Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract. Many mechanisms now exist for consumers to express progressive values in purchasing decisions.
Although demand for such goods has grown, these goods remain the purview of small niche markets. Focusing
on the market for agricultural goods (and the choice between the paradigms of industrialized versus sustainable
agriculture), this paper discusses three major reasons (market failures, entry barriers, and biased policies) why it is
difficult for consumers to express their values for a more sustainable system in this way, and why policy change is
needed to create a fairer playing field. The current policy, voluntary labeling, is inadequate. A new set of policies,
including taxes and subsidies to correct market failures, is needed to create opportunities for consumers to support
values such as health, community, and stewardship.
Key words: Consumer values, Market failures, Markets, Organic label, Policy, Sustainable agriculture
Abbreviations: SA Sustainable Agriculture; IA Industrialized Agriculture
David S. Conner, PhD, is a Research Associate in the Department of Applied Economics and Management,
Cornell University. He is a member of the Emerging Markets Group and the Northeast Organic Network (NEON).
His research interests include local organic agriculture, consumer education and preferences, experimental economics, and policy analysis. He was an organic farmer and farm manager in Pennsylvania before returning to
academia.
Introduction
In recent years, we have witnessed the growth of
organic and sustainable agriculture and other products
that appeal to consumers values. Increasing numbers
of consumers are purchasing products that are friendly
to the environment, produced without animal testing,
return fair wages to workers and producers, etc. Labels
touting traits such as green, cruelty-free, fair trade,
no child labor and reflecting other progressive values
are common today. Voluntary labeling has become the
de facto policy for the expression of such values in the
marketplace; it is up to the consumer to seek out and
purchase goods with favorable traits, usually at greater
search and monetary cost.
Despite its rapid growth over the last decade (up to
20% per year, according to Dimitri and Greene, 2000),
the market for organic and sustainable agriculture
remains a niche market, quite small (about 2%) compared to the total sales of food (Dimitri and Greene,
2000; Cook, 1999). We should be heartened by past
success, yet far from satisfied: the majority of goods
purchased, in and out of agriculture, can usually safely
be assumed to have the lowest permissible environmental and social standards unless otherwise noted
(Grossman, 1981). Many believe that globalization
28
DAVID S. C ONNER
as the organic label, the sufficient and proper mechanism to support the expression of these values? If not,
what should be done and what are the likely outcomes?
29
30
DAVID S. C ONNER
31
32
DAVID S. C ONNER
What are the risks involved with industrial agriculture and pesticide use? Certainly, they include ecological risks such as soil erosion, aquifer depletion, loss
of biodiversity, and global warming and sociological
risks like the breakdown of rural communities. Health
risks include pesticide residues on food and in water,
mad cow disease, etc. While it can be argued that
both consumers and producers benefit (higher profits,
lower food costs), the benefits are very different, and
the hazards are long-term, irreversible, difficult to control, and have a complex causal relationship. By these
criteria, regulation is needed.
The proposed policy environment is centered upon
providing greater information to consumers, along
with measures that will overcome the obstacles discussed above. It can be considered a utopian or
idealized proposal, as many of its measures would
be politically difficult to implement and/or violate
regulations of the World Trade Organization.
Voluntary labeling schemes can provide signals to
concerned consumers that some of the externalized
costs of IA are being addressed. For example, when a
consumer buys organic, they are also indirectly buying
cleaner groundwater, biodiversity habitat, improved
soil structure, etc. Similarly, buying locally grown
food supports cleaner air and an improved local economy.
The organic label is an important ingredient for a
more sustainable food and agriculture system, but it
is not enough. Steps must be taken to improve the
organic labels ability to contribute to a SA system,
but other measures are needed as well. First, education is needed to inform consumers about the benefits
of organic/sustainable and drawbacks of conventional.
Adult education theorists like Knowles (1978) state
that adults learn best when the information is perceived
as pertinent to their lives. Public campaigns should
draw the links between food choice and health, community, environment, etc., emphasizing their relevance
to citizens perceived problems. Many people, even
consumers of organic food, do not even know what
organic means (Conner and Christy, 2002). Competitive markets only function with informed agents, so
government must intervene to educate consumers and
provide institutional support. Nutrition education and
home economics extension efforts should include lessons on the links between purchase choices and the
issues above. Generic advertising of organics, perhaps
funded by USDA certification fees, would boost public
awareness and confidence in the organic label. Such
efforts have proven to be effective for many commodities like beef, milk, etc. Growers, processors, other
agents in the sustainable supply chain and other members of the SA movement must do a better job of
communicating with consumers. Greater cooperation
33
Conclusions
The history of US agriculture has largely been one
of industrialization, a process under which farms are
encouraged to externalize as many costs as they can
onto the public at large, with profits and a narrow definition of efficiency the guiding principles. Yet despite
its successes, so much has been lost and sacrificed to
this paradigm: the social, environmental, and health
costs, both here and abroad, have been staggering.
What sorts of benefits would likely arise from a
greater role for SA? In addition to healthier communities and environment, and greater confidence in
our ability to continue to feed ourselves into the future,
this transition would also decrease what Kneen (1993)
calls the distancing of people from their food. People
would have a greater connection to the way their food
comes to them, and be more aware of and less tolerant of all the unwanted side effects of IA. Finally, it
may even begin the movement to a more sustainable
society in general, where materialism and heedlessness are replaced by community-based values and
responsibility.
Many things in life are intrinsically worthwhile
without being profitable or efficient. Just because the
market determines some outcome does not mean we
have to live with it. As Shafer (1969) reminds us,
the outcomes of market economies are determined by
a large number of institutions and arrangements that
evolve without consideration of their broader effects
on the system as a whole. A local sustainable food
34
DAVID S. C ONNER
Note
1. A discussion on the merits of the underlying economic
assumptions of utilitarianism and the exogeneity of preferences is beyond the scope of this paper. My arguments are
within the context of the current paradigm of economic
thought.
References
Antle, J. (1988). Pesticide Policy, Production risk and Producer
Welfare: An Econometric Approach to Welfare Economics.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Antle, J. (1999). The new economics of agriculture. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(5): 9931010.
Benbrook, C. (2001) Do GM crops mean less pesticide use?
Pesticide Outlook, UK. Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved from http://www.biotech-info.net/benbrook_outlook.
pdf on October 2001.
Calvin, L., R. Cook, M. Denbaly, C. Dimitri, L. Glaser,
C. Handy, M. Jekanowski, P. Kaufman, B. Krissof, G.
Thompson, and S. Thornsbury (2001). US Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends and
Issues. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economics
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 795.
Caswell, J. and D. Padberg (1992). Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 460468.
Committee on Strategies for the Management of Pesticide
Resistant Pest Populations (1986). Pesticide Resistance:
Strategies and Tactics for Management. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Conner, D. and R. Christy (2002). Consumer preferences for
organic standards: Guiding demand expansion strategies for
35