Story from main news pages, fwi... http://www.fwi.co.uk/article.asp?con=12927&sec=2&hier=66 [b]Organics are a 'marketing myth'[/b] [i]Source: FWi 12 November 2003 [/i] By Farmers Weekly staff CONSUMERS in the US are buying a marketing myth when they buy organic produce, Christine Bruhn of the Centre for Consumer Research at the University of California said at this week's (w/e 14 November) BCPC conference in Glasgow. Surveys show that 74% believe organic products are grown without pesticides, 61% that they are chemical free, 68% that they are safer for the environment, and 59% that they are safer to eat, yet none of these statements is true, she warned. "The public has accepted a marketing myth that is not necessarily based in science," she said. US organic sales grew by 20% in 2002 and while the market will probably continue to grow short-term, price barriers and the fact that the marketing is based on a myth prompted her to question the movement's long-term sustainability.

Ringo People try organic products, like them and come back to buy them again, some buy on flavour alone. Other are convinced of the health benefits, I could introduce you to one brave lady who refused chemotherapy and has successfully battled against cancer on an all organic diet alone. Even our greatest critic Sir John Krebs now recognises there are less pesticides in organic food. I think this story should be taken in context with http://www.fwi.co.uk/article.asp?con=12925&sec=18&hier=2&style= Apparently GM food "is at least as safe" and consumers "will soon start to demand it". Of course they will Christine, now please get back to California.

unfortunately Ringo the consumer regualrly buys into myths look at designer clothes etc the only reason the consumer buys them is because they think they are a better person for it.

'Unfortunately Ringo the consumer regularly buys into myths' - another example being they sometimes think milk is abouts 40% fat or even more! These 'myths' cost a fortune in marketing and publicity to try to correct, whereas the 'myth' just seems to spread uncontrollably - until it's gospel!

Ringo The organic bubble had to burst sooner or latter. I always have said that the truth about organic production would one day hit the media and all the gulables that bought into the idea that NO chemicals etc. were being used would feel very cheated ! It had to happen in the US first we just follow their trends. Thats the trouble with trends - they can go out of fashion as fast as they come in. Not sorry if this offends any organic producers as i've had enough of their atitude towards conventional farmers. At least conventional farmers are open and honest about the chemicals we use and don't base our marketing on slaging off our competition !

ive got a good friend who is also battling against cancer hes in his thirties has 2 children and hes entusiastically trying an organic diet his doctor has given him about 6 months and hes deterioating fast.There is no evidence that organic food has any effect on curing cancer there is plenty of evidence that chemotherapy ,surgery etc can in certain circumstances buy time or cure cancer .I think the organic lobbys reccomendation that eating organic food may cure cancer is a sick attempt to make money from people who are frightened and desperate.The organic lobby are no better than the snakeoil salsemen and quackdocters of the 19th century they should be ashamed of themselves

Of course he's eaten a cocktail of chemicals for the last 30 odd years. We know what individual chemicals do to humans but with some many different combinations surely to reduce the risk it is safer to have a diet with the minimum possible.

Everything is made up of chemicals. Farmyard Manure contains N,P,And K..just like a bag of 20-10-10 compound fert.

Tom I am shocked!... ""Even our greatest critic Sir John Krebs now recognises there are less pesticides in organic food"" Only LESS pesticides?? surely it should be zero?, or are they the pesticides that are not really pesticides when used on an organic farm?

Surely organic farmers are violating the trades description act as they still use antibiotics and some non-organic feed. Maybe they should be called "nearly organic" or "I Cant Believe Its Not Organic"

Goblin, I'm very sorry to hear about your friend, but maybe he would like to contact the folks at www.pnmcollege.co.uk for alternative help with cancer. Joyce

goblin Sorry to hear about your friend and hope he gets better. It was not clear whether his doctor gave him the organic diet or if it was his own choice but there is scientific evidence that it does help and patients that are convinced it has helped them. Try http://www.mercola.com/2003/apr/26/organic_vegetables.htm http://www.organichope.com/english/cancer.html http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/organic_cancer_fighting.cfm

Tom I used to be a neighbour of Tyringham clinic This was not a fat farm as so many of these places are but a genuine attempt to cure peoplec of a number of problems by organic practices and using organic foods many grown in there own garden. It was run by some very dedicated people and several I got to know and respect. But one problem they were certainly no healthier than the rest of us and I know that several of the young female staff there (in those days I had quite an interest in them) had quite severe dietary problems ie anorexia. worse still the founder and head of the clinic Professor Rose-Neil died after a few years of cancer it was most definitely not a case of physician heal thyself. I had the greatest respect for professor Rose-neil as a person but I thought he was most definitely off track but he certainly knew how to turn a bob or two.

Tom, Your professor Mercola uses the classic technique of saying "conventional farming with its massive use of pesticides MAY inhibit the production of flavanoids etc etc" whereas "organic farming ...... MAY favour the production etc etc." Two classic techniques there: 1/ Spread the fear with use of emotional words like pesticides etc. 2/ Carry on and develop the argument assuming what MAY have been is fact. All very effective campaigning and blackening the names of others, but like all forms of spin certainly will come back and bite, no MAY about it. Ask Anthony Blair. Regards, Jack

The whole thing is of, course, a total nonsense. The only thing that it proves is that there is one born every second, and that includes producers who thought that they would make a hefty, additional profit. This was true, until everyone started doing organic this and organic that and the bottom dropped out of the market. Does an organic cow with mastitus get treated with some magical, natural cure? Of course not, it gets treated with the same antibiotic that cures any other cow, and rightly so, otherwise the cow dies or at least has to be culled. But in this case the milk should be called, "organic, unless we have to treat any serious illnesess milk" The whole thing is riddled with anomalies like this. For example where does all the animal manure come from which seems to have a magical place in organic growing theory, just organic farms? don't make me laugh. But, I thing the most serious problem with this marketing fad is that in order to sell itself it finds it necessary to attack conventional(sustainable) farming. Implying a huge and irresponsible use of chemicals. I can't be the only farmer who each year thinks can I adopt (for example) a better rotation of cattle/sheep/conservation to cut down on dosing costs and finish lambs more quickly. No doubt our organic bretheren will think that looking at reducing chemical usage from a financial viewpoint is typical of a convential farmer. I would reply that they are not in it for their health either!!! Brian

As a consumer and not a grower [apart from what I grow in the garden], I visit the farm where my vegetables are grown and where the eggs come from. I can see for myself that the crops are grown with wildlife in mind - the chickens are reared to humane standards. That is what I am buying into when I choose Soil Association accredited foods. When my cat is sick, of course I get it treated with veterinary drugs - however, she is not pumped full with prophylactic drugs in case somthing might make her ill. I would expect the same treatment of livestock. I know that from time to time, organic growers may have to use some sort of artificial pest control. However, this is in the knowledge that this is a last resort when all other crop management practices have failed. It is regrettable that many conventional farmers have brought organic farming into disrepute by giving "organic" a go but not understanding what they are doing. Jean

Jean, I see, so the problems that organic food now has is because of the fact that many farmers have converted to organic without having their heart in the right place? I understood that everything is all very strictly controlled through the soil association and other such quangos', if this is not the case then what are the punters buying into? Again you use the emotive phrase "pumped full of drugs". This is simply not the case, the only pre-emptive drug I use is against the clostridial disceases, which can devastate young lambs, in the same way one vaccinates a child. I would like to know what an organic farmer uses? Finnaly, as so often, in this debate you are confusing humane rearing with organics, these are not the same thing. I defy any one to critisise the condition of my stock and I resent the implication that, because I do not buy into the myth that this somehow makes me a bad farmer. Brian

Brian I am not saying that conventional farmers are slap-happy with the way they treat livestock. I haven't visited the conventional farms where my husband's meat comes from (I am vegetarian)but the local butcher assures me that the animals are "happy" and they are local. I wouldn't dream of buying organic food from abroad when I can buy locally produced non-organic produce. Jean

