The push-back against claims made by organic and sustainable foodies is going to intensify as provocative documentary FOOD INC screens in more and more theaters nationwide. It has already started, of course:
Food Inc Takes Fire from Monsanto (EcoFactory)
Debate Over Movie Misses Most Farmers (NPR)
National Chicken Council Calls FOOD INC “negative, one sided”
And this intriguing blog post from a company that represents Monsanto, Syngenta, and scads of other agribiz giants: Organic and Animal Advocates often Dominate Food Debates
I don’t think all the push-back is going to come solely from agribiz. In some cases, it’s going to come from real farmers who have legitimate gripes about FOOD INC and how other sustainable foodies portray them. For example, Faces of Ag has launched a campaign against Chipotle’s “Food with Integrity” campaign, and while Faces of Ag could be a front for a larger entity, I don’t think so. I think this is farmer Trent Loos who was interviewed in the NPR piece, and I do appreciate lone farmers throwing down against corporations of any kind, even the ones I patronize. Good on you, Mr. Loos.(Though I do think you need to offer up a real definition of environmental, economic, and public health sustainability before you start claiming that CAFOs are sustainable, ok?)
I don’t want to see a fight break out among well-intentioned farmers — I have too much respect for anyone that produces healthy, real food for real people. Consumers need to step back from criticizing farmers about lack of sustainability, and find ways to distinguish their frustration with the larger system from farmers who are doing exactly what we pay them to do: Grow food. If we don’t like the food that is produced from their ingredients, that’s a fight with food manufacturers, not farmers, in my opinion.
Ideally, sustainable farmers would talk with conventional farmers in ways that don’t deepen the animosity, and show them that the sustainable food movement is in everyone’s best interests, that anyone can take part in it, and that healthy competition is always for the best (ok, it CAN be). We still need conventional farmers, after all. We do. We couldn’t transit to a completely groovey-organic, non-CAFO, non-corn, non-soybean based agriculture if we wanted to (and I’m not sure consumers really do want that — price is still a huge sticking point in producing organic and sustainable food, after all).
All this points to a need for more discussion — level-headed, positive, results-oriented discussion. Rob Smart is doing some heavy lifting right now over at Every Kitchen Table with his “Pro Food” salon. I encourage farmers of all types to take part in that dialog, and keep it moving toward a comprehensive solution to the problems that farmers and consumers alike face: Namely, that we all want healthy food for eaters, an economically sustainable life for our farmers, and a healthier ecosystem for everyone.
Ahhh…wha?? Toward a WHAT??? Don’t leave me hangin, I was so groovin to the movin… but toward WHAT???
Not sure what happened there. Edited for closure.
During the last six months in which I have focused 100 percent of my energy on understanding sustainable food, I’ve come across a number of farmers that have felt shorted by comments I and others have made.
It felt strange to me since I not-so-secretly yearn to be a famer, and have started moving down that path with a family-sized 40-vegetable garden this spring.
What I recently learned from a person that I respect and who has considerable knowledge of farmers is that are an incredibly responsive group, maybe more so than any other group, in meeting consumer demand. Currently, the biggest demand comes from industrial food and its need for low-cost, high volume commodity crops, including livestock. Those companies, in turn, are responding to consumer demand for highly processed and fast foods.
Assuming that is all the case, we need to figure out effective ways to get consumers to demand more sustainable foods. This will not be easy, especially given the deep pockets of industrial food, but I trust that American farmers will respond accordingly.
I look forward to that day!
Cheers,
Rob Smart (a.k.a., Jambutter on Twitter)
As a business owner, I do not believe in the phrase “consumer demand.” Those two words cannot hope to reflect the wants / needs of people. Put three random people in a room, and you would find significant disparity in what they want. Why is that when we multiply that by billions that we think we can now reduce it down to the two words of “consumer demand”? You can, on the other hand, create statistical models that assume conformity among large swaths of demographical data. This is useful only in a commodity world.
It is also a fallacy that there can exist the other two-word phrase of “consumer education.” Try this experiment: Gather a three, or a dozen, people from your workplace from across the spectrum. Quiz them about the intricacies of your business. You will likely find that some people know a lot, some a little, and many will have key misconceptions about the way things actually work in a company. Now try and educate THE WORLD.
Or to put it another way, let’s paraphrase Lincoln’s famous “You can fool…” saying and replace the word “fool” with “educate.” The last line would then read “But you can’t educate all of the people all of the time.” Yet, that is what I am reading as a ‘goal’ (“We must educate the public about food!”).
Not going to happen.
Throw in now the nonstop vast myriad of input we all have. Incredible CGI late nite commercials for fast food, single-attribute claims such as “now with less sodium!” on packages of processed food that DOMINATE grocery shelves, a new diet book every week (or nearly every day?) with another recycled set of claims that disagrees principally with the book just before and the book just after, articles in a variety of publications with a catchy tagline/headline with the “new” discovery, billboards, radio commercials, brightly colored packaging, promotional tie-ins with blockbuster movies…and the list goes on…endlessly. You can NEVER educate the public through this noise.
Hell, we haven’t educated people IN the food business. I guarantee you that most of the folks creating all that content I described above could not deliver meaningful health advice or describe accurately why a particular food may or may not be good for you. Why not? They’re advertising folks, packaging designers, TV commercial editors, factory workers, journalists, etc. They need to know the latest marketing trend to keep up, how to use the latest film editing technology, how to work their shift on the line without losing a finger in the process. We ALL have a lot to think and worry about all day, and food becomes an afterthought.
“So Mr. Smart Guy, what do we do?” Well, I don’t think I’m necessarily so smart, but I do think I know what we need to do: We need to do the right thing. We need to lead. We need to do what WE know is right.
Think about it. Let’s say that you’re VERY educated about something. Let’s say you are an expert on how to grow the most vibrant and healthful broccoli possible. As a consumer, I do NOT want you to consider my input. I don’t know how to raise broccoli. I don’t know a thing about it. I don’t know how to process it (although I suspect that ideally it shouldn’t be ‘processed’ at all). Hell, I barely know how to prepare it for the dinner table. PLEASE, do not listen to me if I tell you in some focus-group that I want you grow it fast, cheap, freeze it, put “cheese-esque” sauce on it with other ‘flavor enhancers,’ enough sodium to choke a horse, etc. I would prefer you do what you know is right.
When it comes to doing the right thing, you do not listen to the ignorant masses (and let’s not get confused on ‘ignorant’…it’s not a negative, it’s a reality…in this world of billions upon billions of points of input, we can only hope to each be an ‘expert’ on an infinitesimally number of things, and largely ignorant on most everything else). If you are an expert on something, use your education and expertise to my benefit. Please! I want to believe in you.
Sure, we all need to consider thoughtful input from others. I don’t advocate working in a vacuum. However your points of expertise should still take the day.
Seth Godin describes this concept simply as “Be Remarkable.” As a consumer, I can tell you that I want your remarkable side, and that will never come from a focus group. It will come from you. You know what the right job is. Do that one. I’ll be a fan.
So to wrap this up, how do we get consumers to demand healthier and more sustainable foods? Produce them. They WILL come.
Cheers to all,
Greg Koch, CEO
Stone Brewing Co. / Stone World Bistro & Gardens
Glad you brought this up, Greg. I’ve been groping toward a “chicken and the egg” post in regards to farmers making the jump to sustainability versus creating demand in the market, and you nailed half of it for me. So thanks. You’re absolutely right. It all starts with the producer, and certainly, there would be no Big Organic industry if it weren’t for a couple earnest farmers who took risks back in the seventies to get the avalanche started. If you build it, they will come. Yes.
But I say you only nailed half, because these two elements, producer and eater, have to get humming off of each other for Change to occur. It can’t all be on farmers, because skeptical farmers aren’t going to jump into sustainable production until they see there’s a market. It’s got to be both. Because, there’s not going to be a big enough market until producers create the goods. And the goods can’t be shipped to market until retailers take a risk and buy it up. But retailers aren’t going to buy squat until there’s a steady flow of product. And there won’t be a steady flow of product until farmers start producing sustainably in earnest. But those farmers won’t produce in earnest until they see that consumers…
You’re bright. You see the basket I’m driving at.
So, yeah, farmers should jump, but the reason they can even consider jumping is that the market is now developed. How did that happen? Having been in the organic/natural foods world since the early nineties, and tracking organics since the late eighties, I can tell you that consumer education worked, where organic and natural foods are concerned, anyway. Consumer demand has been driving organics to the tune of 20% annual growth in the organic food/ag (save this last year) and it is causing production to be completely outstripped, How did that happen? It’s not because Kraft and GM have been creating enough supply. Those companies jumped into organics because of that 20% growth, because consumers were already demanding organic food.
I track that interest in organics to the alar scare/incident/lie/marketing push/, whatever you want to call it. The organic boom didn’t happen just because farmers started farming organically. There was no massive organic agricultural boom that preceded that 20% growth in consumer demand. It was the idea of “poisons on apples” that formed a simple narrative, one that struck a chord with boomers who were having kids in the late eighties which precipitated consumer interest. Meryl Streep hitting the brand-new 24 hr news cycle to educate consumers about alar was the beginning of the organic boom. Before that, the nation didn’t know what the hell organic food even was. After that? The first state law governing organic standards went into effect and it was 20% growth steadily for over a decade.
I’d say that Omnivore’s Dilemma and the current boom in food documentaries are similarly spurring consumer demand. They’re educating people, and I feel like I’m watching a replay of the alar story, all over again.
That said, I agree with everything you wrote, actually. As a crusty retailer myself, I have exactly the same opinion you do: People follow the herd. I’ve watched it. A few people get smart about these issues and lead the rest of the pack animals to the next organic watering hole. That’s certainly another way to view what’s happening now, and I can’t say it’s wrong.
But for farmers to be compelled to make the jump? It’s Show Me the Money. If farmers aren’t true believers, or if they don’t undergo an organic/sustainable conversion due to health issues or the like, they aren’t going to convert unless they see enormous consumer demand. Why should they? The status quo works, according to them. There’s no reason to make a leap of faith, so saying “Produce them. They WILL come” is a little light on specifics and compelling evidence as to why.
So here’s my thought on why: Producing food on an industrial or commodity level isn’t good enough for a decent slice of the market anymore. That slice wants more food choices about how their food is produced because they know they don’t have many choices right now (and there’s no better way to get an American consumer angry: limit their choices). More and more consumers want sustainable foods that don’t drain or destroy natural resources. That’s where the money is going to be in the next two decades, and I feel it powerfully, like I’m a dog howling before a tsunami: I think there’s going to be a tidal wave of (a) huge consumer interest in non-industrial, non-commodity-based foods and (b) a bipartisan restructuring of the next farm bill on a grander level to accomodate that interest and to begin undoing the ancient subsidy system.
As Pollan points out. Farmers should be thanked for what they have done. Since WWII farmers did exactly what was asked of them — by govt, by consumers, by everyone. They were tremendously successful at reducing the percentage of family budget spent on food. The “green” revolution helped feed the world.
But, I think the real questions is where do we go from here? Is the food system working for us? Is it working for farmers? With its dependancy on fossil fuels, environmental impact, and the health implication of highly processed food re-engineering whom does the mantra of get big or get out really work for? The farmer? The consumer? Food conglomerates?
How can connecting farmers directly with the consumers of their products threathen anyone but the middleman. And, whom does the middlename work for? The farmer? The consumer?
Hungry Gardener
http://www.hungrygarden.com
http://www.twitter.com/hungrygarden
> And, whom does the middlename work for? The farmer? The consumer?
Neither, of course, and that ought to be a site for common ground between farmers and consumers.
The direct buy strategy is crucial, but it may be premature. We need other models than just farmers markets, since the vast majority of farmers in the US aren’t outfitted to be direct-to-consumer producers. They’re commodity farmers, and so were their parents. They get their farm bill subsidy for hard work just like their parents did, or, if they raise meat, they sell to one of the big labels. They’re accustomed to big outfits who can handle their big production and understand what they do. So this is where the chicken-and-the-egg question comes in: Are there enough consumers ready to buy direct from farmers? Can the market bear more local farmers selling at farmers markets. Here in the Twin Cities, the anser happens to be yes — we need more fm farmers. But in big stretches of the country, the local movement is not apparent to farmers who might be willing to take advantage of it.
The big question in my mind is how do we get more farmers producing for institutions: Hospitals, schools, nursing homes (this will be a bigger and bigger market as boomers clog that care-system), convention centers, government centers, day care. I know there’s a big push for this already, but it’s in many areas, insurance companies won’t insure hospitals, for example, that buy local food. It’s perceived as unsafe.That, and the infrastructure is built for openign tubs of peanut butter and giant cans of beans, not bushel baskets of kale.
This is one place where the feds could be of some use: providing incentives for insurance companies to take a risk, and low-interest loans to municipalities who want to rebuild infrastructure to accomodate more local buying.
So it might mean creating a different kind of middleman.
I couldn’t agree more with you. Something is not right when I can send a letter from NY to LA for less then half a dollar but I can not use USPS to send some extra vegetables across town. Fresh perishables are forbidden in the US mail. At a time when they are facing huge deficits and looking for new customers you would think delivery system within a finite geographical area would make sense and help build market. UPS will accept perishables but minimum charge is almost $7. I think there is huge opportunity in distributing food via mail delivery. Not everyone has the time to get to farmers markets. Especially busy moms and dads. Are you old enough to remember when milk was delivered to the home by local dairy? I remember the vegetable truck coming through our neighborhood and the egg man. They all delivered right to the home. I believe new delivery methods will gain acceptance as a matter of convenience not just a function of cost.
Schools may be the front line of change too. They involve the gamut of food interest; from federal to local regulations which must change to allow regional food networks to thrive. Seems like if we can fix it in schools we may have found a way to start improving everyone’s food choices.
We need success stories. Are you familiar with Francis Moore Lappe, article The City that Ended Hunger? It features a food lesson from Brazil’s fourth largest city see http://tr.im/r84B which links to the actual article. There are probably things they did there that we can’t do here. But it is an amazing story.
Hungry Gardener
That’s a brilliant idea. I think the worry in postal shipping is that some insect will get carted outside the state. But oyu could keep it in-state (and push the local angle!) to satisfy that concern.
I have not heard this, that insurance companies will only cover some foods or foodlike substances but not others? Can you elaborate? This is certainly an interesting and for me, unexpected barrier.
As for increasing consumer demand (or for Greg, to inspire more individuals to select more whole foods esp. those raised in a way that nourishes the environment and our bodies), I think one solution is to help people discover and celebrate natural variety in food depending on the farm, variety, region, and growing/husbandry practices. In the 1970s we thought of wine as fine wine and jug wine, red wine and white wine. Today, most of us know there are hundreds if not thousands of different wines that vary depending on who made them and how. Individuals can choose a wine based on their personal priorities, such as price, quality, flavor, occasion. Some food categories, especially those involving livestock production are stuck back in the 1970s. We think of milk as skim, 1%, 2%, whole, or butter as salted or unsalted, or beef as Choice, Prime, natural, or grass fed. Both categories are as rich in diverse flavors and textures as wine. By celebrating this and, importantly, providing a means to actually buy from specific producers, we can create a win-win that will act to help others (growers and consumers) make a transition.
On insurance, a distributor of local produce in Minnesota was told by several hospitals that insurance providers would not cover them if they purchased local food. It was probably in regard to patients, not all staff and visitors, but it was thrown down as a barrier nonetheless.
This isn’t statewide. St. Luke’s in Duluth is selling local food in their cafeteria apparently.