Bad Accounting: Who Pays for Our Food?

Do you ever wander into the produce section of the grocery store, take one look at that pretty ordinary looking head of organic lettuce, and wonder why on earth it is so much more expensive than the one two shelves over? To me, it's both fascinating and horrifying that buying food grown without the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers has become a luxury (when it was merely the norm 60 or 70 years ago). The fact of the matter is the industrially produced lettuce costs just as much, if not more; the details are in who ends up paying.

Before we get too deep in an environmental economics discussion, I just would like to reiterate a few points about organic agriculture. In the spirit of organic agriculture, the health of the soil biome is paramount; in practice, the ag-industry has largely found organic substitutes for conventional chemical inputs, making soil management seemingly less important. Further, the jury is still out, and no evidence has conclusively shown organic produce to be nutritionally superior to conventional produce. Finally, merely lowering the price of organics may appear to improve access for lower income individuals, but at the same time is likely negatively impact those growing the crops. OK, caveats aside, so why the hefty bill on my organic shopping?

While not always the case, organic fruits and vegetables are usually more expensive (sometimes as much as 2-3 times the price) than conventional. The difference in price between organic and conventional foods is not a new topic in the media, and therefore multiple explanations have surfaced as to why the latter is cheaper. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, it is largely an issue of supply and demand and economies of scale. There are relatively small volumes, so less product to distribute the costs over. This makes sense when you consider that growth in demand for organic products continues to outpace supply in the US, in Australia, and I'm sure elsewhere.

But another explanation points to the unseen costs embedded in our food, but not reflected in the price. These are usually things that the public benefits from - like clean water, breathable air, and a stable climate - but that no one person is responsible for maintaining. A classic example in the US is the seasonal dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico when nutrients applied to fields run-off and filter down through the Mississippi River. This is also a problem here in Australia, where land management practices are held partially responsible for the dire state of the Great Barrier Reef. And while organic production still often adds fertility amendments, soils with high levels of organic matter retain more water and reduce the amount of soil erosion. Multiple studies have also shown that organic agriculture results in lower greenhouse gas emissions, largely from the use of nitrogen fertilizers.

One of the problems is that incentives for farming don't take into account these costs borne by society, and counter-intuitively, detrimental practices are often encouraged through government subsidies (and companies driven by profit). Certain crops, and some of the biggest culprits for environmental damages, get the largest portion of billions of dollars in subsidies. Though there are insurance programs now for organic and diversified farms, the biggest rewards still come from using and abusing the land. Unfortunatey, accounting for these public goods usually takes governments and international bodies to put a value on environmentally damaging practices, and this is often politically unpalatable. So, when it comes down to it, paying that extra bit for organics helps support these resources we all appreciate (but nobody wants to pay for). And the blueberries taste better ;)

Tomorrow is my last day of the week of eating below the poverty line...you still have time to donate!

Relevant Reads:
Hunger for Organic Food Stretches Supply Chain (Wall Street Journal 2015) 

Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Practices: Conventional Versus Organic Agriculture (Critical Review in Plant Sciences 2011)
A Comparative Study of Some Environmental Impacts of Conventional and Organic Farming in Australia (Agricultural Systems 2006)
The Effects of Organic Agriculture on Biodiversity and Abundance: A Meta-Analysis (Journal of Applied Ecology 2005)

Valuation for Poverty Alleviation (My Munchable Musings 2015)
Eenee, Meenee, Minee, Moe (My  Munchable Musings 2012)

My Munchable Soapbox: Certifying Gender Equality

Preparing gari - a product of cassava

-->

My research took an unexpected turn this summer – while starting out with the intention to focus on extreme weather events influence farmer’s management decisions, it soon became pretty clear that almost all the weather is just some shade of extreme here. And when farmers say that moderation is best for cocoa, they will provide a month where this happens, not any particular year. Keeping my eye on the climate change adaptation ball, I shifted gears a bit to try getting at how impacts from climate change could affect the household, and specifically how women can and do respond to stresses. Though not a part of the research (yet very much an interest), I thought that certification’s consideration for gender would be an appropriate topic to discuss here.

