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.
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.
