Business – A lucrative industry built on hype

Hasan Suroor

Study found that organic food offered no extra benefit, much to the chagrin of its supporters

Organic food is a two-billion pound industry grown fat on the back of celebrity endorsement and a well-heeled middle class seduced by claims that it is good for health. Prince Charles is one of its most enthusiastic and pro-active promoters. Not content with simply consuming it, he has his own lucrative line in overpriced organic products including biscuits which taste more like chalk.

But now questions are being raised about some of the basic assumptions that have contributed to the popularity of organic food and the phenomenal growth of this sector in the past decade. People are asking: is organic food really worth the price which is often three times more than that of normal food?

This follows new research by a group of British scientists who found that organic food offered no extra benefit over the ordinary cheaper foodstuff. In a controversial report, experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine say there is no evidence that organic food is more nutritional or healthier than food produced using fertilizers. For example, the expensive free-range chicken (sold as a “premimum” product) has the same nutritional value as the factory-farmed chicken; and similarly, there is no difference between organic and non-organic vegetables or dairy produce.

The research, based on data published over the past 50 years and said to be the most comprehensive review ever of the relative benefits of organic food, strikes at the very heart of what has been portrayed by campaigners as its USP — that it is healthier than conventional food and therefore worth paying a “bit” extra.

Dr. Alan Dangour, who led the study, was unambiguous in rejecting claims made for organic food.

“Looking at all of the studies published in the last 50 years, we have concluded that there’s no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content,” he said.

The report, commissioned by the government’s Food Standards Agency and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concluded that “organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content.” A “small number of differences” were noted but these were “unlikely to be of any public health relevance.”

In a pointed reference to the hype over the supposed benefits of organic food, the FSA said the research was aimed at helping people make “informed choices” about what they ate. In other words, it was concerned that the high-profile campaign for organic food, dressed up as an ethical issue, was preventing people from making “informed choices” and they were being sold things on false premises.

“Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food,” said Gill Fine, FSA’s Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health.

In the organic food circles, the report has caused fury with campaigners alleging that it is all part of a “cancerous conspiracy” to defame the organic food movement. Newspapers have been full of angry letters denouncing the report as “selective,” “misleading” and “limited.”

The Soil Association, which campaigns for “planet-friendly organic food and farming,” is furious that the research crucially ignored the presence of higher pesticide residues in conventional food. Some have defended organic food arguing that it is not about health alone but also involves wider environmental and social issues.

However, even those who agree that the report may be “flawed” in some respects believe that it is an important contribution to the debate on organic food.

“Yet the report — for all its alleged flaws — is an important one. For a start, it is certainly not the work of dogmatic and intractably hostile opponents of the cause… In fact, it raises key global issues… After all, if organic food is no more beneficial in terms of nutrition than other, standard foodstuffs, why should we pay excessive price to eat the stuff? Why devote more land to its production,” asked Robin McKie, Science Editor of The Observer.

There is also a view that the fad for organic food is a bit of a class thing — something to do with the idea that if something is expensive it is also good. So, a Marks & Spencer cheese sandwich is supposed to taste better than a similar sandwich at Subway next door; everything at Harrods is out of this world; and similarly you don’t know what you are missing if organic food is not your preferred choice. There is said to be a whiff of snobbery about buying into an expensive life-style choice.

Will science bring them down to earth?