“Gender” issues are pretty en vogue, at the moment. ISEAL alliance, a network for certification and standard bodies, madethe case for why more gendered attention is needed in certification. But I’m always a bit skeptical about these fashionable issues; I wonder what “considering gender” is actually achieving. The goals of certification range from guaranteeing a “fair price” and combating child labour (which is a whole other issue entirely) to encouraging environmentally sound and long-term sustainable practices.

Coffee has proven a popular case study for those interested in certification. It has everything – organic, fair trade, shade-grown – but the question of whether there is equality in impacts for men and women remains largely unanswered. In Uganda, for example, coffee is the primary export, employing 3.5 million families. Women make up close to 80% of agricultural production and over 50% of commodity crops. Women in the study noted how the gendered division of labour within the system are limiting equal benefits – for example, women are often relegated to working on the farm, but don’t actually make it up further in the supply chain. It also comes down to who deals in the finances.

This all sounds very reminiscent of my conversations with women farmers here in Ghana. For the most part, they work their husband’s cocoa land, and primarily tend to the food crops (maize, cassava, and plantain) that form the first stage of the cocoa cultivation cycle. While what she gains from selling these can go to household expenses, the woman don’t control the bulk of the household income, which seem to go to larger expenses like construction, fertilizer, sprays, and to some extent children’s school fees.

So when we think about the benefits that a certification might provide – price premiums, extension services, market access – those are not necessarily elements that women can readily access. But this is also an opportunity for certification: expressly aim to recognize women’s labour in the value chain, cultivate women leaders, and provide a platform for bring forward women’s issues. I also think that there is scope for considering certification for the crops that women do cultivate themselves, and have more control over the management and the revenue. It’s hard when the big money makers tend to be controlled by the men, but I have met several strong women who know their stuff and are very much standing on their own two feet.

Read More:

Fair Tradeand organic certification in value chains: lessons from a gender analysis fromcoffee exporting in Uganda

The role ofcertification and producer support in promoting gender equality in cocoaproduction

Frugal Foodie on a British Pound: Cheap Organic

One of the things I find most frustrating about the live below the line week, is that it seems to inevitably compromise my usual filter for purchasing food. Farmers markets are largely out of the question. Organic or ethically certified products sport a price-premium tag. Even local produce seems to cost an arm and a leg. So why shouldn't I be excited about the prospect of cheap organic food?

Well, our favourite food giant Walmart has plans for organic that suit its size. They are planning to sell a line of organically-produced, primarily pantry and canned goods, at around 25% below the average brand available now. The good news is that means the lower income tier of Walmart-serving areas can have access to products that avoid some of the nasty, synthetic chemicals found in conventional agriculture. In this sense, Walmart's move could be viewed as environmental and health justice and equality gain.

But, unfortunately, it's not that simple. A Grist article, of course, voiced one of my primary concerns: that large-scale organic will push out smaller farms. In order to reach the scale to which they aspire, Walmart will likely have to go big or go home. That means, rather than adhering to the underlying ethos of organic production - trying to work with and not against nature - this shift would require more industrial agriculture. Essentially, everything is the same as conventional, farms simply employ organic versions of all the fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. And the small organic farms that try to adhere to the principles of organic by building soil health and mixing crop systems? I guess they're sort of out of luck.

However, that's not the only fish I have to fry. It is one thing for a behemoth of a supermarket chain to put in targets for a certain amount of organic wares, at a certain level of cheapcheapcheap. It is quite another to change the system in which all of this operates to actually achieve the social and environmental goals that were conceived by the organic movement. Maybe someone who understands economic progression better than I can explain how this move by Walmart will help reorient the incentives to produce and supply organically rather than under conventional methods. By undercutting prices of current organics, it seems to be just another way to get people to buy a product (perhaps placing undue strain on those actually growing the food), and not leveling the playing field of agriculture. 

Is that what we want? Just another choice on the grocery shelves. Or do we want a more equitable, less polluting, longer-term sustainable food system? I just can't see how Walmart is going to give us the latter.

NPR has another nice take on the Walmart decision.

