I think this is a very good idea, or at least my wallet does.

Is there really enough room on supermarket shelves for "regular," organic, AND "sustainable" products? I don't think so, because it's bad enough trying to find a full range of organic products in conventional supermarkets as it is. The main reason I don't buy more organic foods is that they're not readily available, not because they're too expensive compared with "regular" products (although that's true too).

If we can allow ourselves more optimism than Kunstler ("The Long Emergency") has and assume that in the post--fossil-oil or diminished-oil future, we will still have synthetic chemistry, probably using plant matter as feedstock, then I don't see any reason why 'synthetic' is inherently incompatible with 'sustainable'. For the time being, 'sustainable' is probably about as useful a term for food as 'organic', as long as there's a good definition of it -- 'organic' in terms of food has a different meaning than other uses of the word 'organic', and so I think it would not be such a crime if 'sustainable' when applied to food just meant that it was sustainable with respect to the land the food was farmed on.

I think this is a cop-out. When I can't afford (or find) organic, I don't buy organic. And I deal with whatever undesirable feelings come with that.

Wouldn't time be better spent encouraging more growers to go organic (and educating them on its simplicity and benefits)? With increased supply of organics, prices would be more reasonable for everyone.

this sounds like a scheme by the big factory style farms to reclaim and undermine the organic market.
but it does raise the question, just because its organicly grown is it sustainable? and is organic a prerequisite for sustainability? i think to many people the appeal o organic is not putting toxins and carcinogens in their body, and that most average people don't really understand all the ecological consequences o using synthetic ertilizers and toxic pesticides. maybe growers have a responsibility to consumers to make their growing practices and the known consequences o the practices available.

I totally agree with Kylan that this is an attempt to undermine the organic market and can't imagine anyone remotely 'green' rallying behind a movement that perpetuates the use of such chemicals. And I do hope the "sustainable" label guidelines include limits to how far the produce can travel...

Huge grocery stores with "organic" lines (or think Dole organic peeled baby carrots) may not at all be sustainable. Many organic farms, including a 14-acre one I worked on, use lots of plastic sheeting to keep out weeds. Also, just because it's organic lettuce doesn't mean it wasn't sprayed with water at 2pm on a hot day--I've seen this, though it likely wasn't organic--instead of soaking with water overnight.

The good catch would be the product with both certifications. Then again, many small farmers don't go for organic certification because it costs so much to do it. This would just be one more cost to pay. So many issues!

Can something be "Sustainable" but not "Fair-Trade", or vice-versa?

Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/

Most often what gets sold as baby carrots are the cores of cull carrots that had cracks and other flaws when they came into the packing house. The packing houses use paired milling rollers, long steel cylinders with twisted shallow blades on their surfaces, that rotate toward each other as the cull carrots have their outer surfaces cut away. These milled down culls are then cut in segments and further milled to round their ends before being packed as "baby carrots". If you really want baby carrots buy them with their stem bases intact. Its a lot better than just tossing them, but further illustrates why a certified label has some value .By which metrics shall this this "group" decide what is sustainable. That's the key to all the questions posed.

for *some* crops in *certain conditions*, it *could* actually be more sustainable than organic, ie if the chemicals are used to a minimum, only when necessary and it increases yields (by increasing crop productivity or reducing losses to bugs) so you get more produce per unit of land which means you need less land to feed the same amount of people which means you leave a patch of forest untouched.

Acting sustainably means we need to be continually ready to reassess our values. I buy organic/eco everything, go to an organic restaurants & cafes & hate the idea of pesticides BUT stretching this debate across to the poorest, undeveloped countries---> millions of people are lucky if they have access to tiny plots of land and they can't grow enough to feed an extended family so if we're in charge of a development programme would we deny them synthetic fertilisers? These farmers have been shown to use chemicals sparingly if they get them because the costs are so high, is it ok that they use them in small quantities to increase their yields so they can eat? Organic farming only gives good yields in good soils which take time & resources to build up: it uses limited non-toxic chemicals & only works if you have access to organic fertilisers & mixed crops which the world's poorest definitely don't.

A program could progressively encourage mixed-use farming so the poorest can diversify & gradually use say chicken poo to replace fertilisers & enrich the organic material in their soils (not currently an option cos they can't afford it/don't have access). Fertilisers for the poorest people can mean they can use their land more intensively rather than having to clear more forest areas to allow depleted farm land to rest.

Complicated trade-offs with no clear answers means we can't always declare "chemicals bad, organic good"!

First thing we bear in mine if we say market is place were we can buy foods, fruits, fish, and vegetables. That everyone basic need to our delay life. Some foods are classified according to what kind. Organic foods not readily available not because they are too expensive compared regular products.