The Rural Voice, 1989-10, Page 25government is working to sort out the
"myth" from the "practices" in the
field of organics.
"I'm glad that some people are
doing that type of agriculture. I think
in some ways that kind of farming
becomes more of an art."
But, Jackson says, she's not sure
that organic methods can feed the
world.
Part of the difficulty that the
CAC encounters when grappling with
questions about food and agriculture
has to do with definitions, many of
which are still hazy. Just what is
"organic"? consumers ask. What is
"natural"? What is "sustainable
agriculture"?
That same difficulty — a com-
munications difficulty — clouds many
of the debates about food. And agri-
culture, Jackson says, does a poor job
of communicating with urban consu-
mers. She's not sure how that job
might be improved — perhaps with
more use of the press and television —
but says city people no longer keep in
touch with rural life as they did when
most people had relatives on the farm.
(See Chart II for examples of adver-
tising budgets for agricultural com-
modity groups.)
And consumers are confused about
many food issues. Joan Huzar, who
lives in Goderich, Ontario, is president
of the Ontario branch of the CAC.
The food and agriculture industry, she
says, explains itself "very poorly" to
consumers, particularly when it comes
to new technology. She uses as an
example the issue of somatotropin in
dairy cows. The agricultural
community, she says, didn't work to
tell consumers what it was all about.
"People have this wonderful
agricultural myth of simplicity and
'good, natural things'," she adds, and
they're surprised and disturbed by the
negative stories about agricultural
technology that they read in the media.
But in a sense the Consumers
Association, as an advocacy group
that looks on farming from the out-
side, cannot help but reflect what
farmers perceive as a lack of agricul-
tural awareness on the part of urban
consumers. The association, by
definition, isn't likely to say "thank
you" to farmers for providing them
with abundant, relatively inexpensive
Chart I
PRIORITY RANKING OF FOOD HAZARDS BY THREE
GROUPS: SCIENTISTS, INDUSTRY, AND THE PUBLIC
Scientific Risk Trade Pressure
1. Microbiological hazards 1. Medicated feed ingredients
and veterinary drugs
2. Medicated feed 2. Environmental
ingredients contaminants
3. Environmental
contaminants
4. Pesticidal Residues
5. Food additives
Public Perception
1. Food additives
2. Pesticidal residues
3. Pesticidal Residues 3. Environmental
contaminants
4. Microbiological hazards 4. Medicated feed/
veterinary drugs
5. Microbiological
hazards
Source: R. P. Bates, "The Uneasy Interface between Food Technology and 'Natural'
Philosophies," 1981
5. Food additives
Chart II
SPENDING ON ADVERTISING BY AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITY GROUPS —1988
Dairy Bureau of Canada S13,909,000
Ontario Milk Marketing Board S3,598,000
Beef Information Centre $2,385,000
Ontario Apple Marketing Commission S351,000
Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency $174,000
Source: Media Measurement Services, Toronto
Chart III
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS/CONSUMERS
In a study done for the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada by Dialogue
Canada this year, a representative national sample of 1,001 "main grocery
shoppers" in households was used. Respondents were asked:
Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each statement by circling
one number on each line:
"I am willing to pay more for environmentally safe products."
Agree Completely
Agree Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Completely
Total %
29
51
15
4
"Canadian grocery shoppers seem to be aware of cnvironmcntal issues and a
"core group" (of almost one-third of all shoppers) is willing to take action," the
study reports. "However, for shoppers as a whole, cnvironmcntal concerns arc
not yet at the top of their agendas ..."
OCTOBER 1989 23