Cocktailopskrifter, spiritus og lokale barer

Whole Foods at lancere producere ratingsystem

Whole Foods at lancere producere ratingsystem


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Rangordningssystemet vil forhåbentlig hjælpe forbrugere, der leder efter de bedste frugter og grøntsager.

Whole Foods har netop gjort shopping meget lettere for kvalitets- og miljøbevidste kunder ved at annoncere et produktrangeringssystem, der vil mærke hver vare i produktafdelingen som "god", "bedre" eller "bedst", baseret på forskellige kriterier, der bestemme en afgrødes bæredygtighed, som skadedyrsbekæmpelse, landmandsarbejdernes velfærd, bestøvningsbeskyttelse, vandbeskyttelse og beskyttelse, jordsundhed, økosystemer, biodiversitet, affald, genbrug og emballage, energiforbrug og klima.

Den komplicerede algoritme til at bestemme, hvilke frugter og grøntsager der betragtes som "grønnere" eller "bedre" end andre, er beregnet til at øge gennemsigtigheden mellem dagligvarehandlere og hylderne.

"Organisk er ikke nok," sagde John Mackey, co-administrerende direktør under GE Capital Corporate Finance Food & Beverage Summit den 1. oktober ifølge Food Business News. ”Forbrugerne ønsker total information, total gennemsigtighed. Nogle mennesker vil have det hele. ”

Bedømmelserne er beregnet til at hjælpe kunder og tilskynde til bedre praksis for avlere, der vil blive belønnet for højere karakterer med certificering af organisationer som Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance og Protected Harvest, som igen vil øge deres overskud i fremtiden.

Besøg vores for de seneste begivenheder i mad- og drikkeverdenen Madnyheder side.

Joanna Fantozzi er associeret redaktør med The Daily Meal. Følg hende på Twitter @JoannaFantozzi


Økologiske landmænd kalder fejl på hele fødevarer og#8217 producerer vurderingssystem

Ingen kan rigtig lide at blive bedømt. Især når du ikke får en A.

Nogle økologiske landmænd protesterer mod et nyt klassificeringssystem for produkter og blomster, der træder i kraft hos Whole Foods. De siger, at det devaluerer det organiske mærke og kan blive en eksistentiel trussel. ”

Ratingsystemet kaldes “Responsibly Grown. ” Og virksomheden udviklede det som en måde at give kunderne mere information om, hvordan deres mad dyrkes, siger Matt Rogers, en global produktkoordinator for Whole Foods.

Vi er virkelig stolte over den mad, vi sælger, og vi ved generelt meget om det, og det vil vi gerne dele med kunderne, ” siger han.

Etiketterne på produkterne hos Whole Foods fortalte altid kunderne, hvilket land eller en stat, der leverede disse grøntsager, samt om det var dyrket økologisk.

Det nye ratingsystem tager højde for meget mere.

Whole Foods beder sine leverandører om at betale et gebyr for at komme ind i programmet og derefter besvare et langt spørgeskema. Der er spørgsmål om, hvordan de beskytter jorden og dyrelivet på deres gårde, om de begrænser deres brug af pesticider, hvordan de sparer energi og kunstvanding, og hvordan de behandler deres arbejdere.
Forfatter Arlo Crawford (til venstre) sammen med sin far, Jim Crawford, en ældste statsmand fra den økologiske landbrugsbevægelse, der droppede jurastudiet i 1972 for at dyrke grøntsager.
Saltet
Fra økologiske pionerer, søn arver lidenskab, bare ikke til landbrug
En kvinde handler i produktsektionen på Whole Foods i New York City. Virksomheden annoncerede for nylig, at det ville forbyde produktion opdrættet ved hjælp af biosolider i sine butikker.
Saltet
Hele fødevareforbud produceres dyrket med slam. Men hvem vinder?

Baseret på disse svar får en gård ’s producerer en karakter: Uklassificeret, god, bedre eller bedst. Disse karakterer dukker op ved siden af ​​hver skraldespand med produkter på farverige klistermærker med ordene: “Ansvarligt dyrket. ”

Rogers siger, at mere end 50 procent af de gårde, der hidtil har været igennem denne proces, er blevet vurderet “Good. ” “Vi har få eksempler på ‘Beste ’ ratings på dette tidspunkt, ” siger han .

Men her er hvad der gør økologiske landmænd vrede. I en Whole Foods -butik i Washington, DC fandt jeg uorganiske løg og tomater, formodentlig dyrket med standardgødning og pesticider, der var mærket “Best. ” Et par meter væk fandt jeg økologiske løg og tomater, der kun blev sorteret “Godt ” eller bare “Unr. ”

For Vernon Peterson, der dyrker og pakker økologisk frugt i Kingsburg, Californien, er dette forbløffende.

“Organic vokser ansvarligt, for godhedens skyld, ” siger han. Økologisk bør være grundlaget for alt, hvad hele fødevarer kan gøre. ”
Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.

Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson siger, at økologisk certificering er sværere at få og betyder mere end de nye vurderinger fra Whole Foods. Det er dyrt at følge de organiske regler, og der er tredjepartsrevisorer, der sørger for, at du følger disse regler, tilføjer han. Der er ingen sådanne eksterne revisorer i Whole Foods -systemet.

Men det, der virkelig irriterer Peterson, er, at disse farverige nye “Responsibly Grown ” etiketter overskygger den økologiske etiket. Han tror, ​​at de devaluerer det.

Tom Willey, en anden mangeårig økologisk avler i Californien, har opfordret sine landmænd til at tage stilling til vurderingerne. Det føles risikabelt at kritisere en stor kunde som Whole Foods, siger han, men de er nødt til at sige fra, fordi vi synes, at dette program er en slags toppen af ​​et isbjerge, der repræsenterer en eksistentiel trussel mod værdien af ​​certificeret økologisk, ”, som mange økologiske landmænd har dedikeret tre eller fire årtier af deres arbejdsliv til.

Peterson og Willey siger, at de forsøger at overtale Whole Foods til at revidere scoringssystemet for at lægge større vægt på økologisk certificering og også for at reducere de økonomiske byrder, det påfører små landmænd. Ifølge Peterson koster gebyrer, papirarbejde og produktsporingsudstyr, der kræves af Whole Foods -programmet, landmændene tusinder af dollars.

Mark Kastel, en organisk fortaler og grundlægger af Cornucopia Institute, siger, at der er et klart overskudsdrevet motiv bag dette nye mærke. De forsøger at skabe et helt nyt sprog for deres kunder at genkende et produkt med merværdi, ” siger han.

Og det er især nyttigt at skabe den aura af specialitet omkring konventionelle produkter, fordi konventionelle grøntsager er lettere og billigere at dyrke. Denne etiket lader dem konkurrere bedre med økologisk. Hvorfor ville du betale mere for et certificeret økologisk produkt, når du kan få ‘Best ’ for et par dollars et pund billigere? ” siger han.

Rogers insisterer på sin side på, at Whole Foods ikke trækker sig tilbage fra sin støtte til økologisk landbrug. Han siger, at de nye vurderinger simpelthen er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om ting, som de økologiske regler bare ikke rører ved, såsom vandbeskyttelse, energiforbrug i landbruget, landbrugernes velfærd, affaldshåndtering. ”

Der er landmænd, der gør et godt stykke arbejde med det, siger han, og de er ikke alle økologiske. Der er konventionelle avlere, som vi arbejder med, som er utrolige forvaltere af jorden, som gør et fantastisk stykke arbejde med deres arbejdsstyrke, som fortjener at blive anerkendt, ” siger Rogers.

Faktisk er økologiske landmænd som Willey og Peterson enige om, at der er mange aspekter af ansvarligt landbrug, som de økologiske standarder ikke dækker. Deres strid med Whole Foods handler om, hvorvidt de nye ratings faktisk måler alle disse ting meget godt, og også om de nogensinde kunne opveje, hvad økologisk certificering repræsenterer.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. Der gøres ikke krav på ophavsret for dele af denne blog og sammenkædede varer, der er værker af den amerikanske regering, statslige regeringer eller tredjeparter.


Økologiske landmænd kalder fejl på hele fødevarer og#8217 producerer vurderingssystem

Ingen kan rigtig lide at blive bedømt. Især når du ikke får en A.

Nogle økologiske landmænd protesterer mod et nyt klassificeringssystem for produkter og blomster, der træder i kraft hos Whole Foods. De siger, at det devaluerer det organiske mærke og kan blive en eksistentiel trussel. ”

Ratingsystemet kaldes “Responsibly Grown. ” Og virksomheden udviklede det som en måde at give kunderne mere information om, hvordan deres mad dyrkes, siger Matt Rogers, en global produktkoordinator for Whole Foods.

Vi er virkelig stolte over den mad, vi sælger, og vi ved generelt meget om det, og det vil vi gerne dele med kunderne, ” siger han.

Etiketterne på produkterne hos Whole Foods fortalte altid kunderne, hvilket land eller stat, der leverede disse grøntsager, samt om det var dyrket økologisk.

Det nye ratingsystem tager højde for meget mere.

Whole Foods beder sine leverandører om at betale et gebyr for at komme ind i programmet og derefter besvare et langt spørgeskema. Der er spørgsmål om, hvordan de beskytter jorden og dyrelivet på deres gårde, om de begrænser deres brug af pesticider, hvordan de sparer energi og kunstvanding, og hvordan de behandler deres arbejdere.
Forfatter Arlo Crawford (til venstre) sammen med sin far, Jim Crawford, en ældste statsmand i den økologiske landbrugsbevægelse, der droppede jurastudiet i 1972 for at dyrke grøntsager.
Saltet
Fra økologiske pionerer, søn arver lidenskab, bare ikke til landbrug
En kvinde handler i produktsektionen på Whole Foods i New York City. Virksomheden annoncerede for nylig, at det ville forbyde produktion opdrættet ved hjælp af biosolider i sine butikker.
Saltet
Hele fødevareforbud produceres dyrket med slam. Men hvem vinder?

Baseret på disse svar får en gård ’s producerer en karakter: Uklassificeret, god, bedre eller bedst. Disse karakterer dukker op ved siden af ​​hver skraldespand med produkter på farverige klistermærker med ordene: “Ansvarligt dyrket. ”

Rogers siger, at mere end 50 procent af de gårde, der hidtil har været igennem denne proces, er blevet vurderet “Good. ” “Vi har få eksempler på ‘Beste ’ ratings på dette tidspunkt, ” siger han .

Men her er hvad der gør økologiske landmænd vrede. I en Whole Foods -butik i Washington, DC fandt jeg ikke -organiske løg og tomater, formodentlig dyrket med standardgødning og pesticider, der var mærket “Best. ” Et par meter væk fandt jeg organiske løg og tomater, der kun blev sorteret “Godt ” eller bare “Unr. ”

For Vernon Peterson, der dyrker og pakker økologisk frugt i Kingsburg, Californien, er dette forbløffende.

“Organic vokser ansvarligt, for godhedens skyld, ” siger han. Økologisk bør være grundlaget for alt, hvad hele fødevarer kan gøre. ”
Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.

Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson siger, at økologisk certificering er sværere at få og betyder mere end de nye ratings fra Whole Foods. Det er dyrt at følge de organiske regler, og der er tredjepartsrevisorer, der sørger for, at du følger disse regler, tilføjer han. Der er ingen sådanne eksterne revisorer i Whole Foods -systemet.

Men det, der virkelig irriterer Peterson, er, at disse farverige nye “Responsibly Grown ” etiketter overskygger den økologiske etiket. Han tror, ​​at de devaluerer det.

Tom Willey, en anden mangeårig økologisk avler i Californien, har opfordret sine landmænd til at tage stilling til vurderingerne. Det føles risikabelt at kritisere en stor kunde som Whole Foods, siger han, men de er nødt til at sige fra, fordi vi synes, at dette program er en slags toppen af ​​et isbjerge, der repræsenterer en eksistentiel trussel mod værdien af ​​certificeret økologisk, ”, som mange økologiske landmænd har dedikeret tre eller fire årtier af deres arbejdsliv til.

Peterson og Willey siger, at de forsøger at overtale Whole Foods til at revidere scoringssystemet for at lægge større vægt på økologisk certificering og også for at reducere de økonomiske byrder, det påfører små landmænd. Ifølge Peterson koster gebyrer, papirarbejde og produktsporingsudstyr, der kræves af Whole Foods -programmet, landmændene tusinder af dollars.

Mark Kastel, en organisk fortaler og grundlægger af Cornucopia Institute, siger, at der er et klart overskudsdrevet motiv bag dette nye mærke. De forsøger at skabe et helt nyt sprog for deres kunder at genkende et produkt med merværdi, ” siger han.

Og det er især nyttigt at skabe den aura af specialitet omkring konventionelle produkter, fordi konventionelle grøntsager er lettere og billigere at dyrke. Denne etiket lader dem konkurrere bedre med økologisk. Hvorfor ville du betale mere for et certificeret økologisk produkt, når du kan få ‘Best ’ for et par dollars et pund billigere? ” siger han.

Rogers insisterer på sin side på, at Whole Foods ikke trækker sig tilbage fra sin støtte til økologisk landbrug. Han siger, at de nye vurderinger simpelthen er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om ting, som de økologiske regler bare ikke rører ved, såsom vandbeskyttelse, energiforbrug i landbruget, landbrugernes velfærd, affaldshåndtering. ”

Der er landmænd, der gør et godt stykke arbejde med det, siger han, og de er ikke alle økologiske. Der er konventionelle avlere, som vi arbejder med, som er utrolige forvaltere af jorden, som gør et fantastisk stykke arbejde med deres arbejdsstyrke, som fortjener at blive anerkendt, ” siger Rogers.

Faktisk er økologiske landmænd som Willey og Peterson enige om, at der er mange aspekter af ansvarligt landbrug, som de økologiske standarder ikke dækker. Deres strid med Whole Foods handler om, hvorvidt de nye ratings faktisk måler alle disse ting meget godt, og også om de nogensinde kunne opveje, hvad økologisk certificering repræsenterer.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. Der gøres ikke krav på ophavsret for dele af denne blog og sammenkædede varer, der er værker af den amerikanske regering, statslige regeringer eller tredjeparter.


Økologiske landmænd kalder fejl på hele fødevarer og#8217 producerer vurderingssystem

Ingen kan rigtig lide at blive bedømt. Især når du ikke får en A.

Nogle økologiske landmænd protesterer mod et nyt klassificeringssystem for produkter og blomster, der træder i kraft hos Whole Foods. De siger, at det devaluerer det organiske mærke og kan blive en eksistentiel trussel. ”

Ratingsystemet kaldes “Responsibly Grown. ” Og virksomheden udviklede det som en måde at give kunderne mere information om, hvordan deres mad dyrkes, siger Matt Rogers, en global produktkoordinator for Whole Foods.

Vi er virkelig stolte over den mad, vi sælger, og vi ved generelt meget om det, og det vil vi gerne dele med kunderne, ” siger han.

Etiketterne på produkterne hos Whole Foods fortalte altid kunderne, hvilket land eller en stat, der leverede disse grøntsager, samt om det var dyrket økologisk.

Det nye ratingsystem tager højde for meget mere.

Whole Foods beder sine leverandører om at betale et gebyr for at komme ind i programmet og derefter besvare et langt spørgeskema. Der er spørgsmål om, hvordan de beskytter jorden og dyrelivet på deres gårde, om de begrænser deres brug af pesticider, hvordan de sparer energi og kunstvanding, og hvordan de behandler deres arbejdere.
Forfatter Arlo Crawford (til venstre) sammen med sin far, Jim Crawford, en ældste statsmand fra den økologiske landbrugsbevægelse, der droppede jurastudiet i 1972 for at dyrke grøntsager.
Saltet
Fra økologiske pionerer, søn arver lidenskab, bare ikke til landbrug
En kvinde handler i produktsektionen på Whole Foods i New York City. Virksomheden annoncerede for nylig, at det ville forbyde produktion opdrættet ved hjælp af biosolider i sine butikker.
Saltet
Hele fødevareforbud produceres dyrket med slam. Men hvem vinder?

Baseret på disse svar får en gård ’s producerer en karakter: Uklassificeret, god, bedre eller bedst. Disse karakterer dukker op ved siden af ​​hver skraldespand med produkter på farverige klistermærker med ordene: “Ansvarligt dyrket. ”

Rogers siger, at mere end 50 procent af de gårde, der hidtil har været igennem denne proces, er blevet vurderet “Good. ” “Vi har få eksempler på ‘Beste ’ ratings på dette tidspunkt, ” siger han .

Men her er hvad der gør økologiske landmænd vrede. I en Whole Foods -butik i Washington, DC fandt jeg ikke -organiske løg og tomater, formodentlig dyrket med standardgødning og pesticider, der var mærket “Best. ” Et par meter væk fandt jeg organiske løg og tomater, der kun blev sorteret “Godt ” eller bare “Urated. ”

For Vernon Peterson, der dyrker og pakker økologisk frugt i Kingsburg, Californien, er dette forbløffende.

“Organic vokser ansvarligt, for godhedens skyld, ” siger han. Økologisk bør være grundlaget for alt, hvad hele fødevarer kan gøre. ”
Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.

Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson siger, at økologisk certificering er sværere at få og betyder mere end de nye ratings fra Whole Foods. Det er dyrt at følge de organiske regler, og der er tredjepartsrevisorer, der sørger for, at du følger disse regler, tilføjer han. Der er ingen sådanne eksterne revisorer i Whole Foods -systemet.

Men det, der virkelig irriterer Peterson, er, at disse farverige nye “Responsibly Grown ” etiketter overskygger den økologiske etiket. Han tror, ​​at de devaluerer det.

Tom Willey, en anden mangeårig økologisk avler i Californien, har opfordret sine landmænd til at tage stilling til vurderingerne. Det føles risikabelt at kritisere en stor kunde som Whole Foods, siger han, men de er nødt til at sige fra, fordi vi synes, at dette program er en slags toppen af ​​et isbjerge, der repræsenterer en eksistentiel trussel mod værdien af ​​certificeret økologisk, ”, som mange økologiske landmænd har dedikeret tre eller fire årtier af deres arbejdsliv til.

Peterson og Willey siger, at de forsøger at overtale Whole Foods til at revidere scoringssystemet for at lægge større vægt på økologisk certificering og også for at reducere de økonomiske byrder, det påfører små landmænd. Ifølge Peterson koster gebyrer, papirarbejde og produktsporingsudstyr, der kræves af Whole Foods -programmet, landmændene tusinder af dollars.

Mark Kastel, en organisk fortaler og grundlægger af Cornucopia Institute, siger, at der er et klart overskudsdrevet motiv bag dette nye mærke. De forsøger at skabe et helt nyt sprog for deres kunder at genkende et produkt med merværdi, ” siger han.

Og det er især nyttigt at skabe den aura af specialitet omkring konventionelle produkter, fordi konventionelle grøntsager er lettere og billigere at dyrke. Denne etiket lader dem konkurrere bedre med økologisk. Hvorfor ville du betale mere for et certificeret økologisk produkt, når du kan få ‘Best ’ for et par dollars et pund billigere? ” siger han.

Rogers insisterer på sin side på, at Whole Foods ikke trækker sig tilbage fra sin støtte til økologisk landbrug. Han siger, at de nye vurderinger simpelthen er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om ting, som de økologiske regler bare ikke rører ved, såsom vandbeskyttelse, energiforbrug i landbruget, landbrugsarbejdernes velfærd, affaldshåndtering. ”

Der er landmænd, der gør et godt stykke arbejde med det, siger han, og de er ikke alle økologiske. Der er konventionelle avlere, som vi arbejder med, som er utrolige forvaltere af jorden, som gør et fantastisk stykke arbejde med deres arbejdsstyrke, som fortjener at blive anerkendt, ” siger Rogers.

Faktisk er økologiske landmænd som Willey og Peterson enige om, at der er mange aspekter af ansvarligt landbrug, som de økologiske standarder ikke dækker. Deres strid med Whole Foods handler om, hvorvidt de nye ratings faktisk måler alle disse ting meget godt, og også om de nogensinde kunne opveje, hvad økologisk certificering repræsenterer.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. Der gøres ikke krav på ophavsret for dele af denne blog og sammenkædede varer, der er værker af den amerikanske regering, statslige regeringer eller tredjeparter.


Økologiske landmænd kalder fejl på hele fødevarer og#8217 producerer vurderingssystem

Ingen kan rigtig lide at blive bedømt. Især når du ikke får en A.

Nogle økologiske landmænd protesterer mod et nyt klassificeringssystem for produkter og blomster, der træder i kraft hos Whole Foods. De siger, at det devaluerer det organiske mærke og kan blive en eksistentiel trussel. ”

Ratingsystemet kaldes “Responsibly Grown. ” Og virksomheden udviklede det som en måde at give kunderne mere information om, hvordan deres mad dyrkes, siger Matt Rogers, en global produktkoordinator for Whole Foods.

Vi er virkelig stolte over den mad, vi sælger, og vi ved generelt meget om det, og det vil vi gerne dele med kunderne, ” siger han.

Etiketterne på produkterne hos Whole Foods fortalte altid kunderne, hvilket land eller en stat, der leverede disse grøntsager, samt om det var dyrket økologisk.

Det nye ratingsystem tager højde for meget mere.

Whole Foods beder sine leverandører om at betale et gebyr for at komme ind i programmet og derefter besvare et langt spørgeskema. Der er spørgsmål om, hvordan de beskytter jorden og dyrelivet på deres gårde, om de begrænser deres brug af pesticider, hvordan de sparer energi og kunstvanding, og hvordan de behandler deres arbejdere.
Forfatter Arlo Crawford (til venstre) sammen med sin far, Jim Crawford, en ældste statsmand fra den økologiske landbrugsbevægelse, der droppede jurastudiet i 1972 for at dyrke grøntsager.
Saltet
Fra økologiske pionerer, søn arver lidenskab, bare ikke til landbrug
En kvinde handler i produktsektionen på Whole Foods i New York City. Virksomheden annoncerede for nylig, at det ville forbyde produktion opdrættet ved hjælp af biosolider i sine butikker.
Saltet
Hele fødevareforbud produceres dyrket med slam. Men hvem vinder?

Baseret på disse svar får en gård ’s producerer en karakter: Uklassificeret, god, bedre eller bedst. Disse karakterer dukker op ved siden af ​​hver skraldespand med produkter på farverige klistermærker med ordene: “Ansvarligt dyrket. ”

Rogers siger, at mere end 50 procent af de gårde, der hidtil har været igennem denne proces, er blevet vurderet “Good. ” “Vi har få eksempler på ‘Beste ’ ratings på dette tidspunkt, ” siger han .

Men her er hvad der gør økologiske landmænd vrede. I en Whole Foods -butik i Washington, DC fandt jeg ikke -organiske løg og tomater, formodentlig dyrket med standardgødning og pesticider, der var mærket “Best. ” Et par meter væk fandt jeg økologiske løg og tomater, der kun blev sorteret “Godt ” eller bare “Urated. ”

For Vernon Peterson, der dyrker og pakker økologisk frugt i Kingsburg, Californien, er dette forbløffende.

“Organic vokser ansvarligt, for godhedens skyld, ” siger han. Økologisk bør være grundlaget for alt, hvad hele fødevarer kan gøre. ”
Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.

Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson siger, at økologisk certificering er sværere at få og betyder mere end de nye vurderinger fra Whole Foods. Det er dyrt at følge de organiske regler, og der er tredjepartsrevisorer, der sørger for, at du følger disse regler, tilføjer han. Der er ingen sådanne eksterne revisorer i Whole Foods -systemet.

Men det, der virkelig irriterer Peterson, er, at disse farverige nye “Responsibly Grown ” etiketter overskygger den økologiske etiket. Han tror, ​​at de devaluerer det.

Tom Willey, en anden mangeårig økologisk avler i Californien, har opfordret sine landmænd til at tage stilling til vurderingerne. Det føles risikabelt at kritisere en stor kunde som Whole Foods, siger han, men de er nødt til at sige fra, fordi vi synes, at dette program er en slags toppen af ​​et isbjerge, der repræsenterer en eksistentiel trussel mod værdien af ​​certificeret økologisk, ”, som mange økologiske landmænd har dedikeret tre eller fire årtier af deres arbejdsliv til.

Peterson og Willey siger, at de forsøger at overtale Whole Foods til at revidere scoringssystemet for at lægge større vægt på økologisk certificering og også for at reducere de økonomiske byrder, det påfører små landmænd. Ifølge Peterson koster gebyrer, papirarbejde og produktsporingsudstyr, der kræves af Whole Foods -programmet, landmændene tusinder af dollars.

Mark Kastel, en organisk fortaler og grundlægger af Cornucopia Institute, siger, at der er et klart overskudsdrevet motiv bag dette nye mærke. De forsøger at skabe et helt nyt folkemund, så deres kunder kan genkende et produkt med værditilvækst, ” siger han.

Og det er især nyttigt at skabe den aura af specialitet omkring konventionelle produkter, fordi konventionelle grøntsager er lettere og billigere at dyrke. Denne etiket lader dem konkurrere bedre med økologisk. Hvorfor ville du betale mere for et certificeret økologisk produkt, når du kan få ‘Best ’ for et par dollars et pund billigere? ” siger han.

Rogers insisterer på sin side på, at Whole Foods ikke trækker sig tilbage fra sin støtte til økologisk landbrug. Han siger, at de nye vurderinger simpelthen er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om ting, som de økologiske regler bare ikke rører ved, såsom vandbeskyttelse, energiforbrug i landbruget, landbrugsarbejdernes velfærd, affaldshåndtering. ”

Der er landmænd, der gør et godt stykke arbejde med det, siger han, og de er ikke alle økologiske. Der er konventionelle avlere, som vi arbejder med, som er utrolige forvaltere af jorden, som gør et fantastisk stykke arbejde med deres arbejdsstyrke, som fortjener at blive anerkendt, ” siger Rogers.

Faktisk er økologiske landmænd som Willey og Peterson enige om, at der er mange aspekter af ansvarligt landbrug, som de økologiske standarder ikke dækker. Deres strid med Whole Foods handler om, hvorvidt de nye ratings faktisk måler alle disse ting meget godt, og også om de nogensinde kunne opveje, hvad økologisk certificering repræsenterer.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. Der gøres ikke krav på ophavsret for dele af denne blog og sammenkædede varer, der er værker af den amerikanske regering, statslige regeringer eller tredjeparter.


Økologiske landmænd kalder fejl på hele fødevarer og#8217 producerer vurderingssystem

Ingen kan rigtig lide at blive bedømt. Især når du ikke får en A.

Nogle økologiske landmænd protesterer mod et nyt klassificeringssystem for produkter og blomster, der træder i kraft hos Whole Foods. De siger, at det devaluerer det organiske mærke og kan blive en eksistentiel trussel. ”

Ratingsystemet kaldes “Responsibly Grown. ” Og virksomheden udviklede det som en måde at give kunderne mere information om, hvordan deres mad dyrkes, siger Matt Rogers, en global produktkoordinator for Whole Foods.

Vi er virkelig stolte over den mad, vi sælger, og vi ved generelt meget om det, og det vil vi gerne dele med kunderne, ” siger han.

Etiketterne på produkterne hos Whole Foods fortalte altid kunderne, hvilket land eller en stat, der leverede disse grøntsager, samt om det var dyrket økologisk.

Det nye ratingsystem tager højde for meget mere.

Whole Foods beder sine leverandører om at betale et gebyr for at komme ind i programmet og derefter besvare et langt spørgeskema. Der er spørgsmål om, hvordan de beskytter jorden og dyrelivet på deres gårde, om de begrænser deres brug af pesticider, hvordan de sparer energi og kunstvanding, og hvordan de behandler deres arbejdere.
Forfatter Arlo Crawford (til venstre) sammen med sin far, Jim Crawford, en ældste statsmand fra den økologiske landbrugsbevægelse, der droppede jurastudiet i 1972 for at dyrke grøntsager.
Saltet
Fra økologiske pionerer, søn arver lidenskab, bare ikke til landbrug
En kvinde handler i produktsektionen på Whole Foods i New York City. Virksomheden annoncerede for nylig, at det ville forbyde produktion opdrættet ved hjælp af biosolider i sine butikker.
Saltet
Hele fødevareforbud produceres dyrket med slam. Men hvem vinder?

Baseret på disse svar får en gård ’s producerer en karakter: Uklassificeret, god, bedre eller bedst. Disse karakterer dukker op ved siden af ​​hver skraldespand med produkter på farverige klistermærker med ordene: “Ansvarligt dyrket. ”

Rogers siger, at mere end 50 procent af de gårde, der hidtil har været igennem denne proces, er blevet vurderet “Good. ” “Vi har få eksempler på ‘Beste ’ ratings på dette tidspunkt, ” siger han .

Men her er hvad der gør økologiske landmænd vrede. I en Whole Foods -butik i Washington, DC fandt jeg uorganiske løg og tomater, formentlig dyrket med standardgødning og pesticider, der var mærket “Best. ” Et par meter væk fandt jeg økologiske løg og tomater, der kun blev sorteret “Godt ” eller bare “Urated. ”

For Vernon Peterson, der dyrker og pakker økologisk frugt i Kingsburg, Californien, er dette forbløffende.

“Organic vokser ansvarligt, for godhedens skyld, ” siger han. Økologisk bør være grundlaget for alt, hvad hele fødevarer kan gøre. ”
Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.

Whole Foods siger, at dets nye vurderingssystem er en måde at tale med landmænd og kunder om spørgsmål, som de økologiske regler ikke omfatter, som vand, energi, arbejdskraft og affald.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson siger, at økologisk certificering er sværere at få og betyder mere end de nye ratings fra Whole Foods. Det er dyrt at følge de organiske regler, og der er tredjepartsrevisorer, der sørger for, at du følger disse regler, tilføjer han. Der er ingen sådanne eksterne revisorer i Whole Foods -systemet.

Men det, der virkelig irriterer Peterson, er, at disse farverige nye “Responsibly Grown ” etiketter overskygger den økologiske etiket. Han tror, ​​at de devaluerer det.

Tom Willey, en anden mangeårig økologisk avler i Californien, har opfordret sine landmænd til at tage stilling til vurderingerne. Det føles risikabelt at kritisere en stor kunde som Whole Foods, siger han, men de er nødt til at sige fra, fordi vi synes, at dette program er en slags toppen af ​​et isbjerge, der repræsenterer en eksistentiel trussel mod værdien af ​​certificeret økologisk, ”, som mange økologiske landmænd har dedikeret tre eller fire årtier af deres arbejdsliv til.

Peterson og Willey siger, at de forsøger at overtale Whole Foods til at revidere scoringssystemet for at lægge større vægt på økologisk certificering og også for at reducere de økonomiske byrder, det påfører små landmænd. According to Peterson, the fees, paperwork and product tracking equipment required by the Whole Foods program cost farmers thousands of dollars.

Mark Kastel, an organic advocate and founder of the Cornucopia Institute, says there’s a clear profit-driven motive behind this new label. “They’re trying to create an entire new vernacular for their customers to recognize a value-added product,” he says.

And it’s especially helpful to create that aura of specialness around conventional produce, because conventional veggies are easier and cheaper to grow. This label lets them compete better with organic. “Why would you pay more for a certified organic product, when you can get the ‘Best’ for a couple of dollars a pound cheaper?” he says.

Rogers, for his part, insists that Whole Foods is not backing away from its support for organic farming. He says the new ratings are simply a way to talk to farmers and customers about things that the organic rules just don’t touch, “such as water conservation, energy use in agriculture, farm worker welfare, waste management.”

There are farmers who are doing a great job with that, he says, and they aren’t all organic. “There are conventional growers that we work with who are incredible stewards of the land, who do a tremendous job with their workforce, who deserve to be recognized,” Rogers says.

In fact, organic farmers like Willey and Peterson agree that there are many aspects of responsible farming that the organic standards don’t cover. Their dispute with Whole Foods is over whether the new ratings actually measure all those things very well, and also whether they could ever outweigh what organic certification represents.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. No copyright claim is made for portions of this blog and linked items that are works of the United States Government, state governments or third parties.


Organic Farmers Call Foul On Whole Foods’ Produce Rating System

Nobody really likes to be graded. Especially when you don’t get an A.

Some organic farmers are protesting a new grading system for produce and flowers that’s coming into force at Whole Foods. They say it devalues the organic label and could become an “existential threat.”

The rating system is called “Responsibly Grown.” And the company developed it as a way to give customers more information about how their food is grown, says Matt Rogers, a global produce coordinator for Whole Foods.

“We’re really proud of the food we sell, and we know a lot about it, in general, and we want to share that with customers,” he says.

The labels on produce at Whole Foods always told shoppers what country or state supplied those vegetables, as well as whether it was grown organically.

The new rating system takes into account much more.

Whole Foods is asking its suppliers to pay a fee to get into the program, then answer a long questionnaire. There are questions about how they protect the soil and wildlife on their farms, whether they limit their use of pesticides, how they conserve energy and irrigation water and how they treat their workers.
Writer Arlo Crawford (left) with his father, Jim Crawford, an elder statesman of the organic farming movement who dropped out of law school in 1972 to grow vegetables.
The Salt
From Organic Pioneers, Son Inherits Passion, Just Not For Farming
A woman shops in the produce section at Whole Foods in New York City. The company recently announced it would prohibit produce farmed using biosolids in its stores.
The Salt
Whole Foods Bans Produce Grown With Sludge. But Who Wins?

Based on those answers, a farm’s produce gets a grade: Unrated, Good, Better or Best. Those grades show up right beside each bin of produce on brightly colored stickers with the words: “Responsibly Grown.”

Rogers says that more than 50 percent of the farms that have gone through this process so far have been rated “Good.” “We have few examples of ‘Best’ ratings at this point,” he says.

But here’s what is making organic farmers angry. At a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., I found nonorganic onions and tomatoes, presumably grown with standard fertilizers and pesticides, that were labeled “Best.” A few feet away, I found organic onions and tomatoes that were graded merely “Good” or just “Unrated.”

For Vernon Peterson, who grows and packs organic fruit in Kingsburg, Calif., this is dumbfounding.

“Organic is responsibly grown, for goodness sake,” he says. “Organic should be the foundation of anything that Whole Foods might do.”
Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.

Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson says that organic certification is harder to get and means more than the new ratings from Whole Foods. Following the organic rules is expensive, and there are third-party auditors making sure that you follow those rules, he adds. There are no such outside auditors in the Whole Foods system.

But what really irks Peterson is that these colorful new “Responsibly Grown” labels overshadow the organic label. He thinks they devalue it.

Tom Willey, another long-time organic grower in California, has been urging his fellow farmers to take a stand against the ratings. It feels risky to criticize a big customer like Whole Foods, he says, but they have to speak up, “because we think that this program is kind of the tip of an iceberg that represents an existential threat to the value of certified organic,” to which many organic farmers have dedicated three or four decades of their working lives.

Peterson and Willey say they are trying to persuade Whole Foods to revise the scoring system to give more weight to organic certification, and also to reduce the financial burdens it imposes on small farmers. According to Peterson, the fees, paperwork and product tracking equipment required by the Whole Foods program cost farmers thousands of dollars.

Mark Kastel, an organic advocate and founder of the Cornucopia Institute, says there’s a clear profit-driven motive behind this new label. “They’re trying to create an entire new vernacular for their customers to recognize a value-added product,” he says.

And it’s especially helpful to create that aura of specialness around conventional produce, because conventional veggies are easier and cheaper to grow. This label lets them compete better with organic. “Why would you pay more for a certified organic product, when you can get the ‘Best’ for a couple of dollars a pound cheaper?” he says.

Rogers, for his part, insists that Whole Foods is not backing away from its support for organic farming. He says the new ratings are simply a way to talk to farmers and customers about things that the organic rules just don’t touch, “such as water conservation, energy use in agriculture, farm worker welfare, waste management.”

There are farmers who are doing a great job with that, he says, and they aren’t all organic. “There are conventional growers that we work with who are incredible stewards of the land, who do a tremendous job with their workforce, who deserve to be recognized,” Rogers says.

In fact, organic farmers like Willey and Peterson agree that there are many aspects of responsible farming that the organic standards don’t cover. Their dispute with Whole Foods is over whether the new ratings actually measure all those things very well, and also whether they could ever outweigh what organic certification represents.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. No copyright claim is made for portions of this blog and linked items that are works of the United States Government, state governments or third parties.


Organic Farmers Call Foul On Whole Foods’ Produce Rating System

Nobody really likes to be graded. Especially when you don’t get an A.

Some organic farmers are protesting a new grading system for produce and flowers that’s coming into force at Whole Foods. They say it devalues the organic label and could become an “existential threat.”

The rating system is called “Responsibly Grown.” And the company developed it as a way to give customers more information about how their food is grown, says Matt Rogers, a global produce coordinator for Whole Foods.

“We’re really proud of the food we sell, and we know a lot about it, in general, and we want to share that with customers,” he says.

The labels on produce at Whole Foods always told shoppers what country or state supplied those vegetables, as well as whether it was grown organically.

The new rating system takes into account much more.

Whole Foods is asking its suppliers to pay a fee to get into the program, then answer a long questionnaire. There are questions about how they protect the soil and wildlife on their farms, whether they limit their use of pesticides, how they conserve energy and irrigation water and how they treat their workers.
Writer Arlo Crawford (left) with his father, Jim Crawford, an elder statesman of the organic farming movement who dropped out of law school in 1972 to grow vegetables.
The Salt
From Organic Pioneers, Son Inherits Passion, Just Not For Farming
A woman shops in the produce section at Whole Foods in New York City. The company recently announced it would prohibit produce farmed using biosolids in its stores.
The Salt
Whole Foods Bans Produce Grown With Sludge. But Who Wins?

Based on those answers, a farm’s produce gets a grade: Unrated, Good, Better or Best. Those grades show up right beside each bin of produce on brightly colored stickers with the words: “Responsibly Grown.”

Rogers says that more than 50 percent of the farms that have gone through this process so far have been rated “Good.” “We have few examples of ‘Best’ ratings at this point,” he says.

But here’s what is making organic farmers angry. At a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., I found nonorganic onions and tomatoes, presumably grown with standard fertilizers and pesticides, that were labeled “Best.” A few feet away, I found organic onions and tomatoes that were graded merely “Good” or just “Unrated.”

For Vernon Peterson, who grows and packs organic fruit in Kingsburg, Calif., this is dumbfounding.

“Organic is responsibly grown, for goodness sake,” he says. “Organic should be the foundation of anything that Whole Foods might do.”
Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.

Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson says that organic certification is harder to get and means more than the new ratings from Whole Foods. Following the organic rules is expensive, and there are third-party auditors making sure that you follow those rules, he adds. There are no such outside auditors in the Whole Foods system.

But what really irks Peterson is that these colorful new “Responsibly Grown” labels overshadow the organic label. He thinks they devalue it.

Tom Willey, another long-time organic grower in California, has been urging his fellow farmers to take a stand against the ratings. It feels risky to criticize a big customer like Whole Foods, he says, but they have to speak up, “because we think that this program is kind of the tip of an iceberg that represents an existential threat to the value of certified organic,” to which many organic farmers have dedicated three or four decades of their working lives.

Peterson and Willey say they are trying to persuade Whole Foods to revise the scoring system to give more weight to organic certification, and also to reduce the financial burdens it imposes on small farmers. According to Peterson, the fees, paperwork and product tracking equipment required by the Whole Foods program cost farmers thousands of dollars.

Mark Kastel, an organic advocate and founder of the Cornucopia Institute, says there’s a clear profit-driven motive behind this new label. “They’re trying to create an entire new vernacular for their customers to recognize a value-added product,” he says.

And it’s especially helpful to create that aura of specialness around conventional produce, because conventional veggies are easier and cheaper to grow. This label lets them compete better with organic. “Why would you pay more for a certified organic product, when you can get the ‘Best’ for a couple of dollars a pound cheaper?” he says.

Rogers, for his part, insists that Whole Foods is not backing away from its support for organic farming. He says the new ratings are simply a way to talk to farmers and customers about things that the organic rules just don’t touch, “such as water conservation, energy use in agriculture, farm worker welfare, waste management.”

There are farmers who are doing a great job with that, he says, and they aren’t all organic. “There are conventional growers that we work with who are incredible stewards of the land, who do a tremendous job with their workforce, who deserve to be recognized,” Rogers says.

In fact, organic farmers like Willey and Peterson agree that there are many aspects of responsible farming that the organic standards don’t cover. Their dispute with Whole Foods is over whether the new ratings actually measure all those things very well, and also whether they could ever outweigh what organic certification represents.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. No copyright claim is made for portions of this blog and linked items that are works of the United States Government, state governments or third parties.


Organic Farmers Call Foul On Whole Foods’ Produce Rating System

Nobody really likes to be graded. Especially when you don’t get an A.

Some organic farmers are protesting a new grading system for produce and flowers that’s coming into force at Whole Foods. They say it devalues the organic label and could become an “existential threat.”

The rating system is called “Responsibly Grown.” And the company developed it as a way to give customers more information about how their food is grown, says Matt Rogers, a global produce coordinator for Whole Foods.

“We’re really proud of the food we sell, and we know a lot about it, in general, and we want to share that with customers,” he says.

