Reprinted from organicconsumers.org By Ronnie Cummins and Katherine Paul
In 2011, we wrote an article advertisement the then-popular trend in aliment marketing--promoting "local" foods as "sustainable," "healthy" or "natural," alike back they weren't.
As we wrote at the time, "local" generally agency annihilation added than aliment that has been sourced from aural a assigned geographic area. (According to Walmart and Big Food, "local" refers to annihilation produced aural a 400-mile radius). But because a growing cardinal of careful consumers actively seek out the "local" label--and are accommodating to pay a exceptional for it--corporations commonly accept the appellation so they can advertise added product, at college prices, in adjustment to access accumulation margins by able (but not absolutely delivering) added value.
Fast advanced a brace of years, and we see that sales of "local" aliment are still on the rise, as are sales of "natural" and added recently, "Non-GMO" foods. And today, aloof as they were a few years ago, consumers are still actuality bamboozled by corporations that use these labels to canyon off articles as article they aren't.
The actuality is, none of these labels--local, accustomed or non-GMO--on its own accommodate a agreement that the aliment abaft the characterization is either healthy, acceptable or natural. There is alone one aliment characterization that provides that guarantee: USDA Organic. And because amoebic aliment sourced locally is not alone healthy, acceptable and natural, but additionally supports baby farmers and contributes to able communities, today's Gold Standard for the health-conscious and environmentally and socially anxious customer is USDA amoebic and local.
Local, but is it better?
Sales of bounded aliment grew from about $1 billion in 2005 to about $7 billion in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Consumer appeal is the primary disciplinarian of bounded aliment sales. But what's active customer preference?
In its new report, "Organic & Accustomed 2014," The Hartman Group claims that the "authenticity aura about amoebic and accustomed has amorphous to fade, and bounded foods and beverages are assertive to beat them as a attribute of assurance and transparency."
If organic's aura is fading, it's not by accident. Over the accomplished few years, the accumulated aliment and biotech industries accept stepped up their attacks on the amoebic label, abundantly in acknowledgment to customer apropos about genetically engineered foods. Industry has a vested absorption in tarnishing organics. After all, the amoebic characte rization guarantees a aliment artefact is GMO-free. And with about 80 percent of all candy foods absolute GMOs (genetically adapted organisms), Big Aliment has acceptable acumen to beacon consumers abroad from organic.
Assuming some consumers accept developed agnostic of the amoebic label, what leads them to put their assurance instead in "local" food?
Citing The Hartman Group address again:
People accept in the candor of bounded producers and baby farmers, seeing them as acutely invested in the affection of their products. Their assurance is bolstered by the abutting adjacency of bounded aliment sources, which translates into beneath distances traveled--and appropriately a acumen of greater freshness. They like befitting their money in the association and the abstraction that they are bistro aliment that's in season.
Supporting bounded farmers. Befitting money in the community. Bistro fresher, in-season food. These are all acceptable affidav it to buy local.
But absent any analogue of "local" added than allegorical the ambit aliment is accustomed to biking amid acreage to bazaar or farmers bazaar or restaurant, what's the base for customer assurance in bounded producers and farmers? Or the affection of their products?
