CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
Although organic foods predated federal regulation, the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 established the framework for national standards, which were fully implemented in 2002 through the USDA’s National Organic Program and labeling system. Since then, organic sales have increased steadily, which may have prompted some conventional farmers to consider adopting organic practices (USDA, 2023a). However, a significant gap persists between domestic supply and demand in the United States: While consumer demand for organic food continues to rise, domestic production has not kept pace. As a result, much of this gap is filled by imported organic products (Delbridge et al., 2017; Choi and Schaefer, 2024).
These trends suggest that US farmers may consider adopting organic practices as costly and complex due to perceived financial risks and operational challenges, despite their potential benefits. The USDA organic standard prohibits the use of most synthetic substances that help boost yields and control pests, leading to lower and more variable yields, higher labor costs, and greater production uncertainty, all of which increase production and financial risk. To obtain USDA organic certification, farmers must also demonstrate that no prohibited substances have been applied to the land for at least 3 years (USDA, 2021). In addition, organic operations are typically required to use fertile land that is not adjacent to conventional farms, in order to minimize the risk of low yield and contamination from chemical drift or runoff (Tasoff, 2024).
These challenges may help explain why US organic food exports have remained relatively stagnant over the past decades, while imports have increased, due to limited domestic production capacity (USDA 2023a). However, organic production and trade patterns vary across sectors. For instance, in recent years, the United States has generally been a net exporter of organic apples andlettuce, while remaining a net importer of other organiccommodities—such as other fruits, grains, and oilseeds—each with distinct supply, demand, and trade trends (Delbridge et al., 2017; Koory et al., 2020; Choi and Schaefer, 2024).
Despite this diversity, few studies have examined the drivers of organic adoption by specific commodity, and there is a lack of in-depth research on the grain market, particularly for rice in the United States, due to limited data availability. For example, the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) withheld data on the acreage and production of organic rice to prevent disclosure of individual farm information, making it challenging to conduct in-depth research (USDA, 2021).
Rice is an important part of US agriculture, serving as both a major export and a growing domestic staple. Production is concentrated in six states—Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Missouri—where it holds economic significance. Between 2021 and 2023, the United States exported about 43% of its rice, valued at $2.0 billion annually (USDA, 2025a; 2025b). Meanwhile, imports accounted for 25% of domestic consumption, driven by demographic shifts to groups with higher per capita rice consumption (e.g., Asian and Latin American) and increased demand from gluten-intolerant consumers (USDA, 2023b; Diaz, 2022; Rai, Kaur, and Chopra, 2018). The US organic rice market has also expanded, rising from $27.53 million to $57.74 million between 2008 and 2016 (USDA, 2021). Most imports are aromatic jasmine and basmati rice from Thailand, India, and Pakistan. Although organic imports are not separately tracked, estimates suggest that an annual average of 64.4 thousand metric tons, worth $42 million, were imported from 2021 to 2023, mainly from Mercosur (USDA, 2025a). Most of the organic rice produced and imported in the United States is long-grain and nonaromatic rice.
A puzzling question is why the United States, a major exporter of long-grain rice, remains a net importer of organic rice, which is also primarily long-grain. While US farmers are competitive in conventional rice, they appear less so in the organic segment, and the reasons for this gap remain unclear. This underscores the need for research on the factors influencing the adoption of organic practices. In response, this study examines US rice farmers’ perceptions of the organic system. Though primarily descriptive, it fills a gap in the literature and offers insights that could help stakeholders support the growth of domestic organic rice production.
We collected the dataset using a hybrid method, combining phone and online surveys. First, we obtained contact information for 6,288 rice farmers across five states (Arkansas, California, Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri) through university extension services (University of Arkansas, Texas A&M University, and University of California, Davis) and US Farm Data agencies (US Farm Data, 2023). We contacted potential participants through a phone call to invite them to participate in our survey. If respondents agreed to participate, they were given the option to complete the survey either online (hybrid method) or through a traditional phone interview, where enumerators asked questions and recorded their responses. The hybrid option was offered to accommodate participants who preferred the convenience of an online format over a phone interview, which can be more time-consuming and lead to survey fatigue. Those willing to participate were asked whether they were still active rice farmers and completed a consent form. Each participant who completed the survey received a $50 gift card as a token of appreciation.
