegetables in the rest of his fields, trying to keep self-sustenance within his farm and to
reduce money expenditures. He produced not only rice, vegetables, eggs and milk but
also miso paste, soy sauce and tofu. He even produced honey and edible carp fish by
himself. H e grew 0 ver 50 kinds 0 f v egetables and m ade In any c anned foods 5 uch as
pickles.

Let us examine his strategy of changing farming styles. It is true that his
experience of health damage by agri-chemicals motivated his decision not to use
pesticides, however, he thought about ways to do organic farming without using
chemicals. His farm is fortunately located up-stream of a river, so there was little
possibility that pesticides and chemical fertilizers came in flom further up-stream. Thus,
he started edible carp raising and beekeeping. These activities would not have stood up
with pesticide and chemical fertilizer spraying.

He w as e ven o pposed to a reduced amount 0 f chemical agriculture b ecause he
believed even a small amount of chemicals killed agriculturally useful bugs such as
spiders, flogs and mantises. He was correct on his decision. These bugs soon revived in
his farm.

His farm became stable around the fall of 1971 through the high self-sustaining of
resources within the farm and the decrease of pests and diseases around. He began to
realize that his farming style was one of organic agriculture. It helped him to build
relationship with surrounding consumer families later.

126

 

From self-sustaining to local food distribution

“It is possible for farmers to manage their own food and resources within the
farms. However, it is a role for farmers to provide food not only for them but also for
other people. The agricultural fields which farmers hold have to be a place to produce
food for several households of citizens in a country,” the farmer stated. He considered
his farm, at least, had to provide the whole amount of food to four to five households
based on his farm size.

How could he understand the food distribution system? He used to distribute his
produce through the central market system, and gain credit flom the market. It was
difficult for him to understand distribution. However, the market system was an
organization to separate producers and consumers. This segmentation made agricultural
produce evaluated by the appearance rather than the quality of the produce.

Farmer A, who had the harsh experience of agri-chemicals, first thought about the
safety of his food without chemical residues rather than its appearance when he provided
his produce to his families, relatives and fiiends; however, the produce grown by the
permitted agri-chemicals in an admitted way of usage flom Department of Agriculture
would be acceptable in the appearance-based market system. Most agri-chemicals once
accepted and widespread often lost the permission of usage suddenly.

The market distribution system was not made to communicate mutual
appreciation between farmers and consumers. If the communication possible, the
relationship between producers and consumers would be different, as he thought.

Difference between selling and free offering

He brought greens with bug bites and unique shaped fluits to the market, and
found himself getting only a little money. However, farmer A was proud of his agri-
chemical flee produce, and believed it tastes better than other conventional produce. If
no body eats his produce, however, he had to use it as compost.

So he brought a surplus of his organic produce using a carrier to a town and began
to sell his produce by himself. However, this attempt did not go well. Though many
housewives living in a housing complex were interested in organic produce and came to
buy them, they were really careful about the price of the produce. They compared the
price to a large wholesaler and only bought his produce when it was cheaper, saying that
“I don’t want buy bug bite produce at a higher price.”

Then, he decided to offer his produce for flee to people walking on the street. He
set up a signboard saying that “I would like to give my organic produce for flee. Feel
flee to take the produce.” However, it was not successful as expected. People who
passed by considered him as a stranger with suspicious mind and had difficulty to
understand his intention to provide his organic produce for flee.

Farmer A stopped both selling and giving his produce away without a good idea
of how to distribute his produce, and decided to talk more with housewives. He called
for his patron housewives to study together about the popular tOpics of food additives and
colorings, and synthetic detergents with a textbook they choose. A marketing channel for
his produce started to emerge through these interactions with housewives. The
housewives asked him to bring his organic produce again, and, at this time, they bought
his produce at the price he wanted without referring to the price of wholesalers.

127

However, the housewives, who had a lot of knowledge on the environment through group
study activities, began to request several things about his way of farming.

“You use herbicides in a paddy field, don’t you. Can you manage to stop using
them?” He explained well with an illustration that he had to spend whole days to weed
by hand if he stops using herbicides in his paddy field, and then he would not have
enough time to spend for vegetable growing. He explained several vegetables would not
be available due to the lack of labor.

The housewives understood the labor shortage and saw no way to achieve their
request. However, they finally thought of an idea saying that “we will weed in your
paddy field; so would you grow all the vegetables as before?”

Who is the real owner of farming land?

Thus, the housewives began to come up the paddy field of farmer A for weeding
at a specific time everyday. Many people historically used to weed by hand in paddy
fields before the replacement of agricultural machines and chemicals. This traditional
view of weeding by hand only came back to the A’s farm within the village. The
involvement of the housewives in farming started by this process. Though farmer A
didn’t p ay to h ousewives a fter w ceding, they didn’t c omplain about it. They b rought
back vegetables grown on his farm instead of receiving monetary payment. They
actually brought back the vegetables which they thinned out flom the field. Strawberry
picking was also done by the housewives. Then, the time allocation for farming work
gradually changed. The housewives also began to help rice harvesting in fall. When
farmer A was away flom the farm for study meetings and conferences, the housewives
helped with milking cows and barn management.

