Organic Food is a Lie and a Con

Organic food is big business. According to the organic food consultants Organic Monitor the total world market for organic food has grown from $22 billion in 2002 to approximately $40 billion in 2006 (1,2). The world market has seen a general p.a. growth of over 20% over the last 15 years with future growth rates estimated at 10-15% depending on the country (3,4). Such high growth rates are especially surprising as the price of organic food is always at least 50% higher than its non-organic competitors. Clearly organic food is a huge financial success.

The organic industry claims there are three advantages to buying organic food. Their main claim is that the absence of pesticides on organic food makes such food healthier. Also, they assert that the way organic food is grown leads to higher nutritional levels. Finally the elimination of pesticides and fertilizers from organic farming is somehow better for the environment. It is these three factors only that are the prime reasons for organic food's success, but are they true?

The organic food industry's biggest claim is that the pesticide-free nature of organic food makes it healthier, implying that the presence of pesticide residues on food is harmful. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the pesticides seen on non-organic food are at all harmful. This is because the concentrations of pesticides on non-organic are far to low to exert a poisonous effect. Not one single person has ever been admitted to hospital with pesticide residue food poisoning and we are still waiting for the first confirmed death from such minute concentrations of these chemicals. Therefore, as pesticide residues are not harmful to health their absence in organic food does not render such food healthier. In addition, the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) (5) says that 60-70% of non-organic foods tested do not contain any pesticide residue. This means that the majority of non-organic food is 'organic-food like' and pesticide free anyway. It would appear, therefore, that the major claim of the organic food industry regarding the advantages of pesticide free food remains unsupported.

The various bodies that support organic food such as the Soil Association (6) in the UK and the Organic Trade Association (OTA) (7) in the US have also claimed that organic food is more nutritious. However, a variety of different laboratories have found no consistent difference in protein, carbohydrate, calories, fibre, mineral or vitamin content between organic and non-organic food. However, the FSA says that whilst some papers do reveal a nutritional difference others do not and that for correctness it is best not to rely on only one published source. It must be remembered that organizations like the Soil Association and the OTA are not impartial but are biased lobby groups whose sole purpose is to increase the market share for organic food independent of whether the claims made for it are true or not.

The last major claim for organic food is that it is somehow better for the environment and this is once again linked to pesticide use. However, there has been no obvious environmental destruction caused by the application of pesticides over the last 50 years. In addition, no species has ever been made extinct through pesticide use. However, the main cause of species loss world-wide has been land-take and the main use of such land has been for farming. It doesn't matter whether the farm is organic or not the land used for farming is subsequently lost to nature. A 100 acres of Amazon rain forest turned over to farming matters not one jot whether that farm is organic or not.

However, the major fact of organic farming, of which all sides agree, is that yields from organic farms are some 60% of non-organic farms. Organic farms are only economically viable because of the higher price they charge for their product. If organic farms had to increase yields, perhaps in response to falling prices, they would have to use more land to do it. If, for example, all farms in the UK became organic then to increase yields organic farm size would have to be increased and all hedgerows, copses and small woods would have to go under the plough; the organic plough. Obviously, this would be massively destructive to the environment. If you consider that organic food is grown in over 100 countries in the world the danger from this type of farming is quite real.

Overall it must be concluded that none of the claims made by the organic food industry have in any way been vindicated by the evidence. However, the growth rate for organic food appear to be continuing unabated and you have to admire the guile of organic capitalism that produces a product that is in no way advantageous from its non-organic competitor but charges 50% more for it.

1. http://www.organicmonitor.com/700140.htm
2. http://www.organicmonitor.com/700240.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
4. http://www.rncos.com/Report/IM042.htm (free report sample is available)
5. www.food.gov.uk
6. www.soilassociation.org
7. www.ota.com