The question posed by this article's subhead is an interesting one, but one which the article itself irritatingly makes no effort to answer. As admitted by the author, the study is so skewed in its demographics and geography that it tells us nothing except that elite metropolitans will try to lessen the guilt of conspicuous consumption through, well, more conspicuous consumption. As a once and future Midwesterner, I don't need researchers scurrying around stock rooms to tell you that these results won't be duplicated at a K-mart in Omaha...at least not yet. But the organic movement is beginning to take root in the heartland - another trend that eases the consciences of consumers by virtue of a loose, ambiguous label - so it's probably just a matter of time till even the salt-of-the-earth types succumb to idealism through capitalism. (The revolution, it appears, won't be televised; in typical American fashion, it will be charged to your Visa at Pottery Barn.)

Even while the organic movement gains a toehold in mid-western Wal-Marts, I wouldn't count on it being truly idealistic. What's more likely to happen is a dilution of the concept of "organic" as retailers find a way to capitalize on the ability to charge a premium for "socially conscious" goods while maintain the bottom line.

There's an old saying about the early Philadelphia Quakers that they set out to do good and ended up doing quite well. The Quakers conducted business in accordance with their beliefs, and ended up being quite successful. Among their innovations was the single price system. The Quakers thought it was unethical to sell the same product to different people at a different price. Consumers liked the idea (it made it less likely that they were being ripped off due to poor negotiating skills), and it cought on.

Fast forward a few years and a new company has decided to sell oats packaged. Up until this point, oats were sold in open barrels where consumers could inspect the product prior to purchase. The new company need a way to convince consumers that the product didn't need to be inspected. So, they plaster the worlds first marketing mascot on the package, a smiling Quaker, and the Quaker Oats Company was born. The company had no ties to the Quakers, they just needed a label to convince consumers to buy the product. The company capitalized on the goodwill toward Quakers to increase sales

The same thing is happening now, with the dilution of the "organic" label and the fact that very few standards exist to guide its use. Companies will co-opt "socially-conscious" labeling in an effort to charge a premium for goods. Without clear standards for what constitutes "organic" or "fair trade", there's really no reason to pay the premium, unless you're only looking to purchase the slight feeling of self superiority that expending extra money on "socially-conscious" goods provides without actually changing anything.