The labels on produce at Whole Foods always told shoppers what country or state supplied those vegetables, as well as whether it was grown organically.

The new rating system takes into account much more.

Whole Foods is asking its suppliers to pay a fee to get into the program, then answer a long questionnaire. There are questions about how they protect the soil and wildlife on their farms, whether they limit their use of pesticides, how they conserve energy and irrigation water and how they treat their workers.
Writer Arlo Crawford (left) with his father, Jim Crawford, an elder statesman of the organic farming movement who dropped out of law school in 1972 to grow vegetables.
The Salt
From Organic Pioneers, Son Inherits Passion, Just Not For Farming
A woman shops in the produce section at Whole Foods in New York City. The company recently announced it would prohibit produce farmed using biosolids in its stores.
The Salt
Whole Foods Bans Produce Grown With Sludge. But Who Wins?

Based on those answers, a farm’s produce gets a grade: Unrated, Good, Better or Best. Those grades show up right beside each bin of produce on brightly colored stickers with the words: “Responsibly Grown.”

Rogers says that more than 50 percent of the farms that have gone through this process so far have been rated “Good.” “We have few examples of ‘Best’ ratings at this point,” he says.

But here’s what is making organic farmers angry. At a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., I found nonorganic onions and tomatoes, presumably grown with standard fertilizers and pesticides, that were labeled “Best.” A few feet away, I found organic onions and tomatoes that were graded merely “Good” or just “Unrated.”

For Vernon Peterson, who grows and packs organic fruit in Kingsburg, Calif., this is dumbfounding.

“Organic is responsibly grown, for goodness sake,” he says. “Organic should be the foundation of anything that Whole Foods might do.”
Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.

Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson says that organic certification is harder to get and means more than the new ratings from Whole Foods. Following the organic rules is expensive, and there are third-party auditors making sure that you follow those rules, he adds. There are no such outside auditors in the Whole Foods system.

But what really irks Peterson is that these colorful new “Responsibly Grown” labels overshadow the organic label. He thinks they devalue it.

Tom Willey, another long-time organic grower in California, has been urging his fellow farmers to take a stand against the ratings. It feels risky to criticize a big customer like Whole Foods, he says, but they have to speak up, “because we think that this program is kind of the tip of an iceberg that represents an existential threat to the value of certified organic,” to which many organic farmers have dedicated three or four decades of their working lives.

Peterson and Willey say they are trying to persuade Whole Foods to revise the scoring system to give more weight to organic certification, and also to reduce the financial burdens it imposes on small farmers. According to Peterson, the fees, paperwork and product tracking equipment required by the Whole Foods program cost farmers thousands of dollars.

Mark Kastel, an organic advocate and founder of the Cornucopia Institute, says there’s a clear profit-driven motive behind this new label. “They’re trying to create an entire new vernacular for their customers to recognize a value-added product,” he says.

And it’s especially helpful to create that aura of specialness around conventional produce, because conventional veggies are easier and cheaper to grow. This label lets them compete better with organic. “Why would you pay more for a certified organic product, when you can get the ‘Best’ for a couple of dollars a pound cheaper?” he says.

Rogers, for his part, insists that Whole Foods is not backing away from its support for organic farming. He says the new ratings are simply a way to talk to farmers and customers about things that the organic rules just don’t touch, “such as water conservation, energy use in agriculture, farm worker welfare, waste management.”

There are farmers who are doing a great job with that, he says, and they aren’t all organic. “There are conventional growers that we work with who are incredible stewards of the land, who do a tremendous job with their workforce, who deserve to be recognized,” Rogers says.

In fact, organic farmers like Willey and Peterson agree that there are many aspects of responsible farming that the organic standards don’t cover. Their dispute with Whole Foods is over whether the new ratings actually measure all those things very well, and also whether they could ever outweigh what organic certification represents.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. No copyright claim is made for portions of this blog and linked items that are works of the United States Government, state governments or third parties.


Organic Farmers Call Foul On Whole Foods’ Produce Rating System

Nobody really likes to be graded. Especially when you don’t get an A.

Some organic farmers are protesting a new grading system for produce and flowers that’s coming into force at Whole Foods. They say it devalues the organic label and could become an “existential threat.”

The rating system is called “Responsibly Grown.” And the company developed it as a way to give customers more information about how their food is grown, says Matt Rogers, a global produce coordinator for Whole Foods.

“We’re really proud of the food we sell, and we know a lot about it, in general, and we want to share that with customers,” he says.

The labels on produce at Whole Foods always told shoppers what country or state supplied those vegetables, as well as whether it was grown organically.

The new rating system takes into account much more.

Whole Foods is asking its suppliers to pay a fee to get into the program, then answer a long questionnaire. There are questions about how they protect the soil and wildlife on their farms, whether they limit their use of pesticides, how they conserve energy and irrigation water and how they treat their workers.
Writer Arlo Crawford (left) with his father, Jim Crawford, an elder statesman of the organic farming movement who dropped out of law school in 1972 to grow vegetables.
The Salt
From Organic Pioneers, Son Inherits Passion, Just Not For Farming
A woman shops in the produce section at Whole Foods in New York City. The company recently announced it would prohibit produce farmed using biosolids in its stores.
The Salt
Whole Foods Bans Produce Grown With Sludge. But Who Wins?

Based on those answers, a farm’s produce gets a grade: Unrated, Good, Better or Best. Those grades show up right beside each bin of produce on brightly colored stickers with the words: “Responsibly Grown.”

Rogers says that more than 50 percent of the farms that have gone through this process so far have been rated “Good.” “We have few examples of ‘Best’ ratings at this point,” he says.

But here’s what is making organic farmers angry. At a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., I found nonorganic onions and tomatoes, presumably grown with standard fertilizers and pesticides, that were labeled “Best.” A few feet away, I found organic onions and tomatoes that were graded merely “Good” or just “Unrated.”

For Vernon Peterson, who grows and packs organic fruit in Kingsburg, Calif., this is dumbfounding.

“Organic is responsibly grown, for goodness sake,” he says. “Organic should be the foundation of anything that Whole Foods might do.”
Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.

Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson says that organic certification is harder to get and means more than the new ratings from Whole Foods. Following the organic rules is expensive, and there are third-party auditors making sure that you follow those rules, he adds. There are no such outside auditors in the Whole Foods system.

But what really irks Peterson is that these colorful new “Responsibly Grown” labels overshadow the organic label. He thinks they devalue it.

Tom Willey, another long-time organic grower in California, has been urging his fellow farmers to take a stand against the ratings. It feels risky to criticize a big customer like Whole Foods, he says, but they have to speak up, “because we think that this program is kind of the tip of an iceberg that represents an existential threat to the value of certified organic,” to which many organic farmers have dedicated three or four decades of their working lives.

Peterson and Willey say they are trying to persuade Whole Foods to revise the scoring system to give more weight to organic certification, and also to reduce the financial burdens it imposes on small farmers. According to Peterson, the fees, paperwork and product tracking equipment required by the Whole Foods program cost farmers thousands of dollars.

Mark Kastel, an organic advocate and founder of the Cornucopia Institute, says there’s a clear profit-driven motive behind this new label. “They’re trying to create an entire new vernacular for their customers to recognize a value-added product,” he says.

And it’s especially helpful to create that aura of specialness around conventional produce, because conventional veggies are easier and cheaper to grow. This label lets them compete better with organic. “Why would you pay more for a certified organic product, when you can get the ‘Best’ for a couple of dollars a pound cheaper?” he says.

Rogers, for his part, insists that Whole Foods is not backing away from its support for organic farming. He says the new ratings are simply a way to talk to farmers and customers about things that the organic rules just don’t touch, “such as water conservation, energy use in agriculture, farm worker welfare, waste management.”

There are farmers who are doing a great job with that, he says, and they aren’t all organic. “There are conventional growers that we work with who are incredible stewards of the land, who do a tremendous job with their workforce, who deserve to be recognized,” Rogers says.

In fact, organic farmers like Willey and Peterson agree that there are many aspects of responsible farming that the organic standards don’t cover. Their dispute with Whole Foods is over whether the new ratings actually measure all those things very well, and also whether they could ever outweigh what organic certification represents.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. No copyright claim is made for portions of this blog and linked items that are works of the United States Government, state governments or third parties.


Organic Farmers Call Foul On Whole Foods’ Produce Rating System

Nobody really likes to be graded. Especially when you don’t get an A.

Some organic farmers are protesting a new grading system for produce and flowers that’s coming into force at Whole Foods. They say it devalues the organic label and could become an “existential threat.”

The rating system is called “Responsibly Grown.” And the company developed it as a way to give customers more information about how their food is grown, says Matt Rogers, a global produce coordinator for Whole Foods.

“We’re really proud of the food we sell, and we know a lot about it, in general, and we want to share that with customers,” he says.

The labels on produce at Whole Foods always told shoppers what country or state supplied those vegetables, as well as whether it was grown organically.

The new rating system takes into account much more.

Whole Foods is asking its suppliers to pay a fee to get into the program, then answer a long questionnaire. There are questions about how they protect the soil and wildlife on their farms, whether they limit their use of pesticides, how they conserve energy and irrigation water and how they treat their workers.
Writer Arlo Crawford (left) with his father, Jim Crawford, an elder statesman of the organic farming movement who dropped out of law school in 1972 to grow vegetables.
The Salt
From Organic Pioneers, Son Inherits Passion, Just Not For Farming
A woman shops in the produce section at Whole Foods in New York City. The company recently announced it would prohibit produce farmed using biosolids in its stores.
The Salt
Whole Foods Bans Produce Grown With Sludge. But Who Wins?

Based on those answers, a farm’s produce gets a grade: Unrated, Good, Better or Best. Those grades show up right beside each bin of produce on brightly colored stickers with the words: “Responsibly Grown.”

Rogers says that more than 50 percent of the farms that have gone through this process so far have been rated “Good.” “We have few examples of ‘Best’ ratings at this point,” he says.

But here’s what is making organic farmers angry. At a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., I found nonorganic onions and tomatoes, presumably grown with standard fertilizers and pesticides, that were labeled “Best.” A few feet away, I found organic onions and tomatoes that were graded merely “Good” or just “Unrated.”

For Vernon Peterson, who grows and packs organic fruit in Kingsburg, Calif., this is dumbfounding.

“Organic is responsibly grown, for goodness sake,” he says. “Organic should be the foundation of anything that Whole Foods might do.”
Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.

Whole Foods says its new rating system is a way to talk to farmers and customers about issues that the organic rules don’t encompass, like water, energy, labor and waste.
Dan Charles/NPR

Peterson says that organic certification is harder to get and means more than the new ratings from Whole Foods. Following the organic rules is expensive, and there are third-party auditors making sure that you follow those rules, he adds. There are no such outside auditors in the Whole Foods system.

But what really irks Peterson is that these colorful new “Responsibly Grown” labels overshadow the organic label. He thinks they devalue it.

Tom Willey, another long-time organic grower in California, has been urging his fellow farmers to take a stand against the ratings. It feels risky to criticize a big customer like Whole Foods, he says, but they have to speak up, “because we think that this program is kind of the tip of an iceberg that represents an existential threat to the value of certified organic,” to which many organic farmers have dedicated three or four decades of their working lives.

Peterson and Willey say they are trying to persuade Whole Foods to revise the scoring system to give more weight to organic certification, and also to reduce the financial burdens it imposes on small farmers. According to Peterson, the fees, paperwork and product tracking equipment required by the Whole Foods program cost farmers thousands of dollars.

Mark Kastel, an organic advocate and founder of the Cornucopia Institute, says there’s a clear profit-driven motive behind this new label. “They’re trying to create an entire new vernacular for their customers to recognize a value-added product,” he says.

And it’s especially helpful to create that aura of specialness around conventional produce, because conventional veggies are easier and cheaper to grow. This label lets them compete better with organic. “Why would you pay more for a certified organic product, when you can get the ‘Best’ for a couple of dollars a pound cheaper?” he says.

Rogers, for his part, insists that Whole Foods is not backing away from its support for organic farming. He says the new ratings are simply a way to talk to farmers and customers about things that the organic rules just don’t touch, “such as water conservation, energy use in agriculture, farm worker welfare, waste management.”

There are farmers who are doing a great job with that, he says, and they aren’t all organic. “There are conventional growers that we work with who are incredible stewards of the land, who do a tremendous job with their workforce, who deserve to be recognized,” Rogers says.

In fact, organic farmers like Willey and Peterson agree that there are many aspects of responsible farming that the organic standards don’t cover. Their dispute with Whole Foods is over whether the new ratings actually measure all those things very well, and also whether they could ever outweigh what organic certification represents.

© 2015 US Food Safety Corporation. No copyright claim is made for portions of this blog and linked items that are works of the United States Government, state governments or third parties.


Se videoen: Arbor Trails. Store Opening. Whole Foods Market (Juli 2022).


Kommentarer:

  1. Niichaad

    Jeg tror, du havde forkert. Jeg er sikker. Lad os prøve at diskutere dette. Skriv til mig i PM.

  2. Berwyk

    Sikkert ikke

  3. Shakajora

    Faktisk tænkte jeg det, det var det, alle taler om. Hmm det skulle være sådan

  4. Kassi

    din mening vil være nyttig

  5. Fenos

    JA, varianten er god

  6. Deorward

    Det er forbløffende, hvordan du med en temmelig rolig stil med hensyn til blogdesign var i stand til at sammensætte alt så kompetent. Her er teksten og indholdsfortegnelsen og links og navigation cool. Jeg er begyndt at lave design to gange, men jeg har aldrig været i stand til at komme med en idé. Hvis du nogensinde beslutter at udføre velgørenhedsarbejde og sætte din skabelon i gratis adgang, vil jeg være den første til at downloade den, kun tags er ikke moderigtige endnu. så Schaz spinde allerede. Vi ses i blogosfæren



Skriv en besked