Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - September 2026 issue.
There has been considerable discussion in recent years about organic and natural farming. Farmers are being encouraged to reduce their dependence on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, adopt alternative cultivation practices and, in some cases, go through the process of obtaining organic certification. There are sound environmental and agricultural reasons for many of these efforts. But there is another question that perhaps deserves much greater attention: when a farmer goes to all this trouble, does the market recognise the difference and give him a better price?
There is certainly a growing market for organic produce in India. In our larger cities, speciality stores have appeared, supermarkets have separate organic shelves and there is a section of consumers who consciously look for such products and are prepared to pay a premium. India also has an established regulatory system for organic food. FSSAI recognises certification under the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) and the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS-India), while the Jaivik Bharat logo was created to help consumers distinguish certified organic products from conventional ones.
But there is a more fundamental question. Does the ordinary consumer actually understand what “organic” means?
Evidence from overseas suggests that this cannot be taken for granted. A recent study of more than 2,500 American consumers found an interesting contradiction. Consumers recognised and trusted the USDA Organic label, but frequently placed greater importance on simpler claims telling them that a product was free from a particular input or practice. Many apparently did not realise that organic certification already covered several of the individual attributes they were seeking. Earlier research in the United States and Canada has similarly found consumers confusing “organic” with “local” and attributing qualities to organic food that certification does not necessarily promise.
These are overseas studies and we should be careful about assuming that Indian consumers behave in exactly the same way. But they raise a question that is surely worth asking here. If consumers in countries where organic food has been marketed for decades still do not always understand what the term guarantees, how confident are we that the average Indian vegetable buyer understands it?
The problem may partly lie with the word itself. “Organic” has a precise meaning within agricultural production and certification systems. But certification terminology is not necessarily consumer language. To someone standing before two baskets of tomatoes, what does the word actually communicate? Does it mean that no pesticide was sprayed? That no chemical fertiliser was used? That the tomato is safer? Healthier? Naturally grown? Locally grown? Or simply more expensive?
This matters because a certification mark has economic value only when the person buying the product understands why the certified product is different. If the consumer does not recognise that distinction, there is little reason to choose one basket of tomatoes over another, particularly when one costs considerably more. And if consumers are unwilling to pay a premium, there is little possibility of that premium travelling backwards through the supply chain and reaching the farmer.
Perhaps, therefore, we need to communicate the difference in much simpler language. Instead of expecting consumers to understand everything contained within the word “organic”, why not tell them prominently what they probably want to know?
“Grown Without Synthetic Pesticides.”
That immediately communicates something.
So does “No Synthetic Chemical Fertilisers Used.”
The detailed organic certification can remain on the product. The Jaivik Bharat or other recognised certification mark can remain. But alongside it could be a simple statement explaining in everyday language what the certification means for the food the consumer is about to buy.
There is an important technical qualification here. Organic farming does not necessarily mean that absolutely no pesticide of any kind has been used. Organic production systems may permit certain biological or naturally derived crop-protection substances. It would therefore be scientifically incorrect simply to replace every organic label with the words “pesticide-free”. Any such claim would need a precise definition and proper verification. But this is an argument for getting the language right, not for continuing to rely exclusively on terminology that consumers may not fully understand.
Interestingly, the food industry already knows this. Packaged products routinely carry simple statements such as “No Added Sugar”, “High Protein” or “Gluten Free”. Behind these few words may lie detailed regulations, standards and testing requirements, but what is presented prominently to the buyer is the information most likely to influence the purchasing decision.
Why should agricultural produce be different?
There is another reason this matters. We frequently tell farmers what they should do: use fewer chemicals, improve soil health, adopt biological pest control, move towards organic or natural farming. But farming is an economic activity. If a farmer adopts more demanding cultivation practices, accepts additional production risk and perhaps spends money obtaining certification, only to take the crop to a market where it is mixed with conventionally grown produce and sold at the same price, why should we expect large numbers of farmers to make the transition?
And even where organic produce commands a substantial premium at retail, we should ask how much of that premium actually reaches the farmer. A packet of certified organic vegetables selling for considerably more in an urban supermarket does not automatically mean that the farmer received a comparable premium at the farm gate. If organic agriculture is also intended to improve agricultural livelihoods, this is something we should be measuring.
Perhaps the first research required is surprisingly simple. Take a representative sample of Indian consumers across metropolitan cities, smaller cities and towns and ask them what they understand by the word “organic”. Show them the existing certification marks and ask what they think those marks guarantee. Then show them straightforward descriptions such as “Grown Without Synthetic Pesticides” and examine whether their understanding — and willingness to buy — changes.
The results could be illuminating. We may discover that Indian consumers understand organic certification much better than we imagine. Or we may find that awareness is concentrated among a relatively small urban segment and that simpler descriptions communicate much more effectively. Either result would help us design a better market.
For too long, much of the discussion around organic agriculture has begun with the farmer: how the farmer should cultivate, what inputs should be avoided, what practices should be followed and what certification should be obtained. Perhaps we need to spend more time at the other end of the chain and begin with the person buying the food.
The objective need not be to dismantle organic certification. Quite the opposite. India already has certification standards intended to establish credibility and protect consumers. The opportunity is to make the meaning behind that certification much easier to understand.
If a farmer has genuinely produced a crop without specified synthetic pesticides, let us find a scientifically credible way of telling the consumer exactly that. If a recognised organic standard prohibits particular chemical inputs, let us say so in language that does not require the consumer to understand the details of NPOP or PGS certification. And if consumers value those differences and are prepared to pay for them, let us ensure that a meaningful share of that additional value reaches the farmer.
The success of organic agriculture should not ultimately be measured only by hectares certified or certificates issued. The real breakthrough will come when a farmer can take produce grown differently to the market, the consumer immediately understands why it is different, chooses it for that reason and the farmer receives a better price because of that choice.
Perhaps the problem is not that consumers reject organic agriculture. Perhaps we have simply not told them clearly enough what they are buying.
Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - September 2026 issue.
There has been considerable discussion in recent years about organic and natural farming. Farmers are being encouraged to reduce their dependence on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, adopt alternative cultivation practices and, in some cases, go through the process of obtaining organic certification. There are sound environmental and agricultural reasons for many of these efforts. But there is another question that perhaps deserves much greater attention: when a farmer goes to all this trouble, does the market recognise the difference and give him a better price?
There is certainly a growing market for organic produce in India. In our larger cities, speciality stores have appeared, supermarkets have separate organic shelves and there is a section of consumers who consciously look for such products and are prepared to pay a premium. India also has an established regulatory system for organic food. FSSAI recognises certification under the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) and the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS-India), while the Jaivik Bharat logo was created to help consumers distinguish certified organic products from conventional ones.
But there is a more fundamental question. Does the ordinary consumer actually understand what “organic” means?
Evidence from overseas suggests that this cannot be taken for granted. A recent study of more than 2,500 American consumers found an interesting contradiction. Consumers recognised and trusted the USDA Organic label, but frequently placed greater importance on simpler claims telling them that a product was free from a particular input or practice. Many apparently did not realise that organic certification already covered several of the individual attributes they were seeking. Earlier research in the United States and Canada has similarly found consumers confusing “organic” with “local” and attributing qualities to organic food that certification does not necessarily promise.
These are overseas studies and we should be careful about assuming that Indian consumers behave in exactly the same way. But they raise a question that is surely worth asking here. If consumers in countries where organic food has been marketed for decades still do not always understand what the term guarantees, how confident are we that the average Indian vegetable buyer understands it?
The problem may partly lie with the word itself. “Organic” has a precise meaning within agricultural production and certification systems. But certification terminology is not necessarily consumer language. To someone standing before two baskets of tomatoes, what does the word actually communicate? Does it mean that no pesticide was sprayed? That no chemical fertiliser was used? That the tomato is safer? Healthier? Naturally grown? Locally grown? Or simply more expensive?
This matters because a certification mark has economic value only when the person buying the product understands why the certified product is different. If the consumer does not recognise that distinction, there is little reason to choose one basket of tomatoes over another, particularly when one costs considerably more. And if consumers are unwilling to pay a premium, there is little possibility of that premium travelling backwards through the supply chain and reaching the farmer.
Perhaps, therefore, we need to communicate the difference in much simpler language. Instead of expecting consumers to understand everything contained within the word “organic”, why not tell them prominently what they probably want to know?
“Grown Without Synthetic Pesticides.”
That immediately communicates something.
So does “No Synthetic Chemical Fertilisers Used.”
The detailed organic certification can remain on the product. The Jaivik Bharat or other recognised certification mark can remain. But alongside it could be a simple statement explaining in everyday language what the certification means for the food the consumer is about to buy.
There is an important technical qualification here. Organic farming does not necessarily mean that absolutely no pesticide of any kind has been used. Organic production systems may permit certain biological or naturally derived crop-protection substances. It would therefore be scientifically incorrect simply to replace every organic label with the words “pesticide-free”. Any such claim would need a precise definition and proper verification. But this is an argument for getting the language right, not for continuing to rely exclusively on terminology that consumers may not fully understand.
Interestingly, the food industry already knows this. Packaged products routinely carry simple statements such as “No Added Sugar”, “High Protein” or “Gluten Free”. Behind these few words may lie detailed regulations, standards and testing requirements, but what is presented prominently to the buyer is the information most likely to influence the purchasing decision.
Why should agricultural produce be different?
There is another reason this matters. We frequently tell farmers what they should do: use fewer chemicals, improve soil health, adopt biological pest control, move towards organic or natural farming. But farming is an economic activity. If a farmer adopts more demanding cultivation practices, accepts additional production risk and perhaps spends money obtaining certification, only to take the crop to a market where it is mixed with conventionally grown produce and sold at the same price, why should we expect large numbers of farmers to make the transition?
And even where organic produce commands a substantial premium at retail, we should ask how much of that premium actually reaches the farmer. A packet of certified organic vegetables selling for considerably more in an urban supermarket does not automatically mean that the farmer received a comparable premium at the farm gate. If organic agriculture is also intended to improve agricultural livelihoods, this is something we should be measuring.
Perhaps the first research required is surprisingly simple. Take a representative sample of Indian consumers across metropolitan cities, smaller cities and towns and ask them what they understand by the word “organic”. Show them the existing certification marks and ask what they think those marks guarantee. Then show them straightforward descriptions such as “Grown Without Synthetic Pesticides” and examine whether their understanding — and willingness to buy — changes.
The results could be illuminating. We may discover that Indian consumers understand organic certification much better than we imagine. Or we may find that awareness is concentrated among a relatively small urban segment and that simpler descriptions communicate much more effectively. Either result would help us design a better market.
For too long, much of the discussion around organic agriculture has begun with the farmer: how the farmer should cultivate, what inputs should be avoided, what practices should be followed and what certification should be obtained. Perhaps we need to spend more time at the other end of the chain and begin with the person buying the food.
The objective need not be to dismantle organic certification. Quite the opposite. India already has certification standards intended to establish credibility and protect consumers. The opportunity is to make the meaning behind that certification much easier to understand.
If a farmer has genuinely produced a crop without specified synthetic pesticides, let us find a scientifically credible way of telling the consumer exactly that. If a recognised organic standard prohibits particular chemical inputs, let us say so in language that does not require the consumer to understand the details of NPOP or PGS certification. And if consumers value those differences and are prepared to pay for them, let us ensure that a meaningful share of that additional value reaches the farmer.
The success of organic agriculture should not ultimately be measured only by hectares certified or certificates issued. The real breakthrough will come when a farmer can take produce grown differently to the market, the consumer immediately understands why it is different, chooses it for that reason and the farmer receives a better price because of that choice.
Perhaps the problem is not that consumers reject organic agriculture. Perhaps we have simply not told them clearly enough what they are buying.
Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - September 2026 issue.