[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