Wednesday 5 August 2009

FSA Research Furore Shows Organic Movement Must Get Back to its Roots



The FSA’s pronouncement that organic food is no healthier than that farmed conventionally has generated acres of headlines, hundreds of comments, and thrown the organic world into disarray.

It’s interesting to reflect on why the reaction has been so vocal. After all, the FSA was very specific in its research. It stated that its remit was only to look at nutrient content of organic versus conventionally produced products, and it also stated that conclusions were drawn from 55 fully defensible, peer reviewed scientific studies. Its findings echo those of the pro-organic, scientifically based EU project QualityLowInputFood who at the conclusion of 5 years of research said - “Health claims for organic foods are not yet substantiated.”

So why the furore?

One of the problems with the rise and rise of the organic market is that its recent explosion has been due more to hype than substance, fuelled by uncritical affluence.

Any publication over the last few years about organic food implies that it is better for you. Celebrity chefs, food writers in the broadsheets, and bodies such as the Soil Association have all insisted that organic food is the only sensible thing to eat, but they have rarely backed this up with scientific facts. Indeed even after the FSA report was published, a writer in a middle class paper was saying that there are certain food purchases that should always be organic, but yet again gave no reason why, and a Sunday paper had a full page article headlined “We dig out the facts from the manure”, but still filled the page with opinionated claim and counterclaim rather than facts. So one reason for the uproar could be that food writers and chefs may well be feeling very silly about supporting something unfounded, and possibly worried about their credibility.

The Soil Association and other organic supporters will understandably be concerned that their carefully built market will collapse down round their ears, especially in the current difficult economic climate.

So how should the organic world respond?

Instead of rushing to damn the FSA’s findings, organic practitioners should be re-evaluating in a calm, fact based and non spun way, the reasons why people might consider buying organic food.

They are fortunate in that already there is a highly committed core of organic devotees. A look at the reams of comments which newspaper articles generated from the general public gives a good steer on what they value. These people suggest that the main reason for purchase is not what is in organic food but what isn’t. The vast majority say that the reason they buy organic is to avoid pesticides. A few said they just have a belief that the whole system with its focus on the soil onwards is the right way to farm, some feel it is better for the environment, and some feel it promotes higher standards of animal welfare. (Few mentioned taste, although in a health story this is perhaps not surprising).

The organic movement needs to slow down, concentrate on what is true and factually supported about this approach to farming, tell the public and allow them to make an educated choice. Any supporting facts need to be backed by rigorous and defensible research.

This is not a strategy which will support fast growth. Recent IGD research shows that the number of people actively interested in avoiding pesticides for health reasons is relatively small . Far higher is the number seeking to promote good animal welfare, but many issues have been addressed by conventional farming such as free range eggs, and higher welfare pork and chicken. Those interested in animal welfare can choose to buy locally produced meat, and see for themselves whether the animal welfare standards behind their meat is what they want.

So whilst massive market growth will not come from a slower approach, and there may even be a sales decline in the short term, the movement can be sure that their integrity will be protected, the public will be reassured, and longer term, the organic movement will achieve the sustainability and public confidence that it seeks.

What is striking about the organic movement is that its current high powered, fast talking, heavy spinning marketing focus, with its frequent denigration of conventional agriculture, is the complete antithesis of what organic farming is all about. Organic agriculture is a slow maturing way of farming which aims to work in harmony with the natural world to ensure long term sustainability. There is little about it which is unnatural or false. It would be good if organic marketing and organic production were more closely aligned.

4 comments:

T.W. Barritt at Culinary Types said...

I think you are spot on in your evaluation. The story of organic farming is many-layered, and is both rational and emotional. The most effective communication and advocacy will draw on dimensions.

Jessi Stafford said...

Colette,

I just came across your blog about the new organic food study from London. In the news recently, it’s become an impassioned debate that has been taken over by politics making it hard to distinguish fact from fiction. I think there must be some merit in organically grown produce, but significant research has yet to be found due to the extensive amount of factors involved in nutritional studies. I really enjoyed your rational and practical approach to reporting this story and it is continued throughout your other posts as well.

I think your readers would be interested in this video from Newsy.com highlighting critical points from each side of the organic food wars in the media. I hope you will consider embedding the video into Land Strategies Farming Blog.

http://www.newsy.com/videos/food_ethics_is_organic_the_right_choice

Newsy.com videos combine and analyze global news coverage of important events. Its unique method of presenting how multiple news outlets are covering a story gives viewers the information they need to understand complex issues.

Please let me know if you have any questions and I would appreciate any feedback,

Thanks,

Jessi Stafford
Community at Newsy.com
http://www.newsy.com
W: 573.442.4557

Colette Burke said...

T.W.
Thank you for the comment. As you say the organic story is many layered and so presents a communication challenge which could well be unique. There must be other markets which attract people for many different reasons, but I can't think of any.
Colette

Colette Burke said...

Jessi,
Thank you for your comment and kind words. I looked at Newsy's video and found it to be informative and well balanced. As you say the organic debate is a hot one and so an independent perspective is vital. I enjoyed the non food related coverage that Newsy provides too.
Colette