The European Commission just initiated a campaign to encourage consumers to buy organic food. U.S. officials say they have a similar campaign in the works.

OK, so I made that last piece up. But, really, the EC has worked with the organic industry to create slogans, like “Organic farming: Good for nature, good for you.”

Other slogans and messages include: "Organic farming. The natural choice." "Organic farming. In nature we trust." "Organic farming. In goodness we trust." "Organic products meet consumer demand for authentic, high quality and tasty food."

Even though the EC says it’s not promoting organic as an alternative to conventionally produced food – it claims to be simply providing “marketing tools to aid progress in the organic industry” – it’s hard not to see this as a bold “organic is better” message. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Similar to the U.S., Europe has seen a tremendous growth in demand for organic food, between 5 and 30 percent depending on the country.

What I like about all this is the pro-active approach to supporting a burgeoning industry. For example, programs are already in place in some European countries for helping farmers convert to organic. The U.S. is making its way down this path, slowly but surely, as organic agriculture received more attention than ever in the recent Farm Bill.

Source: Food Quality News

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Clinch, July 31, 2008

With the increase in food prices globally, (due to a higher demand for food) is it really a good idea to promote food that is more expensive, can use twice as much land for the same yield of certain crops.

And why some organic foods may provide a benefit, many just seem to use the 'organic' prefix as a 'buzzword' or marketing scheme, and have no benefit over normal food, or aren't even organic (e.g. I saw a documentary on TV a while ago that showed that some [supposedly] organic chickens and eggs were actually worse than normal free ranged chickens and eggs)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

good questions
written by Kiki, July 31, 2008

Clinch, I've read a few studies and articles about organic agriculture's ability "to feed the world." The most recent study came from the University of Michigan. It shows that organic farms can yield up to three times as conventional farms in developing countries and about equal to conventional farms in developed countries. And apparently these yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, without putting more farmland into production. http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs...p?id=5936.

Organic food at times is more expensive, but I believe it's because the price represents a truer cost of production.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Clinch, August 01, 2008

That study doesn't show organic is more productive than conventional farming, it shows that it's more productive than low intensity farming.

And just as there are studies that claim that organic farming can be sustainable globally, there are also many studies that show it can not.

I don't condemn organic food completely, just the assumption that all organic food is automatically better than normal food.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Kiki, August 01, 2008

Well, the article says "organic versus conventional or low-intensive food production." Seems appropriate to use the word conventional if they do.

Of course there are studies that show different findings, much like any other scientific debate.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that "organic" does not equal "better" than "normal food" (not sure what you mean by normal, but I'm assuming anything not certified organic) in all instances.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment