Earlier this month Tesco put out a press release suggesting it was seeing some "green shoots" of recovery in the organic market.
Having been hit hard by the recession last autumn, the supermarket reported a month-on-month increase in organic vegetable sales since the start of the year, suggesting the market would be "back on track" by the autumn.
This positive news was reinforced this week by news from OMSCO that retail sales of organic milk have also climbed significantly.
Their data pointed to a 10.5% increase over a four week period, leading to the conclusion that "despite the recession, demand for organic milk has remained robust."
Encouraged by this market upturn, OMSCO is poised to launch a £1m multi-media campaign to promote the benefits of organic milk. "The most important thing for us to do is to remind consumers of the nutritional differences of organic milk," said marketing director Richard Hampton.
But OMSCO will have its work cut out...
Its announcement comes in the same week that the Food Standards Agency has published a report which concludes, categorically, that "there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally-produced food".
In the few cases where organic food does contain extra nutrients, the FSA concludes that increased dietary intake would make no difference to individuals consuming a normal varied diet.
Predictably enough, the Soil Association has pulled out the stops to try and rubbish the report.
But the FSA study, which is based on 162 peer-reviewed studies, reinforces what we have always said at Farmers Weekly - that organic food meets a market need, but does not offer anything that is intrinsically superior.
In a country that is far from self-sufficient in most foodstuffs, there is plenty of room for both organic and conventional production and one "side" should not attempt to demonise the other.
* For more blog postings click here. And why not get regular email alerts?
| Tweet |
|
Of course, coming from the FSA, this report is rubbish. The Authority that allows carcinogenic chemicals to be consumed by consumers shows NOTHING about safety.
This study is no different from other countries, and the timing simulates what’s happening worldwide. CODEX is looming and even in countries like the US, bills have been successfully introduced to wipe out Organic farming altogether, in favour of massive Agribusiness monopolies. It has even been found to be circulated in the US that Organic Growers must be watched because the may deemed to be terrorists under Homeland Security Definitions.
Why should it differ in NZ?
There are numerous studies already completed that show organic foods higher in nutrients, vitamins and minerals, and even taste. Something that greatly lacks in any fruit that is sold at Food town etc. Tasteless, brick hard fruit is a solid waste of money, and I would think if this was the condition, grown to just look good with manipulation and chemicals, what good are they actually for our bodies; we do eat them for the nutrients right.
Ask anyone in the Organic Soil Organisation, they PROVE time and time again, organically raised soil are higher in nutrients than commercial farmed soils. It just depends who’s promoting what. FSA, in the past have shown who they represent, and as with their past, they do not represent the safety of the consumer, just the protection of big business monopolies and profits.
Apart from comments already made by Peter Melchet and several people interviewed on BBC radio 4, what was not said was the fact that conventional farming has led to a massive loss in topsoil worldwide, as well as soil condition. The replacement of topsoil over time from organic farming will become a carbon sink as useful as rainforest.
Peak oil is upon us and farmers will find fossil fuel based fertilizers more and more expensive. The more that farmers change their ways now, even if only partially, the better for the environment, the soil and eventually their bank accounts. What is lost in increased staffing (which keeps jobs in the countryside) is gained in lower costs of chemicals.
I can understand Robbo saying the FSA report is rubbish, but in that case the 162 peer-reviewed reports upon which the FSA one is based, are also rubbish.
I think not. Predictably, Lord Melchett reminds us that organic farming means "banned pesticides" without pointing out that according to the Soil Association's own standards, pesticide use by organic farmers is restricted to either 4 or 7 pesticides depending which page of their website you view.
I prefer conventionally grown potatoes as I know they will never have been sprayed with copper - unlike organic ones which can be - as conventional farmers were banned from using copper years ago in favour of less damaging chemicals.
When the going gets tough, organic farmers can rely on derogation from certain EU organic standards while the rest of the farming community lives without such help yet survives with whatever natural weather the Good Lord sends.
1. Prof. Smil has shown that about 40% of the world's population now depends for its basic protein needs on synthetic ammonia. There is no way that we can support the current world population without synthetic nitrogen.....and the world population continues to expand, particularly in the poorer countries.
2. Many people don't really understand what is meant by 'organic'. If I grow beautiful, fresh, tasty vegetables in my garden/allotment they cannot be defined as organic under EU rules because I've used a bit of Growmore and also occasional pesticides on my adjacent roses. This is barmy.
Phil, the release by the FSA of the study comparing organic/non-organic was covered by the Guardian, and in the online edition it provoked a lot of user comment. As can often be the case the comment is as revealing as the original article. This thread developed into a debate upon capitalism, which Ben Goldacre chose to write about in Saturdays edition. Again, this provoked some strong user comments and within those comments are some gems. One is highly critical of the FSA and though Dr Wadge was not available, Gill Fine felt compelled to initiate a thread promptly succeeding this on the Wadge blog. Likewise, Gill Fines post received some reaction from visitors.