The survey was conducted over four months, from January to April 2023. In total, 181 farmers (164 conventional and 17 organic) agreed to participate, with 148 (133 conventional and 15 organic) completing the survey. On average, the phone-only survey yielded fewer respondents but had a higher completion rate compared to the hybrid approach (see Table 1 for other details). Given that there are only 173 certified organic rice growers in the United States, having 15 observations is a reasonable sample size to represent their perceptions and opinions toward the organic system (USDA, 2018).
Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics of conventional and organic rice farmers. For both conventional and organic farming, the majority of farmers are male, older than 45, earn farm income of at least $750,000 per year, and have a higher degree than a bachelor’s degree. The noticeable difference between conventional and organic farmers is indicated in farming states, as most conventional farmers reside in Arkansas, and organic farmers are in California and Texas. Age is the only variable that shows a statistically significant difference between the two groups.
Table 3 illustrates the operational differences between conventional and organic rice farmers. On average, conventional farmers have longer experience, manage larger farmland, achieve higher yields, have greater contract and insurance coverage rates, have a lower cost per acre, and benefit from a larger number of rice buyers in their area. Organic farmers report higher water usage and lower yield per acre than conventional farmers on average, with both differences being statistically significant. Additionally, significant differences between the two groups are observed in farmer experience, farm size, unit price received, participation in private buyer contracts, and enrollment in revenue-based crop insurance programs.
In this survey, we asked both conventional and organic farmers about the challenges they face in rice farming, their expectations and concerns regarding organic practices, their opinions on their current farming methods, and their perspectives on the rice market.
The 15 organic farmers expressed facing different challenges in expanding their operations. Some farmers argue that input prices, such as fuel and fertilizer, are the major challenge, and others cite management problems (e.g., weed pressure). Also, “Not enough suitable land” is considered one of the major hindering factors, followed by “Risk during a transition period.” Surprisingly, the lack of buyers and contractors is revealed as the least concerning aspect of organic farming expansion.
Among five farmers who grow organic and conventional rice, the top reason why they produce both instead of focusing on either rice is “My main contractor requires both organic and conventional rice,” followed by “My conventional rice farmlands are not suitable for organic rice.” The least important reason is revealed as “I am in the middle of a transition to fully organic.”
Of the 133 conventional rice farmers surveyed, 27 answered that they have considered organic rice farming. The major reasons why they did not actually employ organic practices after consideration are “Notprofitable enough to transfer,” “Too much weed and pest pressure in my farm,” and “I do not know any buyers of organic rice in my area.” Those responses suggest that the major hindrance for conventional-only rice farmers to adopt an organic practice is uncertainty in profitability, management, and marketing channels.
Figure 1 shows the answers of 87 out of 133 conventional rice farmers who have never considered organic farming to the question “What would make you consider organic farming? Please select the most important reason for you.” Surprisingly, one of the major responses to this question was “Do not know” (17%), suggesting that many conventional farmers are either unaware or uninterested in organic farming to the point where they cannot suggest any improvements to the organic farming system and corresponding policy.
Following “Do not know,” the conventional farmers suggested that “Better government subsidy/support” (17%), “Suitable farmland” (15%), “More information about marketing” (15%), and “Better profit” (11%) are necessary for them to consider applying the organic practices to their operation.
“At the end of the day, the market for it and knowing you can make money. I don’t know anything about the government subsidies for organic rice. I also don’t know much about the process/time it takes for a farm to become qualified as organic.”
Some conventional farmers argue that they will never farm organic rice (5%), as they do not believe in or oppose organic practices. This explains why some conventional farmers shun organic practices for reasons aside from economic rationales.
“Would not do it. Nothing ever would advocate me doing so.”
