Appropriating “Organic”

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Dennis Tuchler says:

    We see a several different things happening here.

    6. Assuming there is enough money to be made in the organic food market, there will be one or more associations of organic food growers with their own approval mark to be awarded and displayed by producers that conform to the association’s standard.

  2. Patrick S. O'Donnell says:

    Being a vegetarian for roughly 30 years now and buying organic when practical and affordable, this is all rather disturbing stuff, although admittedly I’m not surprised (and I do not at all see this a a result of the ‘vices of regulation’ but rather a product of the lobbying power of corporate/agribusiness/Big Food interests).

    The abstract from “Animal Rights without Controversy” by Jeff Leslie and Cass Sunstein reads as follows:

    “Many consumers would be willing to pay something to reduce the suffering of animals used as food. The problem is that existing markets do not disclose the relevant treatment of animals, even though that treatment would trouble many consumers. Steps should be taken to promote disclosure, so as to fortify market processes and to promote democratic discussion of the treatment of animals. In the context of animal welfare, a serious problem is that people’s practices ensure outcomes that defy their existing moral commitments. A disclosure regime could improve animal welfare without making it necessary to resolve the most deeply contested questions in this domain.”

    These developments with regard to “organic” labeling suggests the promotion of a disclosure regime on animal treatment should be one that is not run by trade groups or the government in the first instance, but rather by animal welfare organizations, with government oversight thereof.