Moreover, the relationship between farmer A and the housewives developed in a
way he didn’t expect. The housewives said, “This farm is, in fact, owned by you,
however, we feel the farm is also ours.” Then, they said “let’s start saving little by little
for cultivation machines in case of an emergency.” They also said, “Our households
usually depend on a salary, but we cannot overlook it if your life standard is not as good
as ours because our families are well supported by your organic produce. We are willing
to pay enough for you to have a decent wage.”

Farmer A and the housewives discussed this. Then, they decided that these ten
housewives, who had the produce and sometimes helped with farming, would pay $200
for membership to have his produce and $70 towards savings to keep the maintenance of
machines every month. Farmer A, on the other hand, decided to provide many kinds of
agricultural produce and value-added products to these ten households.

128

Appendix C

Teikei and CSA farms in Japan and the U.S.
(Adapted and Translated flom Miyoshi 1998)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teikei and CSA Shimosato Farm in Mono Village Caretaker Our Farm in
Farm Ogawa-cho, Farm in Community Farm Woodside, CA
Saitama prefecture Naganuma-cho, in (U.S.)
(Japan) Hokkaido Williamstown,
prefecture (Japan) MA (U .S.)
Farm Land Area 2 haI + forest 2 ha 6 ha + forest 3 ha 8 ha including 1.5 ha
forest area
Production Field Same as above 2-3 ha 1.4 ha Same as above
for CSA (Teikei) (0.6 ha for
Package vegetable)
Contents of Vegetables, rice, Vegetables, cereals Vegetables, cereals Vegetable
Package eggs etc. etc. etc.
Variety of Produce 80 kinds2 (total 31 kinds (total 50 N/A 45 kinds (total 200
150 kinds) kinds) kinds)
Number of 3 times/month, Every week: May- Every week: May- Year round
Delivery year round November, November,
Twice/month: Once/month:
December- December-
February, February,
No delivery: No delivery:
March and April March and April
Membership Fee 7,000 yen} 69,000 yen $650/year $24/week
($58)/month ($575)/year
Amount of About 10 kg‘ N/A 12-13 kg About 6 kg
Produce (per
week)
Price per Weight Around $1.94 $1.64-2.05 (when $1.92-2.08 $4
(kg) the amount of
produce is 8-10
kg/week)
Number of 40 60 170 300
Membership
Way of Delivery 'A farm pick-up 10 pick-up points Farm pick-up 40 members of the
V4 UPS delivery (they delivered to delivery group
'/2 Mr. Kaneko members until the come to the farm
delivers by his last year) for pick-up
track
Budget About $48,300? $34,500 $81,250 $250,000?

 

 

 

 

 

 

' 1 ha (hectare) is about 2.5 acres.
2 Seasonal variety of produce

3 1 dollar = about 120 yen (August, 2003).

’ 1 kg (kilogram) is about 2.7 pounds.

129

 

 

 

 

 

Future Plans Provide all Membership Keep current Keep current
agricultural increase up to 150 number of number of
produce including households membership membership
value—added
products to 4
households

Note 10 households who 400 yen/time for There are two Share is flee for
receive all individual delivery options of full members who
agricultural and 200 yen/time share (12-13 kg) come to the farm
produce including for pick-up point and half share (6-7 for pick-up for
rice, eggs and delivery kg) other members

 

value-added
products, pay
$225/month

 

 

 

 

l) The average wholesale price of vegetables at the Tokyo central market was $1 .99/kg flom 1991 to

1995

2) The data about Meno Village Farm was a plan for the 1998 season; the data of the other farms was
collected in 1997.

130

 

Appendix D

CSA and Small Farm Trip Essay
July 16-17, 2003
Sweeter Song Farm in Cedar, MI

Sweeter Song Farm is operated by Judy Reinhardt and Jim Schwantes. Judy is a
career counselor at the Leland K-12 school and Jim is an occupational therapist. When I
first visited the farm in the beginning of last April, a snowstorm had hit northern
Michigan and the farm was covered with snow. However, everything had changed by
this summer. Flowers were blooming and there were a variety of crops and vegetables
growing at the farm. Sweeter Song Farm has 35 shares this season and the members
came to pick up their boxes flom 4 pm to 6 pm every Wednesday. This is the third
season for this CSA and most of the members flom the last season stayed this season too.
The members knew the farm by word of mouth. They also sell their produce at the
farmer’s market in Empire every Saturday.

I stayed at the farm to see how they enjoyed the pick-up day. I was very surprised
to see the pick-up day which was like a small festival. The members brought their
children, cats and dogs to the farm. Some people brought wine and snacks, and they
stayed at the farm a couple of hours enjoying talking with the members at the terrace of
the farmhouse. Some of them even seemed to forget to take their shares. It was a really
inspiring experience for me because I had never seen how the pick-up day is held. A
local egg grower also came to the farm with her daughter. They sold their eggs to the

CSA members. The members also took locally made bread, and locally grown beef

131

which were pre-ordered last week. The share was already paid before the season started
but the members order other additional produce on a weekly-basis, so the people put their
money for produce into the box by themselves. I was inspired to see the place in which
the local food comes.

I thought about how tough it is to have this festival every week, but Judy says it is
worth to keep such a small festival every week. She considers it very important that the
members come and see the farm to keep the members stick to the farm as shareholders.
One member told me that they switched flom another CSA in Traverse City area which
sets up the picking-up point in the downtown of Traverse City because they wanted to
come to the farm to pick up produce by themselves. They have a dog so they play with
their dog along a small river shed close to the farm before the picking-up time every
week.