My Munchable Soapbox: Rallying for Climate

One of 50,000. While this may seem to diminish the impact of any one of individual, power in numbers made the Forward on Climate rally in Washington, DC this past Sunday stand out in the history of climate protests. It was the largest climate rally held to date in the U.S., opposing the construction of the Keystone Pipeline to transport oil from tar sands in Canada across the United States. Climate was the sticking point, because the extraction and burning of this exceptionally dirty fuel will have resoundingly negative consequences for greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent climate change impacts. And yet, though climate was most assuredly the focus, there was representation from dozens of other pet environmental causes - from wolves to recycling.

But that's the point...it is all connected in some way to climate change. Our highly consumption-oriented behaviors lead to waste and emissions, and every aspect of life and the world around us will be affected by the imminent shifts in climatic patterns. So it was exciting to see that organic agriculture had made it into the picture (literally, see above!), as climate change is very integral to land uses and a common theme on My Munchable Musings. However, I felt that I needed to emphasize organic agriculture is not the silver bullet many people make it out to be. We can have large-scale commercial monoculture organic and small-scale diversified cropping organic. We can have technology and machinery heavy organic and knowledge and labor intensive organic. And each of those 'organics' has a unique carbon footprint. In order to get the biggest bang for our buck, practices that improve the soil, reduce the amount of outside fertilizers, etc. needed, and minimize transport and energy use (e.g. greenhouse tomatoes and long-hauls for produce) will ultimately make our agriculture more climate smart.

That all said, let's hope that this gathering of people over the weekend struck a chord with our government. Without U.S. leadership, it will be near impossible for any concerted large-scale action to combat a 'wierding' climate. Let's move forward on climate!

My Munchable Soapbox: The Worm in Your Apple

Happy New Year! My little soapbox has suffered from neglect as of late, but never fear, for I am back. And so on this second day of the month of January in the year 2013, let me take advantage of a clean slate and discuss an issue at the root of all that we eat. 

Let's talk compost. I hope that didn't just scare you away, but it is true that the food we eat is only as good as the soil in which it is grown. OK, so plants do convert sunlight into sugars, but all of those micronutrients, and the building blocks for plant proteins, cells, and the process of photosynthesis itself, come from the soil! In our modern-day, compartmentalized agricultural system, we often provide these nutrients to the plant in the form of synthetic (or conversely, industrial-scale organic) fertilizer. But this baseline practice is sort of like taking your daily vitamin, and then subsisting off of a diet of fries and milkshakes (perhaps I exagerate).

This article yesterday in the Science section of the New York Times illuminates the benefits of vermicompost - or essentially worm-created soil. Earthworms are super-digesters, and turn plant matter into a microbe-rich substrate that can improve a plant's access to nitrogen and decrease disease causing organisms. What the worms are doing is not adding discrete packages of things a plant might need to be healthy, but rather creating a complex ecosystem that serves the essential needs of the inhabitants while also building up resilience in the system to protect again other stresses. It's like like that combination of eating a well-balanced diet, exercising, and getting enough sleep that your doctor keeps prescribing - all of which are important for a healthy body and strong immune system!

 

I don't want to sound like an organic agriculture fanatic, but the article does point out that studies have shown how soils exposed to the synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used in conventional agriculture are devoid of the diverse microbial communities that aid in supplying nutrients and protecting from fungal and bacterial plant diseases. In contrast, vermicomposting offers a way to both improve soil health and deal with waste from livestock, crop production, and household food consumption. Research has even shown they can detoxify soil with cadmium, lead and other heavy metals.

 

My favorite part of the article was the mention of 'boutique composting.' Yes, there is a niche market for everything these days. More to the point, this is indicative of the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all solution in agriculture...even if the big guys wish there were. Different plants like compost from different combinations of food or livestock waste, which in turn house their own unique microbial communities. So where one type of worm compost may kill of the blight that affect walnuts, another might be superior for apple trees.

 

With that, let me draw the first soapbox of the year to a close. I hope as you tuck in for a snack today, you contemplate the soil that grew the tree that gave you that apple!

Food News: The Food and Drink Issue

Buried under mounds of internet browser tabs, I uncovered a little gem from the New York Times Magazine. Yes, you guessed it (or maybe you didn't), the 2012 Food & Drink Issue! And of course, with an election only two weeks off, there is a bit of a political bent. Here's a peak, but you should really check it out yourself.

