A farm industry coalition has objected to legislation that would have Oregon’s government chip in for organic certification costs, arguing the sector shouldn’t receive favored treatment.

Supporters of Senate Bill 1058 say it’s a worthwhile investment that would help a diverse mix of crop and livestock producers while hopefully encouraging others to adopt organic production.

“We’d like to see Oregon back in the spotlight of the organic industry and SB 1058 is our chance,” said Mike Dill, policy and advocacy manager for food distributor Organically Grown Co.

The federal government can already cover some of a farm’s organic certification costs. Senate Bill 1058 would have the state government pay the rest, costing roughly $1 million per biennial budget.

The bill would help pay for soil testing, education fees and other certification expenses not eligible for reimbursement under the federal cost share program.

Consumers are willing to pay a premium for the organic label because the environmentally protective farm practices and lack of synthetic inputs is checked by certification agencies, Dill said.

“It’s more than just an annual spot check by an inspector,” he said. “It’s a multistep process with documented systems and verification at every step of the way.”

To obtain certification, growers must spend three years raising crops and livestock under organic protocols without marketing their products as organic, he said.

The certification costs also aren’t cheap for agriculture and food companies with modest profits — for example, the Organically Grown Co. pays about $15,000 per year, Dill said.

“As a business that has a 1% margin, we have to sell $1.5 million worth of produce just to pay our organic certification,” he said.

Though Oregon has traditionally been a leader in the organic industry, it’s no longer among the top 10 states with the most organic farms, Dill said.

The state is still among the top 10 by organic acreage but has a lot of room for growth, he said. “Considering Oregon has approximately 15.9 million acres of farmland and only 228,000 of that are certified organic, I feel we can do much better.”

The Friends of Family Farmers nonprofit has found that some of its members abide by organic requirements but don’t actually get certified, said Alice Morrison, the organization’s co-director.

“One of their biggest concerns is the cost of certification,” she said.

Funding under SB 1058 would help such farms take full advantage of the organic market simply by getting their practices officially certified, Morrison said.

Supporters estimate that $500,000 a year would be enough to pay for the remaining certification costs of organic growers already using the federal program while still leaving enough money to help those converting to organic production.

However, they’d be willing to accept whatever financial help lawmakers are willing to provide, said Amy Wong, board chair of the Oregon Organic Coalition, a trade group that advocates for the industry.

“It’s really up to the budget writers and what is available,” Wong told the Senate Rules Committee, which considered the bill at a May 25 hearing.

Rising costs have affected the entire agriculture industry, so organic producers shouldn’t be singled out for help, according to the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Oregon Association of Nurseries and other groups.

“SB 1058 would prioritize state funding to assist roughly 1 percent of our agricultural sector, without comparable assistance for the remaining 99 percent,” the farm groups wrote to the committee.

The state government should try to maintain a level playing field rather than encourage one type of production over others, especially since organic producers enjoy higher earnings and already benefit from the federal program, the letter said.

Lawmakers have greatly increased the regulatory burden on farmers without providing sufficient reimbursements, according to the bill’s opponents.

Meanwhile, funding has stagnated for Oregon State University’s research and extension services, which help a variety of farm sectors.

“We should not be prioritizing state resources for fewer than 500 producers while at the same time failing to provide support to the other 36,000-plus,” opponents said.