Ecolabels for Agriculture

David Granatstein Sustainable Ag Specialist

Food Ecolabels

Sustainable Agriculture “A long-term goal”

Economically Viable

Environmentally Sound

Socially Acceptable

Meet the needs of today without

compromising the ability of

future generations to

meet their needs

Not a set of farming practices

A “3-legged stool”

Many Dimensions of Sustainable Ag

Courtesy: Food Alliance

Grower Motivation-Economic Sustainability

Consumer Issues Behind Food Labels

Personal Health • Nutrition, antioxidants (positives) • Absence of toxins, pathogens (negatives) Environmental Health • Water, air biodiversity, toxins Community Health • Family farms, open space, rural economy, food security,

labor, social capital Interconnecting NYC watershed, farm land use to protect water quality,

offset billion $ water treatment costs

Food Labels Product type or quality

Production practices (e.g. organic, IFP, GMO)

Environmental impact (e.g. Dolphin safe tuna)

Origin - local, regional, country

Social impacts (e.g fair trade, family farm)

Future trend - combinations of labels

Food Labels What they do well: • Inform • Motivate • Guarantee

What they don’t do well: • Educate • Change opinion

Traceability (What is the source?)

Transparency (What are the standards?)

Accountability (Have the standards been met?)

Separation of functions ● Standards setting ● Inspection ● Approval

ISO 65 – General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems

Key Elements of Certification

Consumer Research Hartman Group

Motivation for consumers purchasing organic foods: 65% - health and safety 38% - taste 25% - the “environment” Minnesota – Multiple Benefits project

Ave. household willing to pay + $200/yr for significant environmental improvements in ag; but 30% of sample not willing to pay at all; saw no “economic good”

The Hartman Report (1996) Food and the Environment: A

Consumer’s Perspective • National consumer survey commissioned by The Food Alliance, fielded by National Family Opinion • Mailed to 2900 households; 1766 valid responses • Key findings: ♦ significant interest in “earth friendly” foods ♦ many shades of “green” consumer ♦ strongest issues - pesticides, water quality ♦ “green” values not core purchase criteria ♦ don’t expect perfection, won’t tolerate deception

05

1015202530

TN NGM AH YR OV UC

Segments of total population by environmental attitude (%)

(Hartman, 1996)

TN = True Naturals AH = Alternative Healers OV = Overwhelmed NGM = New Green YR = Young Recyclers UC = Unconcerned Mainstream

Properties Suggested by ‘Organic’

Categories in which consumers are willing to pay 30% more for organic

• Organic (international) • Integrated fruit production (Europe, NZ, South Africa) • Natural beef (Oregon Country Beef, Coleman Beef) • Eco-O.K. (Costa Rica) • Café Audubon shade-grown coffee (national) • Wegman’s IPM label (New York) • NatureMark potato (Idaho) • CORE Values Northeast (New England) • Salmon Safe (Oregon) • Food Alliance (WA, OR)

Examples of Food Ecolabel Programs

Organic and Sustainability ● Organic farms vary in their sustainability, as do conventional

● Organic farm A might be more or less than conventional farm B

● Organic farms are more likely to be more sustainable than conventional

Hypothetical distribution of farms on a sustainability index

A

B B

Two Approaches to Ecolabeling Integrated Fruit Production (IFP)

Organic farming

Similarities: • Emphasize bio-intensive management, whole system • Use guidelines, standards, certification, label identity • Restrict materials

Differences: • IFP focus on IPM, organic focus on soil • Synthetics generally not allowed in organic, fewer tools • Organic standards more rigid, less adaptable to locale • Organic more widely known by consumers, higher price • No GMOs in organic

Food Alliance - USA

Courtesy: Food Alliance

Food Alliance - USA 4 levels for each topic; need 75% of points

Work Force Development

Level 1. Employer provides no training opportunities

Level 2. Employer allows limited unpaid leave for employee training

Level 3. Employer encourages workplace training (e.g. tuition)

Level 4. As per Level 3, paid leave provided

Food Alliance - USA

Pest Management – Codling moth

Level 1. Labeled pesticides applied on a schedule

Level 2. Chemical pesticides applied only as needed; determined by monitoring. Traps, models, crop phenology used to determine optimum timing

Level 3. As per Level 2, and alternative strategies used (e.g. mating disruption). Pesticide toxicity “Danger” and “Warning” are avoided

Level 4. No chemical pesticides used, only alternative strategies (biopesticides, mating disruption, augmentation with beneficials)

Social Labels Expand

Fair Trade Sales in North America

020406080

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sale

s (m

illion

$)

Source: 2003 Fair Trade Trends Report

Few fair trade food products from U.S.

SASA – Social Accountability in Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainability codes: ● Columbia cut flower growers (FLORVERDE) ● CA wine grapes

Will the Market Reward Stewardship Farmers?

YES – organic foods; fair trade and shade grown coffee; Oregon Country Beef; Clover Stornetta dairy

MAYBE – integrated fruit production in Europe

NO – Eco-O.K. bananas; ‘Responsible Choice®’ apple

A label must be based on good research People buy products, not labels

A label will not solve all your problems !