The consumer, they say, is always right.
That adage is supposed to be at the heart of business, even when consumers are clearly wrong in what they think and believe. The view of consumers may well only be perception, but then another adage comes into play, the one about perception being reality for most.
In terms of food, consumers have a growing number of perceptions in general regarding the safety of food, and specifically about whether genetically modified foods are safe, or whether any chemicals should ever be used by farmers.
While my contention is that farmers would simply be unable to produce the food needed to feed a growing population without fertilizers and the use of chemicals to combat weeds, insects, fungus and disease.
The developments possible with GM technology will also be important is a world with a growing population and a finite amount of farm land.
But back to consumers.
In North America, Western Europe and other developed countries food remains more than affordable.
And with food still being generally low cost and many in society having more than enough money those food costs are not a major consideration, there is room for perceptions to begin to influence food choices.
It is one thing when just affording food on the table three times a day, and quite another where the money to buy food is not an issue.
Similarly, consumers can be more specific in what they want to purchase when stores shelves are full, like they are here.
But there is an industry question regarding just how many choices consumers should be able to find at the store.
At a recent Dairy Farmers of Manitoba meeting it was a matter of discussion whether there was a potential market for non-GMO milk and related products.
The non-GM milk would come from cattle fed a ration of non-GM grain and oilseeds, and of course would be processed separately and marketed for its specific nature.
The niche market was seen as on marketing option given Canada’s free trade deals with Europe and the Trans-Pacific Partnership will soon give many countries access to Canadian dairy consumers.
The segregation of non-GMO milk is not so different from organic products already in the shelves.
And in general milk products already offer a lot of options for consumers; whole milk, one and two per cent, buttermilk, lactose-free, and non-dairy alternatives such as hemp, soy, almond and coconut.
But how far should it go?
For example, should food have country of origin labels?
Canadian beef producers in particular have fought that idea south of the border for years now, deeming it unfair.
Yet, it is understandable too that a consumer in Humboldt, SK might prefer to buy milk from a producer in this country rather than from a farm in a foreign country.
Of course determining what constitute country of origin, and policing such labelling would seem onerous, if not impossible.
And therein lies the core issue, balancing consumer demands, which can be fleeting whims as well, with what is reasonable information and choice on the store shelves.
Calvin Daniels is Assistant Editor Yorkton This Week.
