23 Dec 14
Many Italians must have read the recent Report investigation into organic food, and we imagine that most of those who spent their Sunday evening doing so, did not see their expectations met.
For anyone who truly cares about what they eat and how it is produced, and about finding food that is good in itself, for the environment and for its producer, perhaps a news report that had the merit of instilling doubts and pressing for more controls, but offered no refuge to the end consumer, was of little use. For us, the rule is always the same: We try to get to know whoever is offering the food we bring to the table, we are curious, we don’t worry about bothering our regular grocer with a thousand questions and we use not just our nose and mouth but also our head. Presumptuous? I’d call it prudent and interested.
Organic yields can be as high as conventional
Returning to Report, perhaps a little more in-depth from a program of this level (which did have the merit of waking some sleeping dogs, especially in Piedmont) would have been welcome. Certainly, it’s good to be on our guard against frauds (but in cosmetics marketing that’s hardly news, is it?), but can they really all be crooked? The aspect we’d like to dwell on, however, is another one. Why does a producer need an avalanche of certificates—acquired only at an outrageous cost and by following demeaning bureaucratic procedures—to show that their food is completely natural? Shouldn’t such a burden fall instead on those who pollute, whose products are full of poison? Why is it the virtuous who have to make the effort? A rhetorical question, sure, but it would be nice if consumers demanded more, considering that we are the ones who hold up the market.