The members in Sweeter Song Farm do not have a farming help responsibility.
However, Judy started to think about that though Judy and Jim haven’t decided it yet. I
think she has the strategy that she first establishes the member’s community well, and
then she might ask the members about the option of farming help.

Sweeter Song Farm provides an opportunity for one member who has a financial
difficulty to get a share for flee. A woman who is teaching at the Northwestern
Community College is also a member of the farm and she organizes the group to bring
the leftovers of the shares and surplus of weekly produce to the food pantry and soup
kitchen in the area. She and other members were really excited to talk about the growth
of the project at the terrace on the pick-up day. I imagined such a grass-root effort is

growing in many CSAs and I felt their powerful passion to encounter the globalized food

132

system and promote local food security. CSA can contribute to local food security by
providing a place for people to start their own projects.

I wondered how Judy and Jim develop their skill for organic production because
Judy and Jim were not farmers before. They have just started farming three years ago!!
However, I realized they really know how to acquire knowledge. They read a lot of
books, and try to learn flom their previous experiences well. They also ask their
questions to neighboring farmers. I realized organic farming is not just for farmers who

have a lot of farming experience.

July 30-August 3, 2003
Sweet Meriam’s Farm in Beaver Springs, Pennsylvania

Mrs. Kristen Markley is the manager of the farm whom I met at the Michigan
Conference on Organic Agriculture held at Michigan State University on March 8th and
9th in 2003. She also works for the community food security coalition and used to work
for the agriculture extension office in Pennsylvania. I visited the farm to see the
members at the pick-up day on Thursday and the farm festival held on Saturday, August
2nd when the member’s meeting was also held about the CSA operation.

She started farming when she was a rural sociology master student at
Pennsylvania State University (her thesis is about community food security, which is
cited in the Elizabeth Henderson’s book, “Sharing the Harvest”) and has practiced
organic farming for several years. She used to go to a farmer’s market to sell her produce

before starting her own CSA four years ago.

133

She told me the story that her ancestor founded the town where her farm is
located. She wants to lead local agriculture as a CSA farmer and the descendent of her
ancestor. She mentioned she has to try to get people not to consider her as a special or
odd farmer in the local community in which, she explains, people are conservative.

In Japan, most Teikei farmers actually have been considered as special, odd, and
anti-stream farmers flom the majority of the farmers under the background of powerfiil
government support for efficient and technology-based agriculture using the agricultural
cooperative as a hi gh-tech tool and equipment distribution center. While Teikei farmers
tried to show the significance of organic farming to their rural community and lead
ecologically sound farming, it took much time and energy for them to be accepted in the
community. On the other hand, they are strongly supported by urban consumers so
Teikei groups have tended to be intemal-minded groups and isolated within the rural
village. Teikei farmers could be the leaders of agricultural development in Japan but they
failed to make a horizontal network with other farmers in the rural community. This is
one of the major reasons Teikei movement ended up to be the scattered niche market.

Kristen got two interns Steve flom New Zealand and Henna flom England. This
is the third year for Steve to come to the farm as an intern. He visited Kristen through his
friend and they got to know each other. He wanted to experience farming but he has no
friends and relatives who are farmers in his country so he decided to come to the farm in
Pennsylvania. Henna met Steve in New Zealand when she was traveling there and she
came to the farm for the first time this year.

Sweet Meriam’s Farm got around 25 shares this year and the members make

groups according to the place they live. They take turns to pick-up the share boxes for

134

other group members and distribute the boxes every Thursday. I was surprised to see
many members often come to the farm for farming help. The members do not have
farming help obligation (there is an option of farming help membership which is cheaper
than no farming help membership) but people come to the farm because they really enjoy
helping the farm. Many of them come to the farm for harvesting vegetables which takes
a great deal of time in the morning of a distribution day. Some of them stay at the farm
for help on the night before a harvesting day. Some people come to help farming twice a
week. I think they learn and realize how hard it is to grow organic produce. They would
also understand the reason why produce with many holes has been eaten by bugs.

Sweet Meriam’s Farm is surrounded by mountains and has the humid weather,
and there were so many biomass at the farm. Many bugs annoyed me a lot when I was
harvesting and really realized the difficulty of organic farming. The appearance of the
produce which has many holes is totally not qualified as commodity in a conventional
market system. The relationship between the members and the farm in CSA is really
needed for the members to understand the difficulty of organic farming and how the
produce is shaped through observation of the environment.

Farming help by the members greatly supports continuing the farm operation due
to the large labor needs of organic farming. I had never seen such a CSA where many
members often come to help farming. The members seemed to really enjoy farming. I
think each member understands the essential need of their help to keep the project going.
Teikei farms in Japan also have a farming help called “En-no” but it seems the members
come to the farms only in several occasions such as spring planting and fall rice

harvesting. Even in that time, the farmers do most of the work and the en-no ended up

135

like agricultural tourism in the farm for the members. I think few member consumers
consider their help as critical for the farm operation in those Teikei farms. However, I
think it is very important to create the environment that the members consider their role
of farming help as necessary and this consideration makes operational help flom the
members possible.

