Here we go again. Organic food, says the Food Standards Agency in a new study, is not healthier for you than "conventionally" farmed food when – note the crucial caveat – "based on the nutrient content". Cue predictable front-page headlines implying organic food is little more than a myth and a rip-off.
But why the mock outrage? The FSA has long banned any producer from claiming that its organic produce is nutritionally superior to any comparable non-organic produce. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who eats organic food who does so on the sole premise that they believe it is nutritionally superior. The reason why the vast majority of people who buy organic food – including myself – are prepared to pay a premium (and, by all means, let's discuss why supermarkets still continue to cynically mark up their organic food) is for a host of other far more compelling reasons.
In my own case, the most compelling reason is the difference in terms of environmental stewardship between organic and "conventional" (a horribly loaded term) farming methods. You only have to visit farms being managed according to these different principles – as I have done on many occasions, and as I would recommend anyone interested in the provenance of their food to do – to see with your own eyes the marked difference. One method tries to crush, eradicate, blitz the natural environment in which the farm is located, whereas the other attempts to – yes, it's a hippy cliche, but it is broadly true – work with nature. It's just a shame we can't ask the local birds, fish and insects for their expert testimony on which method they prefer.
This leads on to one of the other main reasons people give for eating organic food: the avoidance of pesticide residues. My home abuts a field that gets repeatedly sprayed throughout the year and I have to either go out that day or bring the children indoors, otherwise the spray residue drifting in the breeze can literally catch the back of your throat. It really can be that bad on some days. Is it really any wonder that some people don't want to consume food that has been treated in this manner? It's just a sensible application of the precautionary principle. Why take the risk? After all, what's more important in terms of our monthly outgoings than the food we put in our mouths?
Animal welfare is another hugely compelling reason why people choose to buy organic food. Again, anyone who has examined both models of farming will tell you that you can see the marked difference with your own eyes. This is not to say that some conventionally managed farms do not care greatly for the wellbeing and living conditions of their livestock because many clearly do, but they don't operate under exacting, verifiable standards in the way organic farmers must.
Many people also say taste is an important factor in choosing organic food, although that is clearly a subjective, personal reason. I'm less convinced by this argument, but in certain produce the difference can often be stark. Take the potato challenge, if you're in any doubt.
But, as far as I'm aware, people still have a choice in whether they eat organic food or not. No one is being forced to eat it. Personally, I would like to see the FSA – one of the most weak-willed, pro-industry government bodies out there – spend its time and money tackling, say, the price disparity between organic and non-organic food. Why is it, for example, that the vast majority of subsidy and governmental support still goes to the method of farming that does more damage to the environment and promotes lower standards of animal welfare? Or how about investigating that other great issue that rears its head when discussing organic food – the question of yield? Could organic food ever "feed the world", or does necessity mean there would be a need for a middle way in the form of, say, an "Organics Lite" standard?
