|
From The April/May 2003 Issue of Natural Grocery Buyer
The Name Game
Just when you get a handle on the definition of the USDA's organic label, a slew of other "green" labels pop up to compete for shelf space
Elaine Lipson
Imagine, a food label that, with one word or phrase or logo, would tell consumers important information about how that food was grown or produced. It would give consumers confidence in purchasing the product, and would perhaps even justify a higher price than similar-looking items without the value-adding dimension that the label provides. The label would have clear, well-articulated standards, and adherence to those standards would be verifiable through regular third-party inspection. With every use, the meaning of the label would be consistent and, in particular, it would assure consumers that production methods were environmentally safe.
It sounds like a daunting task to create a system like this, yet the organic label is designed to do exactly that. When national standards gave the certified organic label consistency last year, it looked like organic could and would be the gold standard for so-called "eco-labels," telling consumers that products have an environmentally conscious component in their production.
If the organic label has achieved this, why are a proliferation of other eco-labels appearing on food and other products? There's California Clean, Fair Trade, Food Alliance, Biodynamic and Integrated Pest Management; and labels declare that a product is unsprayed, pesticide-free, transitional, locally grown, shade grown and/or sustainably produced, to name just a few. Some are imitators, capitalizing on consumer interest in ecological production, but sometimes with vague standards or lacking a well-defined program behind the label (though sometimes with major marketing dollars to promote the label). Some, such as the Biodynamic label, are cousins to organic and have a long-standing and respected history.
Still others, such as Fair Trade and those that promote local and regional producers, are meant to address progressive social standards and environmental parameters, which many see as the weakness of the National Organic Program.
Community Redux
The success of the organic foods movement has brought much documented consolidation, growth and mainstreaming of what was once a radical alternative. That's good news in many ways—it's made organic foods more widely available, more varied and more accessible.
Many past assumptions about organic foods, however, are no longer guaranteed. Buying organic once meant supporting small farms, local enterprise and farmworkers' rights, though these were not part of written standards. Today, organic foods might come from companies with many thousands of acres of farmland; they might be imported from other countries to meet out-of-season demand; and it's very possible that an organic foods company is owned by a highly conventional parent company like General Mills or Philip Morris.
In the eyes of some growers and consumers, organic under these terms doesn't carry the promise of sustainability that it once did. They're reaching for a new label that will encompass both the clean agricultural and farm-system standards contained in the organic label, and that also indicates the food was grown locally or regionally, that a small or family farm produced it and/or it embraces a greater social consciousness than the U.S. Department of Agriculture program mandates.
"Eco-labels point to the shortcomings of the organic label as we have it now," says Juli Brussell, owner and chief executive officer of The Farm Gate, a Casey, Ill.-based consultancy specializing in sustainable agricultural enterprise development and food systems issues. "Organic implied community and, to some degree, locale, and that the farmer was benefiting from the production methods. We've achieved some degree of standardization on organic products, but part of the cost has been the cost to the community and the implied and explicit benefits to the organic community."
The "beyond-organic" labeling efforts designed to correct this situation are an exciting development in many ways: They tell us that consumers really do care about how their food is grown, and that they have high expectations for a food system of quality, ecology and community. On the other hand, they may disappoint those hoping for an easy or streamlined alternative labeling system, and perhaps carry the risk of consumer fatigue if too much confusion results.
Clarity Or Chaos For Retailers?
Retailers will be responsible for being able to explain the labels they sell, and you can bet that customers are going to ask questions with each new claim that appears. When products carry a premium price along with the label, buyers should ask questions, and it will fall to the retailer to confirm that the label is valid and not just a ploy for more dollars.
The first step in evaluating any label is to find out exactly what it means and who is behind it. Is the label something the manufacturer itself has introduced as a branding device? Is it something conferred by an outside organization? If you're told that a label means "no pesticides," does that mean no pesticides were sprayed during growth in the field, that the product has been tested for surface residues to a certain tolerance, or that no chemicals at all were used? Organic land must have had no pesticides applied for three years—what is the time frame for this label? If a label implies local or regional production, does that mean it was grown five miles away or 500?
Next, determine who evaluates and verifies production methods, and how often. A label only works in the long run if there is independent confirmation that its predetermined standards are met. If a label ups the cost of the product, make sure it has integrity and clarity behind it.
"Retailers must be cognizant that many customers who buy organic products or who would go out of their way to spend extra money to buy products with additional social labeling are sophisticated customers who will not appreciate feeling deceived," The Farm Gate's Brussell says. "It speaks to the need for honesty and transparency when these labels are being used, or it could backfire on the retailer."
Just as with the organic label, then, retailers must act as vigilant gatekeepers if they are to reap rewards from selling organic products with ecological and social labels. By doing so, however, they can help educate customers and assist them to make meaningful purchasing choices. It's still all about changing the world with knowledge and buying power, and that's a mission in which every retailer can participate with pride.
Sidebars:
Evaluating Eco-Labels
Elaine Lipson (ELorganic@aol.com) is the author of The Organic Foods Sourcebook (McGraw-Hill Contemporary, 2001) and is a writer and editor specializing in organic foods and fiber and natural health.
Note: As this column went to press, a rider attached to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill authorized a significant weakening of the national standard for use of the organic label. Specifically, it allows producers to use nonorganic feed in organic livestock production if the cost of organic feed reaches a certain level, yet still sell the product with the USDA organic label. The organic foods industry, along with concerned consumers, is actively fighting to restore the full rigor and integrity of the organic program, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced new legislation to do that. To learn more, track developments and add your voice to those who want to protect the meaning of the organic label, visit:
Although most retailers and producers are adhering to the old standard for organic livestock finalized just a few months ago, the reality is that this rider must be overturned or there is great risk of undermining consumer confidence in the organic label, which took decades to build. This threat to the spirit and letter of organic production law underscores the importance of understanding what's behind the profusion of labels intended to suggest cleaner or safer foods, many of which often carry premium prices. Some have meaningful standards; others offer less beneath the surface of the label. Be sure that at least one person in your retail operation has a good understanding of what various labels mean. Right now, that responsibility should include following and understanding this legislative effort to weaken the organic standard.
|
