When Organic first became a term for describing agriculture, it was used similarly to what we now mean by "sustainable." It wasn't strictly defined, but meant to represent farming with particular care for our land, animals and future. As soon as we started to certify organics, we placed a strict definition on the term. Animals must have a certain amount of freedom to roam. No synthetic fertilizers. Minimize all pesticide use. No growth hormones. No genetic engineering. Setting this definition nationally in 1990 eventually led to huge changes in our agricultural system. Today, organic produce, meat and even processed foods can be found in nearly every super market in the country. This popularity of the organic label has set a precedent, and a measure of restriction, on every new food label we'll see in the future.
The first thing to note about the term organic, is that it is really an umbrella term. Because it has so many meanings, it reduces the relevance of many other labels. You still may see labels indicating things such as No Growth Hormones or Non-GMO, but you probably won't see it side-by-side with an organic label. Allowing multiple layers of labeling like this, can easily lead to consumer confusion and misdirection. Asking consumers to keep track of what organic means for animal products, processed products and produce, leads to a lot of guessing in the grocery aisles. Would we be better off with a list of certifications like Non-GMO and Cage-Free? Probably. The thing that organic certification does well- forcing farmers to adopt a wide range of socially conscious practices- is also its greatest fault. There's not much flexibility to an organic label. Rather than farmers making rational decisions about how to make the most difference at a minimal cost, he's stuck with a national standard. Such inefficiencies undoubtedly drive the cost of organic produce higher.
But let's not overlook the impact that the organic label has had on society. Labels that meant something to a spectrum of consumers (like organic) has a lot more appeal to large producers, and the more a label is in stores, the more people will be willing to learn about it. We shouldn't have regrets about creating the organic label- it sparked a great step forward, but it is time to move on. Why not a short list on the side of a label, marking off the sustainable claims of product. Shouldn't consumers decide if grain fed or hormone free is more important to them? Or if they want both? Labeling item by item, rather than with umbrella terms, creates a clarity and flexibility for both consumers and producers. In short, it's efficient.
Of course, scraping the organic label would have huge market consequences. On the one hand, it might be easier for new producers to make changes. Depending on what's being certified, farmers might be able to skip the (quite deterring) 3-year wait in a organic certification process. On the other hand, farmers who have already invested in going in organic could face a significant loss. I wouldn't suggest we keep the process difficult, but not allowing current organic farms some sort of recognition could damage the industry and drive a lot of good practicers out of business. Just as the product of a short brainstorm, a couple of ways to ease this transition might be:
- automatic approval for a set of certifications if you are already certified organic
- allowing the organic label to coexist with the new system for a few-year period
- a small note like "organic leader" indicating that they adopted organic practices before the label change
If there are other ways we could ease out the organic label, I'd love to hear them. Making the change feasible is key to making the change happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment