Recently the British Advertising Standards Authority ruled that claims made by the Soil Association, which represents organic food production interests, about the benefits of organic food are misleading. The pseudo scientific debate that this has spawned will almost certainly create more heat than light.

Consumer preferences for organic food are the result of beliefs that are unlikely to be influenced by scientific opinion. Farmers producing or contemplating producing organic food should not be deluded over the fact that demand for organically produced food is the result of subjective life style choices rather than objective nutritional considerations.

The market is in many respects no different to that for designer clothing where appearance is more critical than utility.

As the major advocate of organic production in Britain, the Soils Association sets standards for organic production, licenses organic producers and generally promotes the industry. Its interest go beyond the soil and include such issues as the use of antibiotics in livestock production. In certain instances it promotes, as in the case of fungicides and genetically modified organisms, the use of inorganic practices at the expense of the organic.

The rather confusing selection of designations goes back to the initial concern over the use of chemically produced inorganic fertilizers to replace organic farm yard manure and the damage the former might cause to the soil. Concerns have, however, evolved to cover almost any technology applied to agriculture.

At risk of oversimplifying, organic food advocates are concerned about the risk of adopting almost any technology on food quality and the environment.

The Soils Association and others organic farming interests have not been shy about making claims about the benefits of organic food and its production. Producers and purveyors of farm supplies have at the same time a vested interest in conventional agricultural practice.

It was, therefore, not surprising that complaints were made to the British Advertising Standards Authority over false advertising by the Soils Association.

In a ruling this July four of the five reasons listed in a 1999 Soils Association leaflet to eat organic were deemed by the authority as unsupportable. These were a taste difference, health benefits, environment benefits, and "healthy happy animals." The authority accepted that organic food was free of genetically modified organism as at this time such crops are not grown commercially in Britain.

Faced with declining income, many British farmers are considering the option of converting to organic production. While organic crops and livestock are more expensive to produce and their management is tricky, farm gate prices are typically twice those for conventionally produced agricultural commodities.

Assessing future market prospects is more difficult. Agriculture in the Britain is intensive. Farms are generally much larger than elsewhere in Europe and farmers are very dependent on a very wide range of pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other biotech inputs many of which are prohibited for organic production.

It is, therefore, not surprising that Britain is dependent on imports for much of its supply of organic food. The most direct concern for farmers is that a substantial switch to organic production would increase supplies and naturally erode those organic premiums on which profitability depends.

The more vexing question, however, is how robust the demand for organic produce really is.

Consumers are prepared to pay premiums for organic produce because they believe it is healthier, safer, tastes better and its production has animal welfare, environmental and conservation benefits.

The basis for the food quality beliefs for crops is that plant science may not fully understand crop nutrition and the impurities of organic manure may compensate for this perceived gap in knowledge. Likewise in the case of livestock and poultry, animals benefit from the variability of a less controlled diet and environment.

In the case of conservation and the environment issues, the perception is that benefits from the less effective control of fauna and flora resulting from cultivation as opposed to chemicals is less disruptive than the disturbance caused by the cultivation.

As the consumer is always right, farmers need not look for objective proof to support the organic advocates faith. They should, however, be aware that adverse publicity can destroy beliefs very quickly.

In truth the organic food phenomenon is a fashion. Farmers like many other producers of retailed good and services are increasingly faced with the challenge of assessing and molding future trends in taste and life style traits.

This change is confusing for them as it is occurring at a time when the safety of food and the sustainability of farm production practices are being subject to increasing and legitimate scientific and, therefore, objective scrutiny.

In the final analysis the application of science to the debate is rather irrelevant. Those that believe in traditional values and ways of doing things are unlikely to be swayed by science disputing their faith. And if the superiority of organic food or environmental benefits are identified, science will almost certainly be brought to bear to close the gap.

The danger lies in the deception that the market for organic food is other than a fashion.

September 8, 2000