Land of a Billion Vegetables

Mark Bittman paints a picture of the large scale vegetable farms in the Central Valley of California - the the produce basket of the U.S. This region, larger than the size of nine States, has some of the most fertile soils in the country, lots of sun, temperate winter weather, and water resources beyond rainfall. But sadly, it has also become a region of polluted air, contaminated soils, and increasingly overdrafted water. While destructive practices tend to be the norm, Bittman describes those farmers running off the beaten path, trying alternative methods and technologies - like Integrated Pest Management or solar water pumps. But the issue is bigger than organic vs. conventional, where those terms may not actually be very indicative of the sustainability of practices. To conclude, Bittman warns "If we want a system of farming that’s sustainable on all levels, we have to think about a national food and farming policy. And as I was looking out at Buxman’s amazing land, it occurred to me just how amazing it is that we don’t have one."

Vote for the Dinner Party!

You can thank Michael Pollan for distinguishing between a general sentiment and a movement. He cites as examples the proposition in California to label GMOs, the taxes on soft drinks that are starting to pop up, and the ballooning set of complaints against the meat industry. Big Ag is developing a reputation of notoriety, and people are starting to be vocal and fight back. Pollan argues, however, that the 'food movement' hasn't yet made it to the point of shaking the foundations of federal policy. While we get to vote with our fork three times a day (yes, that is a Pollanism), elections don't happen everyday. And who we elect, and how Californians vote on GMO labeling, will influence the strength and trajectory of this nascent food movement.

Who Made the Whisk?

I'm not going to spoil it, but let's just say it predates us by a few generations. History of cooking gadgets is fascinating!

Blog Action Day: A Collective Vote with Our Forks

Our food system is complex. Not just because we grow many different crops; or because climate change and land degradation are making it harder to grow them; or because they are shipped all around the world before landing on a grocery shelf. No, our food system is complex because the actors with an interest in that system are complex.

Take a moment to think. Beyond the farmer and the landowner (unless you are dealing just with direct markets), there are wholesalers, processors, procurers, sales and marketing people, grocery employees, commodity traders...the list goes on. But what each of these stakeholders has in common, from the smallest of the farmers to the head honcho of an agribusiness, is that his job, the relevance of his work, depends on you the consumer. 

However, while you can calculate the water footprint of your diet, or purchase only local, seasonal, and organic, at the end of the day you are just one person. Changing the food system is truly a collective effort. It means expanding the network of people making conscious food decisions, where the power of a group of eaters is larger than that of any single individual. And it is why this 'new' and 'alternative' food movement has attracted so much attention: it has shifted from a fringe fancy of hippies and tree-hugging organic farmers, to a more mainstream lifestyle focused on awareness of environmental, physical, and social impacts.

Moreover, the direct connection of eater and grower plays an important role in shaping and encouraging this collective action. This is something I see every Sunday, selling organic produce at the farmers market - the power that knowledge, trust, and motivation can have in changing an entrenched agriculture and food sector. As Michael Pollan noted in a New York Times Magazine article, "with the organic movement, consumers and farmers have shown how they can work together as cocreators of an alternative food system. We need to join together now, to recruit a larger and larger army of cocreators, to rewrite the rules of the game — and 'cocreate' a different kind of food system."

This is my third year participating in Blog Action Day, and the theme this year is "The Power of We." Past years have focused on a range of environmental and social issues: Last year's theme of 'food' coincided with World Food Day (tomorrow); In 2010 the theme was 'water' and I looked at payments for watershed services; and 'climate change' took the stage in 2009. But once again, every one of these issues involves a good or service in the public domain, where movement towards solutions will require cooperation and coordination.

To make large-scale lasting change, collective action is necessary. To learn about actions on the consumer end of the food system, read Oxfam's The Food Transformation. To enter the policy sphere, and take action on US farm policy, visit the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's website.

Food News: The Happiest Place

 Photo Credit: James L. Stanfield/National Geographic/Getty Images

Recently, I came across this Kick Starter page for a documentary film on Bhutan. Sweet, I thought, the happiest place. Little did I know that this country so renowned for being supremely happy (the country to institute a measure of 'Gross National Happiness'), also cares about the environment. Yes, that's right, the government of Bhutan is looking to transition all domestic agriculture to organic production methods by the year 2022. Ok, so maybe they already have a pretty good track record on this front - considering the income levels, it is difficult for farmers to afford chemical fertilizers and pest controls anyway. But it's more than that. An entire country makes a strong statement by setting a precedent for counter-conventional agriculture. Suddenly, it becomes something beyond a fringe idea, elevates it into a broader global conversation about the trajectory of agricultural development. Maybe we can take some lessons away from this small Himalayan nation, in which people lead simple, happy, and soon pesticide-free lives.