“I have not [b]ought into organic craze and the big niche market that organic products bring, I’m still a conventional rice guy because conventional rice produces more rice, I think that if all production was organic they wouldn[’]t feed as many people. I also think that there’s an effect on organically groen [sic] crops grown beside conventional.”
Table 4 reports the farmers’ ideas on their rice operation. Among the questions, only the one related to production costs shows a statistically significant difference between the groups. The questions addressing rice farmers’ priorities and perceptions of their practices reveal intriguing similarities. Using a scale from 0 to 9, where 0 represents “Not Important at All” and 9 represents “Very Important,” both conventional (8.56) and organic (8.47) farmers consistently rank profitability as their top priority for their rice operation. However, the difference is indicated in their secondary priorities: Conventional farmers place greater emphasis on ease of management (7.28), while organic farmers prioritize lower production costs (8.13), and lower production cost indicates a statistically significant difference between conventional and organic farmers.
In response to questions about their choice of agricultural practices, both conventional and organic rice farmers show little concern for the perceptions of business and community peers. However, they are relatively mindful of the view that their farming method is considered a “good agricultural practice,” with conventional farmers (5.86) placing more importance on this than organic farmers (4.73).
For the questions regarding farmers’ ideas for their agricultural practices, both conventional and organic farmers consider these topics important (i.e., the average scale for those questions is around 8). Particularly, both organic and conventional farmers take pride in their own practices and consider themselves land stewards. Interestingly, prioritizing “responsible behavior” in their rice farming management is relatively less important (i.e., an average scale for this question is around 7) than other factors.
Figure 2 shows rice farmers’ dietary behavior corresponding to organic food and rice. The responses to questions about farmers’ dietary behavior indicate the notable differences between conventional and organic rice farmers. All organic farmers eat organic food at least once or twice per month, while more than half of conventional farmers eat less than once or twice per year. Surprisingly, 5.26% of conventional farmers answered “Do not know” to this question, implying that some conventional farmers have no interest in how the food they eat is produced.
The main reason farmers eat organic food is “Healthier” for both conventional (40.91%) and organic (35.00%) farmers, followed by “More environmentally friendly” (20.45% and 25.00% for conventional and organic farmers, respectively). Taste and trend are consideredless important issues for both conventional and organic farmers. The “Other” reasons include safety issues, supporting organic farmers, and peers’ recommendations.
“just so happens that[’]s what we get, CA has some of the highest standards in pesticide regulation and CA food is about as safe as you can get.”
For organic rice in particular, the responses are similar to those for organic food in general: More than 90% of organic rice farmers eat organic rice at least once or twice per month, while more than 50% of conventional farmers have never tried organic rice.
The main reasons for consuming organic rice are similar to those for organic food in general, but there are notable shifts in the proportions. Compared to organic food, the importance of being “Healthier” increases for conventional farmers (42.86%) but decreases for organic farmers (28.57%). Conversely, the importance of being “More environmentally friendly” declines among conventional farmers (14.29%) but rises among organic farmers (33.33%). This shift suggests that, when it comes to rice, conventional farmers may rely on perceived expectations (e.g., organically grown rice should be healthier than conventional rice), while organic farmers focus on practice-based benefits (e.g., environmental sustainability) due to their firsthand knowledge of organic practices. The “Other” reasons include peers’ recommendations and support for organic rice farmers.
“My son makes all my meals 100% organic.”
“To support other organic farmers in the marketplace.”
Table 5 reports rice farmers’ responses to statements about their views on the rice market and operation conditions. Given that a value between 4 and 5 indicates neutrality, both conventional and organic farmers perceive imports as a threat to their business, view rice farming as somewhat risky, believe organic farming is riskier than conventional methods, and prefer higher returns with risk over a low-risk, low-return option. Noticeable differences between the two groups emerge in their perspectives on the environmental impact of their farming practices and the risk associated with organic farming. As expected, organic farmers place greater value on sustainable agricultural practices than conventional farmers do. Interestingly, although both groups consider organic farming riskier than conventional, the perceived risk is significantly greater among organic farmers. This suggests that while conventional farmers acknowledge the risks of organic farming, it may be even riskier in practice than they anticipate.
