Organic 3.0 (pt5) Don’t be cool…

So what went wrong with what we are now calling organic 2.0 ?

It is not one factor but how a number combined allow and interacted, which slowly stopped the growth of organic 2.0.  The order I’m putting them here is not indicative of their imporance.

1 – it grew too slowly.  Often organic boosters would point to the very high percentage growth of the land or sale of organic foods.  Very rarely did these figures take into account the scale of the task, and the importance of momentum.   This growth was stifled sometimes by those who disagreed with the organic movement and those within it who were anxious about purity, the latter often not realising that their opponents were stoking these fears.

A)  The conversion period.  Let us set asid ethe odd language of this and think of the time, 2 years in most instances.  During this period the farmer was to build up their organic system, wean the farm and themselves off their old practices and take up the new.  Without the benefit of an organic premium.  This not only made being organic difficult to accomplish for many businesses but also created bottlenecks in supply when there were peaks of demand.  I don’t know what the evidence base of this period is based on, but it certainly puts a brake on growing the sector.

Of course the language is the clue, as what is required of people is commitment to the cause – a topic I’ll take up later.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s