My Munchable Soapbox: Organic Makes Headlines

Organic produce may not be healthier. That's the word on the streets, now that a Stanford University study has shown that organic fruits and vegetable are unlikely to contain more nutrients than their conventional counterparts. And while conventional produce was far more likely to have pesticide residue, the levels fell below what the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) deems safe for human consumption. These findings were based on an extensive review of 40-years worth of studies on organics.

Intended as a straight-forward, unbiased analysis, this study could prove to undermine the reputation organic has built up. But to be honest, the nutritional content of organic produce is not my biggest concern, nor do I think organic is the be-all and end-all. And why is that? Since a vegetable is only as good as the soil in which it is grown, practices that embrace the health of soil ecosystems probably have more impact on nutrition than the presence or lack of pesticides.

But more importantly, organic is not just about health of eaters, but of farm workers and the environment. The chemicals used on crops ultimately make their way into the waterways and ecosystems around fields...just take DDT for example! No, I don't buy organic primarily for nutritional purposes, or even necessarily to avoid chemical residue myself. But the spirit of organic production (if not always the reality in practice) is to utilize the natural ecosystem function to deal with the challenges inherent in agriculture. Oftentimes, smaller organic operations have a diversity of crops to spread risk, encourage beneficial insects, and restore nutrients to the soil. And while the organic label is not a necessity, the attempt to achieve some sort of synergy with the natural environment is.

I am still convinced that we have no idea what kinds of long-term impacts will result from the use of synthetic chemicals. Humans have employed 'organic' agricultural practices for thousands of years, and 'conventional' chemical-reliant agriculture for fewer than 100. Excuse me if I remain skeptical :)

Further Reading:

New York Times

NPR

My Munchable Soapbox: Eenee, Meenee, Minee, Moe...

...conventional, organic, IPM, slow (food). This Sunday, as I made my way around the farmers market, I realized how difficult it can be to make heads or tails of the products available. In an ideal world, you would hang around the farmer's stand, chatting about the type of pest controls he employs or her use of rye as a cover crop in the winter (and as a vendor, we love talking about that). But let's be honest; as you sidle in at ten-til the closing of market, an engrossing conversation about compost is not always a priority.

However, you can get a pretty good sense of the general genre of practices a farm at your market employs. For example, in Washington DC, I can count the number of certified organic produce stands on one hand, but there are many more that practice knowledge-intensive and more ecologically conscious methods than purely chemical-reliant production. So, I sought to find out what exactly was the implication for my favorite orange tuber, the sweet potato, at the conventional Sunnyside Farm and Orchard (they actually exercise much more restraint than larger scale commercial operations), IPM-practicing Twin Springs Fruit Farm, and organic certified Next Step Produce. So what's the deal? Should I really pay attention to the origins of my beta-carotene-rich root?

Organic - the national standard for organic certification sets the bare minimum criteria for an operation to be considered organic. Oftentimes, State certifying agencies, such as Oregon Tilth, employ more stringent standards, as do other countries. The philosophy of the organic movement as it was founded embodies the notion of integrating biological diversity, healthy soils, clean water, and other essential services for a sustainability agricultural production system. However, presently no synthetic chemical pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, antibiotics, or hormones may be employed. Use of any genetically engineered organisms is prohibited, and there are additional stipulations for animal welfare. That said, there are many ways to still produce food as any other large commercial agribusiness, while still holding an organic certification (see any of your large organic foods companies). This is not necessarily bad, and probably not something you will run into at a farmers market, but an important consideration to keep in mind.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - now we get into shades of gray. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this is an approach that "relies on a combination of common-sense practices." Unlike in organic production, application of synthetic chemicals is not completely outlawed, but instead timed to coincide with specific points in pest's life cycles. The judicious planning and combination of multiple techniques for controlling pests sets IPM apart from convention blanket use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Although focused primarily on the pest management aspect of growing food, IPM methods, such as biological controls and economical water use, are very knowledge-intensive and can also help achieve some of the other benefits inherent in the spirit behind organic production. Read more about IPM on the UC David website.

