Framework for Re-thinking Ethics in the Organic Movement - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 255

This suggests that the future of organic is highly dependent on shared values
between farmers and consumers (see Hatanaka, Chap. 3 ) . However, when organic
and conventional farms are in close proximity, social ties between farmers may often
trump differences in practices (see Hunt et al., Chap. 10 ) .

13.1.2.1 Nature/Philo

There appears to be a renaissance in this type of farmer (see Getter et al., Chap. 7 ) .
For these, mostly small farmers, the integration of nature with religion, spirituality
or community is central. Earnings from the farm are, of course, important, but they
often are of secondary concern. These farmers commonly comprise counter-culture
opposed to “industrialized” (or conventionalized) organic farming and marketing
(Reed 2002 ; Tovey 2002 ; Allen et al. 2003 ).
These farmers orient their activities around a broad set of values that are
often in line with the four IFOAM Principles (see Chap. 1 ) . But this does not
mean that they know about these principles. Moreover, this group generally finds
that “conventional” organic policy and practices contradict their core values.
Consequently, many practice organic, but forego official certification (governmental
recognition), available government subsidies and the use of the official organic label.
These organic farmers tend to criticize the weakness of values in official standards
and find many “organic” practices (i.e., the substitution of organic for synthetic
mineral fertilizer) in conflict with the IFOAM Principles and with their personal
environmental, economic and social values. Moreover, they also tend to be critical
of the current economic model that undermines fairness and justice in society. In
response, they engage and practice a new (organic) lifestyle that includes many
ecological and social oriented activities.
Many of these farmers also engage in what is called “organicPlus”, or activities
that go beyond the regulations and that specifically address the IFOAM Principles
(Padel and Gössinger 2008 ; Gössinger and Freyer 2009a ; Zander et al. 2010 ).
These commonly include adherence to strict animal welfare standards, involvement
with school groups or the integration of disabled individuals into production
and marketing activities (Neuberger et al. 2006 ). Many practice on-farm “nature
protection” that contributes to the conservation of traditional and local crop species
and that exceeds most written guidelines or that is eligible for subsidies (Padel and
Gössinger 2008 ). More concretely, these farmers seek to preserve the ideas of the
organic pioneers. They represent the ideal image of farming practices from a former
time and thus often serve as reference group for promoting organic.
A second relevant group of the Nature/Philo type includes those who adopt a
holistic approach to their search for new farm style patterns outside the mainstream
economy, and experiment with new lifestyles beyond agricultural activities. This
group commonly includes younger people who might not have a farming back-
ground, but tend to be knowledgeable about farming issue. Some are involved in
loose or formalized collaborative activities such as eco-villages (Grundmann and
Kunze 2012 ). They often create communities in which organic values are a logical