The Evolution of the Organic Movement
In last week’s column I discussed the fact that a certain segment of consumers will only buy organic food. This week we will trace the evolution of the organic movement and shed light on a few of the reasons why it has resonated so strongly with consumers.The modern organic movement began in the 1920s and was rooted in the effort to both understand the interrelation of the environment, animals, and mankind, and to use that understanding to build farm practices that leverage natural systems rather than try to subvert those same systems. The organic movement began to galvanize in the 1940’s as a backlash to the widespread adoption of synthetic agricultural materials, becoming more widespread in the early 1970s with the banning of DDT. The Alar scare in 1989, the truth and validity of which is still vigorously debated, provided a firm foundation for the future of organics. The fear, uncertainty, and doubt generated by these chemical scares gave conventional agriculture a bad name and provided the organic movement with a great deal of its power and appeal.
Conventional farmers are oft to point out that all registered agricultural materials have to be rigorously tested before they are approved for use. However, this is little consolation to most of the public, who have few reasons to entrust their safety to governmental bureaucracy. In short, nobody really trusts the government completely nor does anyone trust corporations completely. To err is human, to err in the name of increased profits is popularly considered to be corporate.
Thus, at the heart of the organic movement there lies a great deal of mistrust, suspicion, and hostility for both the government and for corporations. Organic farms are positioned in a more personal fashion than most conventional farms. Thus, conventional agriculture is associated with corporations, often large, bloodsucking ones, who are hell-bent on increasing their profits, while organic farms are often associated with well-intentioned people who are doing the right thing. Conventional farmers frequently get defensive in light of this association, and their defensiveness only makes them look worse. There is a dangerous catch-22 at work here.
Marketers have personalized the organic movement, making consumers feel like they are supporting both the environment and the people who work in it by purchasing organic food. The power of this sentiment is not to be underestimated despite the fact that nearly all global food conglomerates have their hand in the organic market in one way or another. Thus, marketing has been integral to the success of organic foods.
A great example of this marketing com,es from “Issues” section of Whole Foods Markets’ website (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/). It describes organic food as follows: “These foods are produced without the standard array of modern toxic and persistent chemicals commonly used on conventional food products since the 1950s.” The message is clear, convention could be fatal.
Great marketing distills complex theories and philosophical constructs into concise soundbites. The challenge of crafting a similar statement regarding conventional agriculture, using a similar number of words, is a formidable one indeed. Next week we will look at more of the underlying themes of the organic movement and the positive things that they could do for conventional growers.
[+/-] read/hide this post
posted by Brian J. Kenny @ 5:56 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home