Now, going back to my sweet potato, I had to ask whether or not it really matters that I buy an organic vegetable. Generally, a good rule of thumb is if you eat the skin, it is better to purchase low or no chemical produce. However, root veggies assimilate the chemicals into the whole plant (if you want to watch a cute video...).

Now, this is not to say that I will never purchase conventional produce. But knowledge is power, so take this information to heart, and choose wisely what you buy.

This article lays out the difference between the terms "organic" and "sustainable," which often connote a similar meaning, while not actually being equivalent in practice.

Fast Fact Friday: Organic not Green

Organic agriculture is often touted as the way to go 'green' as an eater. While I've written about this particular topic in the past, I wanted to make quick mention of it in light of a NY Times article from Friday. The article discusses the trade-offs between rural economic development for poor subsistence farmers in Mexico and the environmental degradation inherent in overusing water resources and planting large swaths of a single crop. And some commercial farmers are working to make their operations more energy and water efficient. But the fact remains that if you want a cheap, cherry tomato during the winter - whether that tomato is organic or conventional - you will be sacrificing what is deemed as 'sustainability' of the system for economy and desires. So chew on that for a bit and consider next time you step into the grocery, not only "does my food have pesticide residue" but also "is my food still harming the planet."

Fast Fact Friday: Organic to the Rescue

According to an article in the Atlantic, organic agriculture CAN feed the world! Well, actually several UN reports and a Rodale Institute study are actually behind that assertion. It's not so much about producing as much corn, wheat, rice, etc. from the one plant. We increasing have to worry about taking care of the natural systems that allow us to continue growing food - supporting pollinators; keeping water clean; increasing resilience to climate changes. And for some fruits and vegetables, eating organic is considerably safe and healthier for your person and the planet. But while organic is not everything ... you can have large and destructive organic farms - it's a start. I wrote about what other considerations are as important, if not moreso, this summer.

Read more here and here.

Let's Talk Organic

Note - photo is NOT from Portland...

First off, greetings from Portland, OR and the first ever Vida Vegan Conference! After two full days of munching and musing , I am left with a lot to think about and a whole new perspective on the vegan community.

One of the panels I yesterday was on nutrition. While very interesting, the panel raised an issue with which I still feel torn. Organic is always better. As you may recall, I have written about organic production in the past - particularly with regards to berries and compared to conventional. So, obviously I don't disagree with the merits of choosing organic, but rather the principle that one can blindly put faith in an organic product. Depending on your values and goals, it is not always better.

As with most things in life, there are two sides to the coin. A Grist article from about a month ago, in response to a separate Scientific American blog post provides some serious insight on this issue. The selling points: GMOs are not allowed, dangerous chemicals are banned and generally it is more energy efficient. But sadly, in the world in which we live, even organic agriculture is not all sunshine and roses. Industrial scale production does employ approved pesticides, monocropping, and heavy machinery for tilling the soil, etc. There is debate over nutritional benefits, though I fall into the camp that organic-done-right is superior in micronutrients.

So, while I support organic in theory, in practice I think a blanket acceptance is too simplistic. I would rather support a local farmer, who may not be certified organic but makes thoughtful decisions about the use of chemicals, than a nameless organic agriculture giant with whom I have no connection and no established relationship. Get to know your farmer, find out if he/she strives to a more agro-ecological approach that aligns with the services nature provides us, and support those who do at the market or through a CSA.

What are your thoughts on organic? Is that what you tend to purchase?

Chocolate Cross the Potomac

Launched in July of 2010, today’s featured chocolate with a soul is from a company hanging out in the DC Metro Area (specifically, Woodbridge, VA). Potomac Chocolate is a small, artisan company that takes cacao beans through each step on the way to a final bar – just the beans and sugar! While savouring a piece of the 82% Upala bar, I got the low-down on this up-and-coming chocolate company from the founder, Ben Rasmussen.

Well first off, what enticed you to go into chocolate-making initially?

