Does encouraging sustainability means offering a carrot or brandishing a stick?
In the answer to a survey question, Should retailers or the USDA include sustainability-related requirements for suppliers in their purchases? Why or why not?”
Sixty-five members voted on the poll on Aug. 23, and 68% of those voting responded yes, and 32% said no.
Excerpts of some responses were:
- Produce buyers need to reward those who incur additional costs to deliver sustainability requirements with more money to cover such costs. In addition, they also need to give preferential treatment to such suppliers and not play them off against suppliers who are not committed to sustainability at all. Too often buyers are out of step with what is being communicated to the public versus their actual buying practices, which unfortunately is still too often based solely on price!
- I agree that there should be requirements as long as the producer doesn’t have to pay for it or cumbersome software that is inefficient to their operations;
- For farmers to shift into regenerative practices may require adaptations to local types of soil, condition of soil, availability of water, climate, and socioeconomic factors. That in turn may require different types of crops, customized seeds, rotations etc. For that to happen at scale will require markets that are receptive and flexible to change menus, recipes, products. Think of California flat out of water, aquifers pumped so low that city wells are running dry. Where is that production going to shift to, is there a plan already?
- I trust our produce safety system. I trust the integrity of our growers and shippers. We don’t need to add to their plate. Especially when they are not compensated for it; and.
- Not requirements, but clear sustainability branding should be implemented. Let the market do the rest.
Read related:
Canada announces details for agriculture climate program
Carbon Markets: Farmers Want More to Hang Their Hat On
Growers should tell sustainability story
