In a world where we have become increasingly distanced from our food, we rely heavily on labels and certification marks to tell us something about the product we are buying — where it comes from, how it has been produced and, importantly, whether it meets particular standards.
For the most part, these labels and assurance schemes serve an important purpose. But with consumers often having little or no direct connection with the farms producing their food, it can be difficult to know exactly what lies behind the label. Even the use of farm names and rural imagery on food packaging can sometimes give consumers an impression of provenance that isn’t necessarily as straightforward as it appears.
Alongside brand names and product labels, we have a number of well-established farming and food assurance schemes, including Red Tractor, Soil Association organic certification and Pasture for Life. Each has its own standards and requirements, providing assurance about particular aspects of how food is produced.
I am a strong believer in clearly defined standards and certification marks where they provide meaningful assurance to consumers. Standards give farmers a framework to work to and give consumers something tangible on which to base their purchasing decisions.
Take organic food, for example. Organic certification is underpinned by defined standards and legislation governing organic production. Similarly, the term “free range” for eggs is governed by egg marketing standards and animal welfare legislation. The code stamped on an eggshell also provides information about the production system — a code beginning with 1 indicates free-range production.
Farmers producing food under recognised assurance or certification schemes have to meet the relevant published standards. Of course, farms can differ enormously in their size, scale, location and day-to-day husbandry, but certification provides consumers with a recognised level of assurance about the particular standards being claimed.
But what about the farmer who isn’t part of a scheme?
There are many smaller farms for whom joining a formal assurance or certification scheme may not be practical or worthwhile. There can be subscription costs, administration, inspections and other requirements involved, A farmer may follow many of the same principles associated with organic production for example, but not be certified organic. Another may feed cattle or sheep entirely on grass but not belong to a certification scheme that allows them to make a formal “100% grass-fed” claim.
The important distinction is that without the appropriate certification, they cannot necessarily make the same certified claim— even though their farming practices may be worthy of recognition in their own right.
And I believe all farmers deserve recognition for the way they produce great tasting healthy food.
The power of labels and certification has grown at the same time as the relationship between farmers and consumers has weakened. We have created an increasingly sophisticated system for communicating information about food, yet many consumers have never met the farmer who produced it.
This can create an invisible line between farmers who can tick a particular certification box and those who cannot.
I am not suggesting that farm assurance schemes, certification or clearly defined standards should be abolished. Far from it. They have an important role to play in giving consumers confidence and providing recognised standards for farmers and food businesses to work towards.
But I do wonder whether, if we were all able to visit the farms where our food was produced, meet the farmers and see for ourselves how they farm, we might need to rely quite so heavily on labels to tell us who and what we are buying from.
That is one of the reasons I set up Produce & Provide.
I believe every farmer should have the opportunity to gain recognition for the way they farm — whether or not they belong to a formal assurance scheme.
By helping people find farms near them where they can visit, ask questions and buy food directly from the farmer, we can begin to rebuild that missing relationship between farmers and consumers.
It gives consumers the opportunity to make more informed choices about how their food is produced and support the kind of farms they want to support.
And it gives farmers something that can be just as valuable as a label:
an identity, a story and a direct relationship with the people who eat their food.
Perhaps the best assurance of all is knowing the farmer who produced it.
Find your farmers on our website at here
Author: Neil Darwent
A small family farm selling beef and lamb
Really interesting piece, thank you. I think it’s important to remember that not being part of a certification scheme does not necessarily mean farming to lower standards.
Of course, certification schemes absolutely have a place – they give consumers something tangible and farmers clear standards to work towards. But they can’t tell the whole story of every farm, particularly when the cost, admin and practicalities of joining a scheme can be very different for different types and scales of businesses, and sometimes outweigh the benefits.
There’s something so much more valuable about being able to meet the farmer, ask questions and understand how and why they farm the way they do. We love chatting to our customers, and are happy to explain things that they have heard about but don’t necessarily understand the ramifications of such as Red Tractor. A label can tell you something about a product, but a relationship can tell you so much more about the people and decisions behind it.
We have such a disconnect between farmers and consumers now, Produce and Provide is definitely helping to rebuild that connection between the people producing our food and the people eating it. And we need to ensure that the disconnect doesn’t grow wider.