Stanford study can’t slow organic growth

09/14/2012 09:39:00 AM
Greg Johnson

Another challenge organic produce must overcome is the price difference.

The Packer’s consumer survey Fresh Trends 2012 found that 27% of consumers said they typically buy organic fruits and vegetables, and 12% said they always buy organic fresh produce.

Of the rest who said they don’t typically buy organic produce, 46% of them said they would buy it if price wasn’t an issue.

This spring, price wasn’t much of a hurdle, evidently.

The latest FreshFacts report from United Fresh Produce Association showed a 14.6% sales gain for organic vegetables and a 20.3% sales increase for organic fruit in the second quarter.

For that period, the report said that organic vegetable sales accounted for 3.2% of total produce department sales, with organic fruit comprising 2.1% of total produce sales, which means 5.3% of fresh produce purchases were organic.

I used apples earlier as an example because it’s a perfect item to illustrate organic’s growing market niche. Washington has an arid climate well-suited for organic growth, as it accounts for nearly all of the commercial organic apple volume.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, 14,600 of the 167,000 planted acres were certified organic in 2011, which is just under 9%.

Anyone who thinks a study like Stanford’s will hurt organic foods’ popularity isn’t paying attention to market indicators.

As the OTA’s executive director Christine Bushway pointed out, nutritional benefits have never been a prime motivation for organic consumers.

Wherever organic produce’s plateau is, we haven’t seen it yet.

gjohnson@thepacker.com

What's your take? Leave a comment and tell us your opinion.

Comments (4) Leave a comment 

I wonder if organic produce consumers are aware that irrespective of the dubious health
benefits, organic farming reduces crop yields at a time when world hunger is peaking.
Organic farming requires much more energy input - with a bigger carbon footprint - than
conventional farming, and will continue to do so until organic production pulls even in
production with conventional methods.

http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf This link looks at both sides on the food story to close the gap of misunderstanding.

A leaf is part of where a plant gets it's supply of sunlight to make photosynthesis and transforms this into food for the plant. The root is where it gets it's water, minerals and
other nutrients.

If there is a worm eating away at a leaf it will diminish the plant's yield to produce, as it
would be as if I had lung cancer and can't take in all the possible oxygen.

There are two ways of treating this leaf eating worm, one is by non-organic means, which
is through chemicals that are non-organic and the other is by bringing in a 'beneficial'
insect that will eat away this plant eating critter. Or maybe a fungi that will infect the evil
doers but not the plant it self.

One leaves chemical residues, the other leaves maybe a the remains of a dead animal
which eventually will turn into food plant anyway.

Organic growers use cinnamon oil, and garlic extract in their mixes to fend off enemies
when a conventional farmer would use residue leaving chemicals.

The fact alone that I as a consumer know that I am ingesting less chemicals is enough for
me to choose Organic vs conventional. If my organic meals are less nutritious I don't think
that I will fall into a comma by eating one organic apple due to lack of nutrients.

I like to think that the best possible food is to be enjoyed by my inner world which thrives
to make my mind, muscles, and decision making skills work better, if I feel better I will be
happier, thus I can spread that happiness regardless if it is based on hard Stanford data or
simple cinnamon & garlic logic.

One thing in nutrition values and another thing is the amount of pesticides and chemicals that conventional crops contain and organic do not. People consume a colossal amount of gallons of chemicals per year hence all the new strings of cancer.