open i

A recent clash between Michael Meacher, a junior minister for the Environment, and Professor Sir John Krebs, chair of the independent Food Standards Agency is doing nothing for the organic sector. And, as importantly, while undoubtedly the intervention of both parties is well intended, it sadly indicates that neither party has a very clear understanding of what organic food is about. (760 words)

The use of inorganic "chemicals" to enhance the properties of naturally occurring plant nutrients goes back to the second half of the nineteenth century with fully chemical fertilizers being developed progressively during the twentieth century. Chemically produced herbicides, insecticides and the like are a more recent development only being commercialized in the last 50 years.

Quite when meaningful numbers of people started being concerned about using inorganic additive in food production is not clear. The British organic food movement, at least on a organized basis, traces it roots back to 1946, although individual interest goes back further. Over the years the remit of the organic movements has spread to opposition to a wide range of technological developments including many that are organic in nature.

What has not changed is that the number of believers continues to increase despite any scientifically based justification for the concerns. And further that there are a worthwhile number of consumers who are prepared for one reason or another to pay a premium for food that has an organic mark on it.

What has eluded the organic movement, and the search goes back over 50 years, is any significant body scientific opinion to back the strongly held believes of most adherents. This, however, does not invalidate the business of organic food production. But as interest in the production and consumption of organic food increases so the need to validate beliefs becomes more important.

Indeed without that validation the consumption of organic food must be regarded as a fashion. And, therefore, it is subject to the risks associated with changes in fashion.

As society has become more wealthy, it has become more interested in and willing to pay for things natural and the increased consumption of organic food is a natural consequence. Indeed that interest is clearly reflected in government policy.

It is, therefore, rather natural that the government supports the production of, or more accurately the conversion from conventional to, food meeting the standards for organic food overseen by the Soils Association. A natural progression of this is, of course, that the government would like to see the scientific validation of the beliefs of the organic movement and its implicit stance on the issue.

As this is a political issue when in the court of Michael Meacher, perceptions supercede scientific evidence. The perceptions of his constituents on this issue are that organic food production is more environmentally acceptable, sustainable and animal welfare friendly and even that organic food is more healthy and tastes better. Thus the environment minister surely feels secure in his position.

As the Food Standards Agency was set up to provide independent information on food safety and related issues, Sir John Krebs is liberated from political constraints and bound to scientific fact. This is particularly so, as public concern of over the role of politicians in handling the BSE, mad cow disease, epidemic in the early 1990's was the major motivator for setting up the agency. So he, in turn, must feel secure in rebuffing Meacher.

While the Soils Association naturally supports Meacher, it can not be a comfortable alliance. Its mandate to sustain the perception of the superiority of organic is surely better served by feeding the public with "folk lore," rather than disturbing the sleeping dog of scientific evidence.

At the same time the Food Standards Agency is almost certainly not doing its cause much good by stirring the pot. Sir John Krebs reported suggestion that consumers "are not getting value for money ... if they think they are buying food with extra nutritional quality or extra safety," is anything but helpful in this context. And any research into the differences between organic and conventional agriculture as being contemplated by the agency would be equally out of place.

In terms of food safety issues organic food in moderation, which it usually is, must be a very low order concern for society.

All this is probably amusing to most, but it may be confusing to some. Those that have an abiding faith in the value of organic food are likely to lose faith in the Food Standards Agency. While those who trust the agency will surely lose confidence in organic food.

November 21, 2002