After I was introduced to fine dark chocolate in late 2009, I fell in love with it. So I started holding chocolate tastings for friends. I'd give them a little information on the history and production of chocolate, talk about how to taste chocolate to best appreciate the flavor and discuss various aspects of fine chocolate (bean-to-bar, single origin, etc.)

At one of these tastings, a friend said something to the effect that we should try making fine chocolate. I was skeptical at first, but after a little research I decided it would be interesting to try. About a year ago, we acquired a few pieces of machinery, experimented and succeeded in making a few batches of not-horrible chocolate. During those first efforts, Potomac Chocolate was born… naturally, with requisite delusions of grandeur!

Why a bean-to-bar operation?

While I enjoy a lot of different chocolate and chocolate confections, my first love is pure, dark, single-origin, bean-to-bar chocolate. Before getting into making chocolate, I was fascinated by the wide range of flavors that chocolate makers were able to draw out of the cocoa beans, particularly how one maker's bar from a specific origin would bring out certain flavors that were sometimes radically different from another maker's take on that same origin.

So, when I got into chocolate making, bean-to-bar was the only direction I was interested in. Bean-to-bar is an (almost) complete creative process, giving the chocolate-maker the freedom to impart his/her own vision on the flavor and texture of the chocolate. I say 'almost complete' because there are steps out of the control of a small chocolate-maker that happen on the cacao farm and that can greatly impact the flavor: harvest, fermentation and drying. However, I do hope to reach a point where I have some impact on the way these processes are carried out.

So in this case, obviously the source of beans is a crucial factor in the quality and flavor of your chocolate. How did you choose your current source of cacao? Are there are any particular factors that were influential?

Flavor and availability were two of the most influential factors for my first source of beans. One of the biggest hurdles for new chocolate makers to overcome is cacao sourcing. Since I have such a small production, it was difficult to find cacao suppliers who supplied high-quality, good flavor beans AND who were able and willing to work with the tiny quantities of beans that I use.

Of course social equity and environmental sustainability are also very important to me. My current beans come from the Upala Organic Cacao Growers Cooperative and are both certified organic and fair trade. Although, I'm much more concerned with the actual conditions on the ground than the labels themselves. At my current size, I have very limited ability to influence that. For now, the main thing I can do is do my research and purchase beans above market rates directly from the farmers or from reputable importers. Eventually, I would like to form a partnership with cacao farmers where I would have a much more direct impact on the conditions for the farmers by helping to improve the quality and marketability of the beans.

I can see how there would be many hurdles to starting a small chocolate company, by what would you say are the biggest challenges you have faced?

This is a tough one. As the sole employee of Potomac Chocolate, there are a lot of challenges. One of the biggest is simply time. There's just a lot to get done and generally not enough time to do it. Also, it is difficult working on such a small scale. I've already discussed the issues with sourcing cacao, but it also extends to other areas, like equipment. Chocolate-making equipment for the really small artisan chocolate maker is a rarity, so I repurpose some equipment that isn't really designed for making chocolate, and have even built some of my own equipment from scratch. For example, I built my winnower and plan to build a drum roaster that will be able to roast a lot more beans than my current roaster--a convection oven!

Sounds like you are pretty handy with crafting your own equipment; what did you do in your former life?

My former life is actually still my current life, in that I still have a day job in I.T. Most of my skill with building stuff (such as it is) comes from my long-held interest in DIY and just general tinkering.

Where do you see the company headed? Any exciting upcoming developments?

My goal with Potomac is to continue to slowly grow the line of chocolate bars that I offer, and to continue to expand into new retail shops. I am about to start working on my first non-Upala origin bar and hope to have it available in the next few months. After that, rinse and repeat! Along the way, I plan to continue to study and learn more about the chocolate making process, upgrade my equipment, and continue to refine my process to further improve my chocolate.

Final (and most important…) question – how would you characterize your favorite chocolate?

In general, I prefer a bar with bold, expressive flavors that kind of punches you in the mouth. Of course a good texture and melt are key, too. And while my personal favorite is my 70%, I think all three fit the bill.

They sure do. Potomac Chocolate is quite a treat, so get yourself to a chocolate shop and try some of this unique chocolate. Thanks Ben for taking time out of your busy chocolate-making schedule to regale us with the tale of your company. Looking forward to seeing where your path leads … hopefully to more chocolate!