There is a variety of people in the members including a pastor, a director of a
community center who used to work as a director of YMCA, an organic certifier who
also makes horseshoes for Amish, Hispanic families, and a low-income family which has
7 children. The low-income family receives a share for flee and some members bought
more shares to provide flesh food to low-income families for flee this year.

Kristen told me that she has a hard time recruiting new members to her CSA.
However, I think Kristen makes good use of such an opportunity as making a
presentation in a conference and writing articles for local journals and newspapers to
inform others about her CSA. Two young members told me that they knew about the
farm through the local newspaper. I think it is very important to consider the marketing
potential for members when starting CSAs. It would be difficult to start a CSA in an area
where few people understands the significance of organic farming and local food
distribution. There would be more of an organic market in an urban area. The pioneer
Teikei groups also got most of their shareholders flom urban area consumers who sought
organic produce.

Sweet Meriam’s Farm is also becoming a place where local food comes in. A
local poultry farmer started to come to the CSA and take an order flom the members. He

was also taking a pre-order of turkey for the Thanksgiving holiday to start raising organic

136

turkey when I visited the farm. He knew the existence of Sweet Meriam’s CSA, but had
a little idea of local food systems. Now he is really involved in the CSA development
and is also a shareholder of the farrrr who receives a box of vegetable weekly. A local
carrot farmer also comes to bring his produce and his carrots are a part of weekly share. I
was inspired by the fact that the CSA educates the local people about local food
distribution little by little through the very grass-root initiative.

A weekly yoga class was started in Sweet Meriam’s Farm by a member who was
a yoga instructor. The very first class was held when I visited the farm. It was very
relaxing to try yoga on the farm field in the evening. It was smooth to breeze the air.
Many lightening bugs started to flash to lighten the darkness of the evening at the end of
the class. After the yoga class, the members had a tea and enjoyed talking in the
farmhouse. I felt the members came to the farm to meet people and enjoy talking with
other members. It is good to expand activities for the members to have more
opportunities to communicate each other using the talent of each member within the CSA
community. I think those activities contribute to reduce the tum-over rate of CSAs. A
CSA could be the nursery of local community activity.

CSA and Teikei are the movements which require more variety of cooking skills
and change of daily diet according to seasons. A box with a variety of seasonal
vegetables comes to the member’s family every week. There might be some vegetables
the members have never seen before due to the many varieties of vegetables. One
member said she was having a hard time changing her husband’s diet because he tended
to have more meat and fewer vegetables. We became accustomed to less diversified and

seasonal food following the current food systems. However, CSA and Teikei remind us

137

of the wide variety of crops and vegetables which are seasonally available. The member
said her husband was getting used to vegetable meals but it’s very challenging. The
members have to change their diet through Teikei and CSA activities, which is the one
aim of the movements. However, it can be a big struggle for Teikei and CSA members
to change their diet. Indeed, it is one of the major reasons for members to leave CSAs.

I understand Sweet Meriam’s Farm tries hard to approach the original, community
farm model of CSA in which farmers and members share their risk and responsibility
equally for a CSA operation. I think the farm is making a good CSA performance
through more communication between the members and the farm and the member’s
farming help compared to other CSAs which tend to become a subscription type and
more market oriented CSA. However, Kristen also wants to have a core member group
for decision-making on farm operation and management. She suggested to create a core
group at the member’s meeting in the farm festival. Most members appeared to agree
with her suggestion. However, one member said he didn’t want to be a member of the
core group because he had lots of things to do while he also thought the idea was good.
People understand the importance of the core group, but realize its difficulty to build. It

needs a lot of time to discuss the core group building.

August 14-17, 2003
Brook Farm in Harvard, Illinois

The Brook Farm has been operated for about 25 years by Richard and Sonja, the
parents of Karen Brook who was my classmate in my department. I visited the farm with

my best friend, Masa, who is a doctoral student in Environmental Engineering. I met

138

Karen’s parents last May and I visited their farm this summer. The Brook Farm is
located in a small town, Harvard in Illinois, to which it takes two hours drive northwest
flom downtown Chicago. Richard used to work for a company as a chemist but now he
is a full-time farmer after retiring flom his job. Richard and Sonja moved to Harvard
with their son 25 years ago when Karen was born.

They have been operating a U-pick farm for over 20 years. Many customers
come to the farm and harvest the vegetables whenever they want to come. Richard and
Sonja seemed busy taking care of their customers because they come to the farm any time
between Monday to Sunday. However, Richard was enjoying talking with the customers
when they came to the farm. The produce in the farm is much cheaper than local grocery
stores.

The Brook Farm also sells their produce at the farmer’s market in Woodstock
which is a 30 minutes drive away flom the farm every Thursday and Saturday. Masa and
I helped harvest the vegetable with two Mexican-Americans in the evening of Friday for
the farmer’s market on Saturday

These Mexican-American farmers come to the farm in their flee-time when the
farm is busy harvesting and planting. They have other jobs working in factories, but they
come to help the farm for their additional income.

Masa and I had a hard time harvesting coms by hand. The corn field was like a
jungle with humidity and many bugs. We harvested corn and filled 50 cars of com in one
bag, and then brought the bags to the cart. It was a back-bone breaking job. Masa and I
were really surprised to see the Mexican-American farmers who worked hard and fast in

the cornfield. We harvested 1,500 ears of corn that evening for the farmer’s market.

