[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Shameless promotion/Organic landscape
I shouldn't try to combine two threads in one message but I'll at least try
to keep it short.
Glenn suggests that we shamelessly promote organic. Why not? Even though
(as Bart points out) some organic food may not be substantially different
from conventional, does anyone realize how valuable the O word is?
While the percentage of consumers who actually buy organic food isn't what
we would like it to be, it is a lot higher than the percentage who would go
out of their way to avoid organic food. That percentage is probably very,
very small, Avery's arguments notwithstanding. Even he can't turn consumers
off to organic food with E. coli scare tactics.
Compare that with the biotech industry's problem trying to forestal gmo
labelling. That's a no brainer. How many consumers would actually seek out
gm labelled foods? About as many as would avoid organic. I don't even
think Avery would refuse to eat one of Joel Salatin's chickens. (Not a
great example, since Joel isn't certified organic.) How many would avoid gm
food? Do the math and you'll see what they are up against. Try as they
might, they don't have an O word that consumers trust and seek out.
To see the lengths that the industry is going to, check out
http://www.betterfoods.org/ the home page for The Alliance for Better Foods.
Their motto, Improving Agriculture through Biotechnology sounds a lot like
the old Better Living through Chemistry motto that somehow fell out of favor
with consumers. How long will it take them to realize that "through
Biotechnology" isn't a great selling slogan. Still, if I was teaching a
class in PR, I would use the copy on their labelling page as a great example
of spin.
Ted may be right that the Groffs are the hybrid of the future. So who is up
for the battle over what the green labels are going to mean? Who is going
to try to keep gmo products from qualifying? That battle for the middle
ground could be interesting when the "real" food companies start going for
it.
Ted also says it will be generations or centuries until we make any changes
that come close to the organic vision. He's probably right. But the
reasons are mostly human, like a lack of talented farmers and supportive
social institutions. The inertia is great. Changing these things
gracefully takes time.
Unless the vision calls for an increase in livestock numbers (which isn't
likely) and you have to live with the biological limits of livestock
gestation periods, the pace of change isn't constrained much by biological
or physical limits. A decade of good care can turn soil health around. How
long does it take to string up some fencing to graze ruminants? What's the
useful life of a hog or chicken house before it crumbles to the ground and
needs replacing?
Look at the changes that take place in an abandoned field in a decade or two
and it's pretty obvious that Mother Nature can move a lot faster than we
can.
lester
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail