‘Regularly’ grown plants? There is nothing normal about that
Make it clear in language how harmful intensive ornamental horticulture is, writes Karin Bodewits.
This is an unofficial translation by Philipp Gramlich. The original article was published in Trouw, April 13th 2025.
Language matters
Language matters. Certainly, in policy and consumer behavior. One term is consistently used in the public debate about ornamental horticulture and in garden centers. We talk about regular growers, regular shops, and regular supply. That implies: this is how it should be.
Because people like to belong to the masses, they automatically choose what is presented as normal. That makes that one term powerful – and therefore also particularly dangerous. Because in the context of intensive ornamental horticulture, that designation has long since ceased to be neutral or factual. It is seriously misleading.
Just like in the meat industry
What we call ‘regular’ refers to an intensive, chemically supported cultivation method: synthetic fertilizers, poison, heated greenhouses, peat use, year-round production, and worldwide distribution. This system is responsible for significant environmental pressures: from CO₂ emissions to biodiversity loss and the large-scale destruction of peatlands for peat extraction.
As long as we continue to call this catastrophic system ‘regular,’ it will remain the norm. In policy, in communication, and consumer behavior. And the genuinely sustainable alternatives? They are dismissed as ‘alternative’, ‘organic’, ‘ecological’ or worse: ‘expensive’.
Elsewhere, we have long recognized the power of terminology. For example, the meat industry has undergone language shifts: ‘flop chicken (plofkip)’, ‘kilo-banger,’ and even ‘ultra-processed food’ have penetrated policy and consumer language.
Policy starts with language
This shift has influenced consumer choices and supermarket policy. In the tobacco sector, we speak of ‘smoke-free generation’ and ‘addictive products’ – no longer of ‘stimulants’. In mobility policy, we call air pollution a ‘silent killer,’ in energy, we speak of ‘fossil subsidies’ instead of ‘tax benefits for companies’.
It is time that we also use different terminology in horticulture. The government is investing billions in the sustainability of agriculture and the circular economy. Climate round tables are organized, Green Deals are concluded, and subsidies are made available for greenhouses without emissions. However, as long as the terminology in reports and consumer communication confirms the old standard, sustainable alternatives will remain a niche instead of the new standard.
It is time to talk no longer about ‘regular’ production but the actual cultivation method. Only in this way can we give consumers the choice that does justice to reality – and accelerate the transition in the right direction.
Policy starts with language. Let us ensure that what we call normal is also really responsible.