139

 

Masa and I followed Richard to the farmer’s market on Saturday morning. Sonja
stayed on the farm and took care of their U-pick customers while Richard sold the
produce at the farmer’s market. It was a small farmer’s market with about ten stalls in
Woodstock on Saturday. There were three other farmers selling their produce at the
market. There were also stalls selling silver-metal crafts and locally baked bread.
Richard says the number of stalls in the market is too small and hopes more farmers come
to the market to call for more customers. A variety of produce at each farmer’s stall
would be also important for the development of the market.

Masa and I helped sell the produce at the stall. I realized that the customers were
really picky and most of them bought these three items: tomatoes, corn, or green beans.
Masa and I were surprised to see nobody bought eggplant which many Japanese love.

Many customers seemed to know Richard flom before. Many of them were
returning customers to the farmer’s market. One customer told me that she comes to the
market at least one time in a week. One of them was also a member of CSA.
Surprisingly, a customer who bought corns flom Richard last year came back saying his
corn is really good. She bought five dozen ears of corn. She told me that she packs the
corn in the bins and stores for the winter. Richard gave his name card with directions to
his farm and told her she can come directly to the farm to get his corn and other produce.

Two people passed by in flont of our stall saying that such a beautiful-looking
produce can’t be an organic. It’s true that the produce of Brook Farm is not totally
organic, but Richard tries to reduce the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The

people probably consider organic produce not good looking.

140

It seemed to me that the people who come to the farmer’s market seek fleshness
in the produce and fun in talking with the farmers. However, I felt most of them at the
market were picky in terms of the variety of produce (tomatoes, corn, or green beans).
Some of them were careful about the appearance of the produce.

One neighboring farmer in the market told me that he tried operating a CSA in his
farm several years ago. However he quit the CSA three years later because it took much
time to take care of his CSA members on top of his farming work. He says it’s more
comfortable for him to sell produce at the farmer’s market. I guess there are many
farmers who have tried CSA for a while but find difficulty keeping a CSA. CSA requires
a farmer’s communication skills to take care of his members and continuing support of

members to keep the project going. CSA would not be applicable for all farmers.

August 15, 2003
Angelic Organics in CaledoniaJlinois

Masa, Richard and I visited Angelic Organics CSA on Friday aflemoon, which is
just a 20 minutes drive away flom the Brook Farm. This was also the first time for
Richard to visit the farm though he had heard about the CSA before. When we visited
the farm, 1 was surprised to see a lot of equipments and many farmhouses there. We
could see many interns weeding in the field. On the other side, many interns flom South
America were washing vegetables with the help of machines for distribution. This was
my first time seeing such a huge organic CSA farm with such a lot of farm staff and

workers.

141

Two interns flom Ecuador took us to the CSA learning center on the farm. Tom,
the director of the learning center, took care of us and showed us the farm. He was
speaking Spanish with the two interns for a while. The CSA learning center is the entity
of 501(c)3 and an independent organization flom the farm. They built the learning center
to separate educational and farming roles in CSA according to the grth of Angelic
Organics. The biggest source of funding for the organization comes flom church
donations. Torn says it is easy to depend on the farm budget for the operation of the
learning center but he wants to make the center independent financially and works hard to
find funding.

For instance, the CSA learning center canies on a farm visit program for
handicapped groups flom Chicago. Angelic Organics also tries to include low-income
families as its members. They provide the share at half the price to the low-income
families, and 20 families are having this package now.

The large membership or subscription type CSAs such as Angelic Organics might
have a non-profit organization which is independent flom the farm business to conduct
educational and community building activities. The arrangement makes it easier to
achieve both ecological farming and agricultural education in CSA. Otherwise, the large
CSA tends to be busy with a large amount of production to serve many members. On the
other hand, more informal agricultural education happens in small, community farm
CSAs through weekly pick-up at the farm and farming help. Both large subscription type
CSAs and small community farms can have their own way to contribute to the

development of local food systems and community education.

142

Tom started working for the learning center with his ambition to work for
sustainability of the earth at the grassroots level. He has been a shareholder of Angelic
Organics before the center was built. In addition to the development work he
experienced in South America, he used to be a delegate for the U.S. government at the
Earth Summit in 1992. However, he found many limitations in his job and he decided to
leave his job after the conference. He changed his paradigm flom working at the top to
working at the bottom to approach his concerning issue, sustainability. He is a really
smart person and I was really amazed to meet such a great person working hard at the
grassroots level.

There are many interns and seven farming managers working at Angelic Organics.
The CSA currently has a 1,000 family membership and plans to increase to 1,500. The
CSA was started by a farmer, but now Angelic Organics has grown as a sustainable
farming organization serving neighboring communities. I was amazed to see such an
established organization of CSA. This is not a family farm anymore but a community

business.

August 16, 2003
M’sgailv Farm in East Troy. Wisconsin

Masa and I visited his fliend, Dayna who runs the livestock farm for children’s
education in East Troy, Wisconsin, which is an hour drive flom the Brook farm on
Saturday evening. Mrs. Makiko Oura, whose family is a Teikei farm in Wakayama
Prefecture in Japan, was also there as an intern on the farm during the summer. I could

hear about her Teikei farm experience.

143

 

Her father started Teikei farm about 25 years ago. Makiko has her sister and
brother who are also working in the farm. All of them graduated flom an agricultural
high school which was founded by a Teikei group. Surprisingly, his father also graduated
flom the school.