Jean So would you admit that most reputable farmers treat there animals in as humane state as each other, wether organic or not. Will you also admit that the difference between organic farming and conventional farming is very slight, even to the fact that organic farming methods may cause more distress to animals. James

James You ask "So would you admit that most reputable farmers treat there animals in as humane state as each other, wether organic or not." Of course. No the differences between organic and coventional are not "very slight". I live in a farming area and there is more wildlife in my garden than in the entire parish. I have experience of two local organic farms and the wildlife quality is vastly superior. That being said, the farmer who owns most of the land in my village is into watching wildlife being ripped apart by hounds - I shouldn't expect anything else, should I? Jean

Jean You say "Chickens are reared to humane standards" "This is what i buy into when i buy food produced to soil association accredited standards" You are implying that only food produces to soil association is reared in a humane way, as you have said reputable farmers treat there stock the same wether organic or not, will you therefore remove this implication from the post. I can remeber a survey of wildlife on farms that could find no scientific evidence to prove that there was a difference between organic and conventional farms. Please remember that your garden is not a farm and ivariably will not be producing food to the quantities of farms. Once again the organic lobby spout claptrap that has no scientific proof (remember this is important), your whim or feeling is not sufficient to try and persuade the general public to buy organic food only. Please remeber that most organic farmers probably converted beacause they thought that they could make more money following this route and not for any other reason.

Jack Best wishes to Mark for a speedy recovery. I don’t want to give you a hard time right now but I must object to these slurs on organic farmers. We do not make claims that we do not genuinely believe to be true. No herbicides are used in organic production, no exceptions. The FSE results showed what a dramatic effect they can have on biodiversity and have proved what we already knew, not using them is better for the environment. I don’t use any pesticides but have never claimed my potatoes are pesticide free, if I can smell your neighbours spray then it must be getting into my field but I would claim my potatoes have less pesticide residues than most. A few chemical inputs are allowed, the powers that be deciding that if they were not UK growers would be at a commercial disadvantage. I totally reject that argument; I think we must work to the highest standards to maintain consumer confidence whether organic or conventional. People have been predicting the collapse of the organic market for years yet despite the best efforts of mischief-makers like yourself it grows steadily year on year. What struck me most about those statistics is that 26% of customers believe organic farmers use pesticides, 39% don’t think they are chemical free, 32% don’t think they are better for the environment and 41% don’t think they are safer to eat – yet they keep on buying them, they must taste good. We have also been told for years that when the public understand more about GM they will learn to love it – I would not put money on it. You are very selective in your reporting. I think that story about the outcome of the Vatican conference before it had happened was based on just looking at who had been invited. Anything organised by Cardinal Martino with input from the US ambassador James Nicholson is hardly going to be anti-GM but this does not necessarily reflect the views of the Pope. He has opposed them for years on ethical ground; I wish he could be persuaded to look at them more objectively then he could reject them on scientific grounds as well but that would be to concede that science is as important as ethics and I think he is too set in his ways to do that. Speaking of old-timers I see you ex-pigman Sir Ben is on p48 of this weeks FW called an “original thinker” that has “helped steer UK farming through its greatest crisis in living memory”. Crisis over is it? Arable farmers may feel they are through the worst but diary farmers certainly don’t. I think “into” would be more accurate.

I don't give a toss for the hunt but I dont see what they have to do with organic farming.

re"a few chemical inputs are allowed" We ask again are you organic,nearly organic or a bit organic?

Scud I agree with you whole-heartidly what has hunting got to with organic production. In my opinion (please note my opinion no scientific proof, so dont take it for gospel) this is bought into the argument to pull at the heart strings of the misinformed general public, this is what is the whole arguarment for organic production, if and buts targeted at the perception of humanely treeting livestock and then at personal health, all of which i have said before have no scientific proof at all. You can just imagine it cant you When the anti nunt societies have their stand in the local towns and cities, their probably saying that farmers which dont let the hunt across their land are organic farmers producing food which is better for wildlife and of course dont forget that its also better for your helath aswell !!!!!!!!!!!11