While demand for organic rice is growing in the United States, many conventional farmers remain hesitant to adopt or integrate organic practices. Their main concerns include operational challenges (e.g., land suitability and profitability), lack of information, andlimited government support. Notably, 17% of conventional farmers responded “Do not know” when asked what might encourage them to consider organic farming, indicating a lack of interest or awareness. Both conventional and organic farmers value profitability, environmental sustainability, and personal judgment in decision-making. Conventional farmers associate organic rice with health benefits, while organic farmers are motivated by environmental concerns. Interestingly, organic farmers perceive organic rice production as significantly riskier than conventional farmers do, suggesting a perception gap that may reflect lower exposure to, or interest in, organic farming among conventional farmers.
To foster the growth of US organic rice production, policies should address farmers’ key concerns by providing targeted technical assistance, financial incentives during the transition period, and improved access to organic markets. Expanding extension services, peer learning, and demonstration projects can help reduce knowledge gaps and correct misperceptions about organic farming risks. Additionally, outreach to uninterested farmers can raise awareness and broaden participation, supporting the long-term growth of the sector. Finally, there is room to improve the safety net for organic farmers, such as aligning crop insurance and commodity title programs more closely with the production and risk conditions of organic practices.
We recognize that a caveat of this paper is the lack of consideration for other conservation practices aside from organic. It is possible that conventional producers whostrongly value adopting practices aligned with public perceptions of “good agricultural practices” may not pursue organic certification but instead adopt other conservation approaches, such as reduced tillage, cover cropping, or alternate wetting and drying (AWD). While our study focused specifically on organic practices, future research should explore how these and other conservation practices interact and whether they serve as alternatives for farmers seeking both environmental and social legitimacy.
Choi, J., and K.A. Schaefer. 2024. “U.S. Organic Imports Triple, Exports Rise.” FarmProgress. Available online: https://www.farmprogress.com/crops/u-s-organic-imports-triple-exports-rise
Delbridge, T.A., R.P. King, G. Short, and K. James. 2017. “Risk and Red Tape: Barriers to Organic Transition for U.S. Farmers.” Choices 32(4):1–10. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.267041
Diaz, C.J. 2022. “Landscapes of Appropriation and Assimilation: The Impact of Immigrant-Origin Populations on U.S. Cuisine.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48(5):1152–1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1811653
Koory, R., K. James, M. Klieger, and J. Deelo. 2020. U.S. Organic Trade Data and Trends 2016–2020. Organic Trade Association. Available online: https://ota.com/resources/global-market-opportunities/international-trade-data-reports
Rai, S., A. Kaur, and C.S. Chopra. 2018. “Gluten-Free Products for Celiac Susceptible People.” Frontiers in Nutrition 5:116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2018.00116
Skorbiansky, S.R., and G. Ferreira. 2018. “California and Texas Are Home to 86 Percent of All USDA-Certified Organic Rice Growers in the United States.” Charts of Note. USDA Economic Research Service. Available online: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=89777
Tasoff, H. 2024, March 21. “Organic Farms Can Have Mixed Effects on Pesticide Use Depending on Their Neighbors.” The Current. UC Santa Barbara. Available online: https://news.ucsb.edu/2024/021400/organic-farms-can-have-mixed-effects-pesticide-use-depending-their-neighbors
US Farm Data. 2023. “Database Marketing.” Available online: https://www.usfarmdata.com/database-marketing
US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). 2021. 2021 Certified Organic Survey. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Production/
US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). 2023a. Organic Agriculture. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/
———. 2023b. “Rice Sector at a Glance.” Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/rice/rice-sector-at-a-glance
US Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS). 2025a. Global Agricultural Trade System. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx
———. 2025b. Production, Supply and Distribution Database. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/home