Her farm mainly grows organic onions which are famous in the area. Her brother
is operating an organic daily farm by himself in their family farm. The produce flom her
farm is first brought to the Teikei central distribution center. A variety of organic
produce brought by several Teikei farmers is then redistributed to the Teikei members.

She told me that the farm has established a way to grow produce organically for a
long time. However, her Teikei consumers asked her farm to be organically certified
when the codification system of organic produce was installed by the MAF F (Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) of Japan. Her family questions the cost and the
paper workload for the registration while they have been practicing organic farming for
decades without the certification.

She told me an interesting story that her father started the project with a church to
provide farming jobs to daily blue-collar workers and homeless people. He provided
them with shelter and decent wages. One worker damaged part of his body in a factory
and was fired flom the company. He was staying at a cheap hotel after the firing but he
worked well at the farm.

I had never heard of such a voluntarily activity when I was in Japan. But I
thought there is much potential for CSA and Teikei to take roles in society. CSA and

Teikei can provide opportunities such as social education, personal development and

144

social welfare activities to the people who have less power in society such as old people,

disabled people, and homeless people through the cultivation of the fields.

145

BIBLIOGRAPHY

146

BIBLIOGRAPHY

English Literature

Ambach, Michael. 2002. Food for Thought: Community-Supported Agriculture and
Learning. M.A. Thesis, Education, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.

APEC. 2004. First International Symposium on Local Contracts between Farmers and
Consumers, Alliance Paysans Ecologistes Consommateurs, at Aubagne, Provence,
France.

Arakawa, Tomoko. 1995. Japanese women and Japanese organic agriculture movement.
M.A. Thesis, Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Axinn, George H. and Axinn, Nancy W. 1997. Collaboration in International Rural
Development: A Practitioner's Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Carson, Rachel. 2002. Silent Spring. 40th Anniversary ed. New York, NY: Mariner
Books.

Chu, Jacqueline. 1998. Social and Environmental Restoration through Therapeutic
Community Gardens. MS. Thesis, San Jose State University.

CIAS. 2003. CSA Across the Nation: Findings fi'om the 1999 CSA survey. Madison, WI:
Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems.

CNN. 2003. Travel: City Guides, Map of Japan 2003 [cited November 2003]. Available
flom
http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/CITY.GUIDES/WORLD/Asia/iapan/bigmaphtml

Cone, Cynthia Abbott and Kakaliouras, Ann. 1995. Community Supported Agriculture:
Building Moral Community or an Alternative Consumer Choice. Culture &
Agriculture128-3 1.

Cone, Cynthia Abbott and Myhre, Andrea. 2000. Community Supported Agriculture: A
Sustainable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture? Human Organization 59
(2):187-197.

DeLind, Laura B. 1999a. Close Encounters with a CSA: The reflections of a bruised and
somewhat wiser anthropologist. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (1)13-9.

. 199%. Introduction. In The Many Faces of Community Supported Agriculture.
Hartland, MI: Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance.

 

147

. 2000. Transforming Organic Agriculture into Industrial Organic Products:
Reconsidering National Organic Standards. Human Organization 59 (2):198—208.

 

. 2003a. Considerably More than Vegetables, A Lot Less than Community: The
Dilemma of Community Supported Agriculture. In Fighting for the Farm: Rural
America Transformed, edited by J. Adams. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.

 

 

. 2003b. Community Supported Agriculture 2002: The State of the Art in
Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of
Anthropology.

DeLind, Laura B. and Ferguson, Anne E. 1999. Is This a Women's Movement? The
Relationship of Gender to Community Supported Agriculture in Michigan.
Human Organization 58 (2)1190-200.

Durrenberger, Paul E. 2002. Community Supported Agriculture in Central Pennsylvania.
Culture & Agriculture 24 (2)142-51.

Goland, Carol. 2002. Community Supported Agriculture, Food Consumption Patterns,
and Member Commitment. Culture & Agriculture 24 (1)114-25.

Groh, Trauger M and McFadden, Steven SH. 1990. Farms of Tomorrow: Community
Supported F arms-Farm Supported Communities. Kimberton, PA: Biodynamic
Farming and Gardening Association.

Groh, Trauger. M and McFadden, Steven SH. 1997. Farms of Tomorrow Revisited:
Community Supported Farms-F arm Supported Communities. Kimberton, PA:
Biodynamic F arming and Gardening Association.

Guenthner, Dan. 1996. Community Supported Agriculture: Niche Market or Paradigm
Shift: Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Energy and Sustainable Agriculture
Program.

Henderson, Elizabeth. 2003a. A Visit to the Home of CSA. ACRES USA, August, 2003,
17-20.

 

. 2003. A Visit to the Home of CSA : T eikei and the Japanese Organic Agriculture
Association. Genesee Valley Organic Community Supported Agriculture 2003b
[cited November 2003]. Available flom http://wwwgvocsarg/yiangan/index.html.

Henderson, Elizabeth and Van En, Robyn. 1999. Sharing the Harvest: A Guide to

Community Supported Agriculture. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing Company.

148

Hinrichs, Clare and Kremer, Kathy S. 2002. Social Inclusion in a Midwest Local Food
System Project. Journal of Poverty 6 (1)165-90.

Hinrichs, Clare G. 2000. Embeddedness and Local Food Systems: Notes on Two Types
of Direct Agricultural Market. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3):295-303.

