Comments on: Some Consumers Green in Action, Others in Theory http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/ Environmental Leader Fri, 25 May 2012 13:10:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eliot http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-56791 Eliot Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:57:25 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/#comment-56791 Interesting stats, nice to see these kind of market research pieces. I think titles like 'green advocate' and 'greenest of the green' can give a bit too much credit however. Buying a Prius is a good thing, but buying a bicyle is better. Interesting stats, nice to see these kind of market research pieces. I think titles like ‘green advocate’ and ‘greenest of the green’ can give a bit too much credit however. Buying a Prius is a good thing, but buying a bicyle is better.

]]> By: Peter http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-56732 Peter Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:53:04 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/#comment-56732 I'm wishing now I had started listing all the demographic splits as we go along, because at the rate we're going we'll each have our own personal term... to go with our own personal green guide to help us on the path of eco-righteousness. Not sure being a member of a green group should be an essential to being Good Green In Practice. I have to say, I quite like the notion of the 'Un-Green', but only as a term, mind. I’m wishing now I had started listing all the demographic splits as we go along, because at the rate we’re going we’ll each have our own personal term… to go with our own personal green guide to help us on the path of eco-righteousness.

Not sure being a member of a green group should be an essential to being Good Green In Practice.

I have to say, I quite like the notion of the ‘Un-Green’, but only as a term, mind.

]]> By: Brent http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-56728 Brent Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:21:53 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/30/some-consumers-green-in-action-others-in-theory/#comment-56728 Your article and survey imply that organic food is the only or best measure of "green" consumers regarding food choices. This is a very narrow and naive understanding of agriculture. Organic does not have an automatic advantage in sustainability or viability of agriculture practices. Many if not most farms rotate crops, use cover crops, use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for pest control, and minimize off-farm inputs; the costs of inputs require such. Organic can actually increase off-farm inputs since it requires either more fuel for cultivation to control weeds, or more labor doing physical hoeing or other methods of weed removal compared to conventional farms. Organic also doesn't mean "chemical free." The National Organic Standard allows many standard chemicals used on conventional farms. For example, potassium chloride (mined) fertilizer can be used if applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation. Other mined substances of low solubility, such as rock phosphate, are also allowed. Synthetic substances, including elemental sulfur (S), soluble boron (B) products, magnesium sulfate (Mg & S), and most micronutrient (except those containing nitrates or chlorides) sources can be used as soil amendments in organic crop production. Synthetic compounds, such as copper sulfate and copper hydroxide, hydrated lime, hydrogen peroxide, elemental sulfur, lime sulfur and selected horticultural oils (dormant, suffocating, and summer oils), are on the NOP approved list for plant disease control. Conventional farmers use many of these same control methods. Take a look at the complete list at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682&acct=nopgeninfo Finally, most consumers not be aware that most organic food sold at retail in the US does not come from US farms. Why? It requires much more labor than conventional farms -- and legal labor is hotly disputed and increasingly difficult to come by. There are also other cost reasons for growers who risk 3 years of production transitioning to organic for a market that is increasingly volatile and lacking economic incentive compared to increased commodity prices for non-organic. While the retail sector growth of organic is claimed to be growing 15-20% per year, that level of growth at the farm level in the US is not matched. Hence, most of the product is coming from Mexico, China, Chile and other places that never moved out of pre-1950 organic production methods that rely heavily on hand labor and raw inputs. Hence, the product is transported thousands of miles to reach US consumers. Consumers need to see a broader picture of the realities and limitations of organic, along with the portrayed benefits -- some of which are real, some aren't -- rather than the hype that so often appears in media articles. Your article and survey imply that organic food is the only or best measure of “green” consumers regarding food choices. This is a very narrow and naive understanding of agriculture. Organic does not have an automatic advantage in sustainability or viability of agriculture practices. Many if not most farms rotate crops, use cover crops, use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for pest control, and minimize off-farm inputs; the costs of inputs require such.

Organic can actually increase off-farm inputs since it requires either more fuel for cultivation to control weeds, or more labor doing physical hoeing or other methods of weed removal compared to conventional farms.

Organic also doesn’t mean “chemical free.” The National Organic Standard allows many standard chemicals used on conventional farms. For example, potassium chloride (mined) fertilizer can be used if applied
in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation. Other mined substances of
low solubility, such as rock phosphate, are also allowed. Synthetic substances, including elemental sulfur (S), soluble boron (B) products, magnesium sulfate (Mg & S), and most micronutrient (except those containing
nitrates or chlorides) sources can be used as soil amendments in organic crop production. Synthetic compounds, such as copper sulfate and copper hydroxide, hydrated lime, hydrogen peroxide, elemental sulfur, lime sulfur and selected horticultural oils (dormant, suffocating, and summer oils), are on the NOP approved list for plant disease control. Conventional farmers use many of these same control methods. Take a look at the complete list at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682&acct=nopgeninfo

Finally, most consumers not be aware that most organic food sold at retail in the US does not come from US farms. Why? It requires much more labor than conventional farms — and legal labor is hotly disputed and increasingly difficult to come by. There are also other cost reasons for growers who risk 3 years of production transitioning to organic for a market that is increasingly volatile and lacking economic incentive compared to increased commodity prices for non-organic. While the retail sector growth of organic is claimed to be growing 15-20% per year, that level of growth at the farm level in the US is not matched. Hence, most of the product is coming from Mexico, China, Chile and other places that never moved out of pre-1950 organic production methods that rely heavily on hand labor and raw inputs.
Hence, the product is transported thousands of miles to reach US consumers.
Consumers need to see a broader picture of the realities and limitations of organic, along with the portrayed benefits — some of which are real, some aren’t — rather than the hype that so often appears in media articles.

]]>