{"id":1894,"date":"2009-08-18T12:41:21","date_gmt":"2009-08-18T07:11:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thirdeyesight.in\/blog\/?p=358"},"modified":"2024-07-19T15:34:58","modified_gmt":"2024-07-19T10:04:58","slug":"organic-truth-facts-and-interpretations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/myechoproject.com\/TES\/organic-truth-facts-and-interpretations\/","title":{"rendered":"Organic Truth \u2013 Facts and Interpretations"},"content":{"rendered":"

Four months ago in this column (\u201cOrganic \u2013 Hope or Hype?<\/a>\u201d) I wrote about the need for customers to make themselves aware of the true nature of organic products, and it is time to reopen that discussion.<\/p>\n

Food is an emotive subject with us as consumers, food distribution and retail is big business with us as the trade, and agriculture is a sensitive area of governance.<\/p>\n

On top of that, studies are seldom exhaustive enough in terms of sampling, duration of the study, establishment of controls etc., and for every study that proves the superiority of organics, you will be able to find counter-studies and opposing arguments.<\/p>\n

In recent years brands have tended to make much of their organic certification. Marketers are known for overstatement anyway, and the promotional language used by some implies (or even explicitly states) that these products are superior to other alternatives. Surely, then, the consumer should be willing to pay higher prices for these \u201cbetter\u201d products?<\/p>\n

If only, if only, facts were that straightforward.<\/p>\n

In the earlier column I\u2019d written: \u201cWe expect organic products to contain more nutrition and be better for our bodies. While this may be true of organic animal products compared to their inorganic counterparts, it has not been demonstrated for plant products, other than anecdotal experience of taste and appearance.\u201d I had also raised the question: if organic foods are no better nutritionally than inorganic and could be as productive for the farmer, are many of the organic brands just skimming the gullible customer while the going is good?<\/p>\n

Well, the debate just got messier. Recently a study sponsored by Britain\u2019s Food Standards Agency last month (July 2009)<\/a> really set the cat among the pigeons. The report was based on review of existing research papers to find out if organic products were nutritionally superior to inorganic products. And their conclusion was that the studies reviewed did not provide enough evidence that organic food is more nutritious.<\/p>\n

Well, what the report really said was that on the basis of the limited number of studies that were deemed to be rigorous enough, there was not enough evidence to prove that organic food is more nutritious.<\/p>\n

Okay.<\/p>\n

Imagine an examiner saying that he does not have enough evidence to prove that a student who has passed did not cheat. Notice, he is not saying that the student actually cheated. But wouldn\u2019t this statement alone raise suspicion in your mind about the student\u2019s integrity?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, newspapers and electronic media sell headlines, and headlines need to be short and snappy. Here are a couple of examples about this study.<\/p>\n