Kittredge, Jack. 1996. Community-supported agriculture: Rediscovering Community. In
Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place, edited by W. a. J. Vitek,
Wes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kneen, Brewster. 2003. CSA Roots in Japan 2003 [cited March 2003]. Available flom
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC42/VanEn.htm.

Laird, Timothy J. 1995. Community Supported Agriculture: A Study of an Emerging
Agricultural Alternative. Master's Thesis, University of Vermont.

Lev, Larry. 2003. A Learning Approach to Improving Farmer's Markets in Oregon. East
Lansing, November 13, 2003.

MOFFA. 1999. The Many Faces of Community Supported Agriculture. Hartland, Mi:
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance.

Orr, David W. 1994. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human
Prospect. Washington DC: Island Press.

Ostrom, Marcia Ruth. 1997. Toward a Community-Supported Agriculture: A Case Study
of Resistance and Change in the Modern Food System. Ph. D Dissertation, Land
Resources, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Paxton, Angela. 1994. The Food Miles Report: The Dangers of Long Distance Food
Transport. London, UK: The SAFE Alliance.

Picardy, Jamie Ann. 2001. Closing the Distance Gap through Community-Supported
Agriculture. MS. Thesis, Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. The Prosperous Community. The American Prospect springz27-
40.

 

. 1995. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy 6 (1)165-78.

RVECCR. 2003. What is Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)? Robyn Van En

Center for CSA Resources 2003 [cited September 2003]. Available flom
http://www.csacenter.org.

149

Shuman, Michael H. 2000. Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in a Global
Age. New York, NY: Routledge.

UME. 2003. What is Community Supported Agriculture and How Does It Work?
University of Massachusetts Extension 2003 [cited September 2003]. Available
flom http://www.umass.edu/umext/csa/about.htrnl.

Van En, Robyn. 1998. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Perspective. In For
All Generations: Making World Agriculture More Sustainable, edited by J. P. M.
a. S. G. Chaplowe. Glendale, CA: OM Publishing.

. 2003. Eating for Your Community 2003 [cited February 2003]. Available flom
http://ww.contextgygflCLIB/IC42/VanEn.htm.

 

Williamson, Thad, Irnbroscio, David and Alperovitz, Gar. 2002. Making a place for
community: local democracy in a global era. New York, NY: Routledge.

Woolcook, Michael. 1998. Social Capital and economic development: Toward a
theoretical synthesis and policy flarnework. Theory and Society 27:151-207.

Woolcook, Michael and Narayan, Deepa. 2000. Social Capital: Implications for
Development Theory, Research and Policy. The World Bank Observer 15 (2)1225-
249.

Worden, Eva Cuadrado. 2000. Community Supported Agriculture: Land tenure, social
context, production systems and grower perspectives. Ph. D Dissertation, Yale

University.

Worth, Mark. Community Economics; Cooperatives can extend the democratic clout of
consumers and workers into whole new areas. In Context (36):24-26.

150

Japanese Literature

Amano, Keiichi and Ichiraku, Teruo. 1988. Direct Marketing Organic Produce in Japan.
Paper read at 6th International Scientific Conference of the lntemational
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), at University of
California, California.

Aoki, Shinji. 1998. Organic Agriculture Movement at A Turning Point: A Case of
Takahata, Yamagata Prefecture. Annual Bulletin of Rural Studies 33:105-131.

. 2000. Development and Subjects of Organic Farming Movement--The case
study of Takahata town and Nagai city in Yamagata prefecture. Nogyo Keizai
Ronsyu 49 (2)113-22.

 

Ariyoshi, Sawako. 2003. Multi-Synthesized Pollution. 49 ed. Tokyo, Japan: Shinchosha.

F urusawa, Koyu. 2001. Free Trade Destroys Food System and Agriculture. In Is it good
only if food is cheap?: Commons Syuppan.

Groh, Trauger and McFadden, Steven. 1996. Creation of Biodynamic Agriculture:
Challenge for American Organic Agriculture Movement. Tokyo, Japan:
Shinsensha.

Hashimoto, Shinji. 2004. Teikei Farm and Earth Quake Disaster. Provence, France,
February, 2004.

Hatano, Takeshi. 1998a. The New Step of the Farmer-Consumers Co-Partnership at the
Diversification Scene of Organic Crops Supply Channel. Annual Bulletin of Rural
Studies 33:133-156.

. 1998b. Economics of the Organic Agriculture. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai
Hyoronsha.

 

Hirakawa, Yumi. 1996. Japan Organic Agriculture Movement: its pioneer role. Japanese
Scientist 31 (5)125 7-261.

Honjo, Noboru. 2000. Interview: What is a CSA farm? Soil and Health 28 (2)114-16.

Hoshi, Kanji. 1998. On the 25-year practice of organic agriculture in Takahata-cho,
Yamagata Prefecture. Annual Bulletin of Rural Studies 33181-103.

Ienohikari. 2002. Producer Make a Partnership with Community through CSA, "Meno
Village Naganuma, " in Naganuma-town, Hokkaido. Chijyo 56 (7):14-23.

lsaki, Naoto. 2003. New organic farmers flom urban areas, November, 2003.

151

J OAA. 1993. "Teikei " system, the producer —producer co-partnership and the Movement
of the Japan Organic Agriculture Association. Japan Organic Agriculture
Association 1993 [cited November 14 2003]. Available flom
http://www.ioaa.net/Erglish/teikei.htm.

 

. 2001. Profile of Organic Farmers in Japan. Revised ed. Tokyo, Japan: J OAA.

. 2003. Teikei and CSA, Let's Think about Alternative Agriculture for Future--
Forum with Mrs. Elizabeth Henderson, A Leader of CSA Movement and the
Author of "Sharing the Harvest," Coming to Japan. Tsuchi to Kenko 3O (8)12-6.

 

. 2004. J 0AA Annual Conference. Ehime, Japan, February, 2004.

 

J OARC. 2003. Japan Organic Agriculture Research Conference. Tokyo, Japan,
December, 2003.

Kaneko, Yoshinori. 1999. Field flom Organic Agriculture Movement. Noson to T oshi wo
Musubu 49 (8)135—43.

Kodama, Yoko. 2003. Visiting CSA in the U.S. Soil and Health 31 (5)16-9.

Kubota, Hiroko. 1998. The New Phase of Organic Agriculture Movement in Japan: flom
a consumers' view. Annual Bulletin of Rural Studies 33:185-197.

. 2001. Viewpoint of Organic Certification in Japan Agriculture Standard and
Organic Agriculture Movement. Kokugakuin Keizaigaku 49 (1)11-38.

 

 

. 2003. Teikei and Consumer Cooperative Movement. Tokyo, December, 2003.

Kubota, Hiroko and Masugata, Toshiko. 1992. Diversification of Organic Produce
Marketing. Edited by NCAC. Tokyo, Japan: Gakuyo Shobo.

MAF F . 2003. Food Self-Sufliciency and National Food Security. The Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan 2003 [cited November 12 2003].
Available flom http://www.maff.go.ip/eindex.html.

Miyoshi, Hedemi. 1998. What we can learn flom CSA activities embedded in local
community. Hoppo Nogyo 48 (6)18-12.

Nagamatsu, Miki. 1992. Journey to the Japanese Organic Agriculture. Tokyo, Japan:
Diamond-Sha.

Nakajima, Kiichi. 1998. A Study on Strategies for Organic Farming in Japan: Between an

. aspect of Social Movement and that of Agriculture of Value Highly-Added.
Annual Bulletin of Rural Studies 33:55-80.

152

NCAC. 1991. T eikei Movement by Consumers Groups. Tokyo, Japan: The National
Consumer Affairs Center of Japan.

Ogawa, Kana and Yasuda, Shigeru. 2000. Teikei Movement, and Organic Food
Inspection and Certification. Agricultural Economic Papers of Kobe University
33:43-57.

Okumura, Midori. 2003. Activity of Consumer Cooperatives. Kyoto, Japan, June 2003.
Omae, Toshio. 1997. Earthquake and Teikei. Nou 23812-42.

Ono, Kazuoki. 1994. Political Economy of Agriculture and Food. Tokyo: Ryokufu
Shuppan.

Oura, Makiko. 2003. Teikei Farm and Organic Certification. Wisconsin, August, 2003.

Riu, Wunjing. 1998. Agricultural Cooperative Association and Movement for Organic
Farming A case Study of Yuza Town, Yamagata Prefecture. Annual Bulletin of
Rural Studies 33:159-182.

Sawanobori, Sanae. 2003. Philosophy in Farming State: CSA expands in the U.S. and
Europe. Yuimaaru 15:36-41.

Steinhoff, Deborah. 1998. F airview Gardens: CSA Model. Seikatsu Kyodo Kumiai
Kenkyu 274.

Takagi, Chifumi. 2000. Challenge to Organic Agriculture in Southern Islands in Japan.
Bulletin of I 0th Yanmar Student Paper Competitionz39-61.

Takaya, Yoshikazu. 2002. Agriculture in the era of co-existing civilizations in the shared
globe. Tokyo, Japan: Nosan Gyoson Bunka Kyokai.

Tabeta, Masahiro. 1981. Current Situation and Challenge of Organic Agriculture
Movement. Kyodo Kumiai Keikei Kenkyu Geppo (329)128-41.

Tabeta, Masahiro and Masugata, Toshiko. 1981. Japanese Organic Agriculture
Movement. Edited by NCAC. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai Hyoronsha.

Tsukiji, Buntaro. 1976. Implication of Organic Agriculture Movement. Nousei Chosa
Jihou (251)12-6.

Tsutaya, Eiichi. 2003. From Direct Marketing to CSA: Local Food System Development
in the U.S. Norin T okei Chosa 53 (2):28-32.

Une, Yutaka. 1998. Organic Agriculture is a Movement for Dis-Modemization. Annual
Bulletin of Rural Studies 33143-53.

153

Yamamoto, Kazuko. 2001. Local Food System Development and CSA in the U.S.
Gekkan JA 47 (7):43-45.

Yarnashita, Soichi. 1986. Soil and Japanese. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai.

Yasuda, Shigeru. 1994. Goal for the Organic Agriculture Movement. Kyoto, Japan:
Space Yui.

 

. 1997. Teikei and Risk Management System. Nou 238143-48.

154

MICHIGAN STATE U IVERSTY

lllllllllllllllllllllIll/lllll/lllllllllll

3 1293 02504 0324