| GREEN SCORE | NEW ZEALAND FOOD & BEVERAGE |
| Effort | B- |
| Results | B |
Consumer motivations for organic food centre around the concept of food integrity. Integrity is part of a basket of brand ethics gaining greater currency by the day amoungst 21st century consumers. Other closely related ethics in the basket include “authenticity” – identified in the strategy behind 100% Pure New Zealand. Simply, this means people want to know that what they are putting in their stomachs is the real thing. There is less and less interest in scientific assurances that there is no discernable difference between the synthetic and the original. At least amoungst those better off consumers in the world who are happy to pay more for the latter.
Perhaps we can thank the cigarette industry for its founding role in promoting the rise of the ethics basket around food integrity. Those former decades of claims that “there is no scientific evidence that smoking is bad for your health” have helped to discredit the scientific camp’s influence over the modern consumer. People are not as trusting as they might once have been of so called expert opinion. Thank you for smoking.
In it’s submission to New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, ZESPRI urged much caution. It noted that consumers are not necessarily rational and are increasingly risk adverse when it comes to food. ZESPRI was concerned that a green light to produce GM food in New Zealand could taint the image all food produced here.
Crunch time is fast approaching on the GM debate. Recent news that genetically modified grazing plants may help reduce livestock greenhouse emissions is pitching environment against environment. With commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions intensifying, and agriculture contributing 48% of New Zealand’s emissions, pressure is mounting.
This will be a delicate debate indeed. But the point to focus on is purity. Just one genetically modified organism roaming around New Zealand openly will eliminate our GM free status for ever. It’s not worth it for some marginal reduction in CO2, when we have so many other options available to us for that, including a million hectares of erosion-prone land for afforestation. It’s a bit like introducing wasps for biological control of caterpillars, to remove the need for use of sprays. The wasps can become as much of a problem in their own right as the caterpillars.
But haven’t we had a Royal Commission into Genetic Modification? Over fourteen months the Commission heard from over 400 experts and analysed more than 10,000 submissions. Shouldn’t we just sit back and relax, safe in the knowledge that the experts have carefully and thoroughly examined all the available evidence and come up with the best course of action?
No. Because, simply put, most consumers don’t read Royal Commission of Enquiry reports. They read labels occasionally, watch advertisements decreasingly, and catch snippets of information from all kinds of sources. Information from conversations with friends and family (either face to face or online) is not to be underestimated. Such second hand information is not always anywhere near accurate or balanced either.
From this ad-hoc information mix global consumers make judgments about what they put in their shopping basket. These are split-second decisions, which are usually based on a trade-off between fear and cost. New Zealand needs to think harder about how we can improve our chances of getting into the basket, even if we are not the cheapest option on the shelf.
We can’t have genetically modified organisms wandering around a 100% Pure New Zealand. The two propositions are incompatible. Kiwis – make your choice, make it well, and make it quick.
We have noted place brand guru Simon Anholt’s advice that it is a country’s behaviour that is most important in building its brand. We have noted Futurebrand Australia’s Tim Riches’ praise for significant historical environmental gestures made by New Zealand which have given us a reputational jump on our Tasman neighbour in the minds of global green consumers. He was referring particularly to New Zealand’s radical nuclear-free status adopted in the 1980s. We have noted brand guru Adam Morgan’s urge for “sacrifice” to establish a world-class challenger brand. Get rid of anything that is not absolutely core to your unique selling proposition. To stand out in a cluttered communications world, stand for something. Be bold, be brave, and above all else be different.
For a country dependent on food and beverage for its economic survival, now is the hour to make another big branding gesture, of the scale and impact of Nuclear Free New Zealand. We need to stand out in a crowded food branding world by boldly adopting a national GM-free stance. The future dividends to us in terms of value added to our conventional food products, in increasingly green global markets, will be handsome compensation for any loss in potential production increases.
- Related posts on organic
- Organic Garden Supply
- Alicia Silverstone on Her New Book, The Kind Diet, Organic …
- Organic and Green Mom Blog | Amazing Things Happen When a …
- Related posts on organics
- Green Skin Care? | SkincareKahuna.com
- A layered approach to gardening | Urban Organics
Tags: 100% Pure New Zealand, clean & green, clean & green NZ, Clean and Green, clean and green newzealand, clean and green NZ, GM Free New Zealand, Kaitiakitanga, organic, organics
It might be noted that Ireland has decidedly banned GMOs for precisely the reason being noted here. NZ, like IR, benefits from its location and can come to be known as one of only a few reliable sources of uncontaminated food. Take a peek here (not my site) http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20091029
Exactly. How can New Zealand claim to be a Clean & Green leader when Ireland is ahead in the GMO moral stakes?
[...] Food & Beverage « CLEAN & GREEN? [...]
for a oil spill on the Missippi River in 08, you can read it at DryDipStick.com