A few weeks ago I read a recent magazine article, “White Dress, Green Heart” by Leah McLaren. In her article she mentioned: “It’s NOT EASY being green,”  which she realized from her wedding dream. Her grandmother initially refused her  “Evite”—which was sent rather than a large creamy card with embossed writing delivered by the “postman.” Ms. McLaren wrote of her dream: “The oysters are from away, but the produce is local. The guests are from out of town, but the flowers are from nearby. Dancing will be on a barge, floating in the middle of the way, rather than on a platform that might damage the Earth. And while my dress is white, on the inside, my heart is green.”

The rise in consumers’ ecological consciousness in recent years has increased their willingness to pay for green products, according to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Report in 2002. The study indicated that 27% of consumers in OECD countries can be labeled “green consumers” due to their strong willingness-to-pay and strong environmental activism. In its 2005 paper on the effects of eco-labeling schemes, OECD compiled several studies revealing greater consumer willingness to pay for eco-labeled products. The 2008 Eurobarometer showed that 75% of Europeans are  “ready to buy environmentally friendly products even if they cost a little bit more.”

Environmental Sustainability & Ecological Citizenship

There has been growing interest in the resurgence of “alternative agro-food networks,” and locally-sourced, organically-produced foods, which have also been suggested as a model of sustainable consumption for a range of economic, social and environmental reasons.

Organic production refers to agriculture that does not use artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and rears animals in more natural conditions without the routine use of drugs and antibiotics. The rationale for organic food is that it is a production method more in harmony with the environment and local ecosystems.
 
“By working with nature rather than against it, and replenishing the soil with organic material, rather than denuding it and relying upon artificial fertilizers, proponents claim that soil quality and hence food quality will be improved, biodiversity will be enhanced and farmers can produce crops that have not resulted in large-scale industrial chemical inputs, with attendant pollution of waterways and land degradation,” Gill Seyfang noted in Journal of Rural Studies in 2006. Today, the most commonly cited reasons for consuming organic food are: food safety, the environment, animal welfare and taste.
 
Ecological citizenship is another hot topic for consumers using a sustainable consumption strategy, proposed by the UK government as “do their bit” by buying “green” or “ethical” goods. But this mainstream approach, along with the “food miles” theory, has serious limitations, which are mostly political.  “Ecological Citizenship is non-territorial and non-contractual and is concerned with responsibilities and the implications of our actions on the environment and on other, distant people,” which is supported by another similar model, called “Planetary Citizenship,” Mr. Seyfang said. “Planetary Citizenship is about identifying with the Earth as a whole and the whole of humanity, about working towards a collaborative instead of a competitive world, with a re-shaped economy driven by social and environmental need rather than financial pressures.”

Why Green Foods?

Public concern over environmental quality and food safety has culminated in the development of markets for “green” foods—foods that are variously construed as fresh, chemical-free, nutritious, natural or produced in an environmentally-sustainable manner. Understanding the emergence of “green” foods is dependent on analysis of both the ways in which foods are produced and processed, and of the meanings that are attached to them at each stage of their production, transformation and consumption.
 
From a life cycle perspective, “green” foods require less energy to be produced and result in less carbon dioxide emissions. From an energy requirement and CO2 emissions perspective, a “green” diet largely consists of food from lower down the food chain (vegetables)—and to a lesser extent, food from higher up the food chain (dairy products, fish, meat). The reason why food from higher up the food chain requires more energy to be produced is basically that the production of meat, for example, first requires the production of plants that are fed to the animal.

Two Swedish Environmental Agency reports, “To Eat For a Better Environment” and “To Shop for the Future,” clearly reflect the message given to consumers: there are green types of consumption and consumers should choose them.

Spartina Green Food: A Unique Model

Dr. Chung-Hsin Chung introduced Spartina anglica in 1963 and S. alternflora in 1980 to the People’s Republic of China. Spartina ecological engineering tests began in 1987, and since then improved techniques have developed several green food products such as biomineral liquid (BML) and total flavonoids of Spartina (TFS), with the remainder coming from the grass residue in the procedure. These three materials can be used to develop various other foods: a series of biomineral products from BML, health foods or drugs from TFS and mushrooms and fodder from the grass residue.
 
This system uses energy resources of the sun, wind and tide. It is also very economical and safe because its major nutrients and organic matter are provided by the sea and river, and its waste material (the grass residue) can be digested by microorganisms and transformed into products for humans and animals. These green foods with high health functions decrease the energy loss from the dead grass of Spartina and develop the potential energy from the effective components of the grass.

Green Food & Associated Science

Green foods (Super green) are generally derived from young cereal grasses such as wheat, barley, rye, oats and alfalfa, as well as spirulina, chlorella, kelp, dulse and other sea vegetables. Sometimes these grasses are marketed as the most nutrient-dense foods on earth, since they are richer in nutrients than spinach, broccoli, eggs and chicken in virtually all nutrient categories, including protein, calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, zinc, copper, manganese, vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folic acid, vitamin B12, carotenoids and vitamin E. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by strong science.

Many natural health products currently marketed globally as “green foods” claim to increase health, energy, vitality, immunity and well-being. Increasingly, patients (consumers) are asking healthcare practitioners about the validity of these claims. In many cases, no convincing research studies have been conducted on these products.
 
Very recently, “green” chicory, citrus and cauliflower pectins have been successfully developed and used as gelling or emulsifying agents using high-tech methodology. This technology therefore enhances the value of “green” extraction of pectins, since such extraction leads to products with good functional properties that can be used directly for food and non-food purposes. Another natural product, Greens +, a blend of 22 ingredients, including spirulina and chorella, is marketed as an energy-enhancing product. One randomized, double-blind clinical trial demonstrated its positive health benefits, but has not conclusively positioned its vitality and energy-enhancing effects. Israel-based Frutarom has developed a new ingredient to support mental health, Neuravena Wild Green Oat.

Challenges

The low marketization of green food resources is becoming the bottleneck to restrict the benign development of the green food industry. With huge market demands, this urgent problem needs to be addressed in an effort to transfer resource superiority into market superiority, particularly in developing countries. Strategy, a suitable economic environment and allocation of technological resources need to be established. Other urgent areas need to be prioritized, such as sustainable agricultural production, development of high-tech processing enterprises and the formation of market leads along leading enterprises comprising farmers and marketers.
 
Commentary

What are the main determinants of the demand for green products? The answer to this question is particularly important since we want to change our modes of consumption and production in order to impose less pressure on our natural environment. Recent developments in behavioral economics and microeconomics emphasize the theoretical determinants of green product consumption: intrinsic motivation due to altruism, social norms, the desire for environmental public good, education and economic constraints. (Green products have a relatively higher price compared to brown products.)

One serious concern to arise lately is the involvement of corporate capital through certification logos and advertising to signify the “healthiness” and environmental virtues of organically-produced foods globally, particularly in Australia and New Zealand. These attempts have not been universally successful, either in terms of gaining consumer interest or in gaining agreements between farmers, certifying organizations and capitalist firms over the meaning of  “green,” “organic” and the practice of  “sustainable” agriculture.
 
The experience of corporate involvement in the green and organics industry is still a big question in the process of modernization. As food production and transformation continue to produce environmental and social risks, the question of just what makes food “green” will continue to be a source of social conflict.

About the author: Dilip Ghosh, PhD, FACN, is director of Australia based nutriConnect, a scientific and regulatory consultancy for developers of dietary supplements, functional foods and nutraceuticals. He can be reached at: [email protected]; Website: www.nutriconnect.com.au.