Stop Press!!!

On 1 August the wires were buzzing with the news that the British government's Food Standards Agency released a report on the nutritional value of organic and conventional food. 

Immediately there was a mixed response from some of our market regulars and stallholders:  Some felt that this spells danger for the organic industry, others felt that the report was obviously skewed and prejudiced while some even smirked: “we told you so…”

My response is the same it has always been in this debate:  Let us look at exactly what it is they are saying, and then look at the real facts supporting organic agriculture.

- They say there is no reason to select organic produce based on its “nutritional superiority” – what they fail to mention, is the danger of pesticide residues on the food: pesticide is not a nutrient, and is therefore not relevant to their study.  It is, however, extremely relevant to the consumer, as well as the farm worker having to spray the stuff on the growing plant.

·         - A nutrient derived from artificial fertiliser or from compost will look the same in chemical analysis – nobody has ever disputed that, but what they fail to mention, is the effect the artificial fertiliser has on the soil and the ground water.

·         - Artificial fertiliser is derived from petrochemicals and therefore fossil fuels.  This is a finite resource, and will eventually run out.  Its extraction, production and use contribute greatly to global warming, and while a carrot might be a carrot might be a carrot (according to this study), the impact on the environment is most definitely not the same.

·         - What they further fail to mention is that organic agriculture in developing countries actually increases yields, saves water, improves soil fertility and greatly contributes to the sustainability and food security of the producers.  So, while the carrot might a carrot might be a carrot, the consumer of an organic carrot does a whole lot more to save the planet and support the small-scale farming communities than any other.

·         And what they really fail to mention, or acknowledge, is that consumers are not sheep, and that they make choices for many different reasons – nutrition is only one of them.

Let us get real here: If conventional sprayed and fertilised food is so amazing, why don’t they package, label and advertise it as “NEW!! FANTASTIC GENETICALLY MODIFIED, LABORATORY TESTED, and FACTORY FARMED VEGETABLES!”?  No, they stick a label on it with a happy farmer in a lush green field hugging his heifers and caressing his carrots.  You do not see the feedlot with sick animals, nor the farm worker in a space suit spraying the veggies or the de-beaked chickens laying eggs on cue. 

This is not just a scientific debate – it is a social, political and philosophical one.  And if we let the sponsored scientists and the corporate-funded geneticists dictate what we should eat, buy, support and grow, we give up our fundamental right to be free human beings able to make up our own minds and choosing our own destiny.  And we choose that future to be one with clean air, regular temperatures, healthy children and oil-independence.

And no report, however well-funded and reviewed, will take that away from us.  Remember, it is also scientists who told us that margarine was fine and then not so fine, who told us thalidomide was safe and then banned it, who assured us that polystyrene was OK and then advised fast food merchants to rather pack in cardboard...