Organic Lies?

Ever since I started researching about living a healthy lifestyle, I realised that food was always going to be a "tough nut to crack". I'm talking about sifting through all the red herrings, emotions and agendas (political and economic) to get to the truth.

During the past 5 years I've come to realise two things: most food available is far from nutritious ... and there is no easy way to distinguish fact from fiction. I can only read plenty, keep an open mind and go with my gut instincts.

Trial and error, and personal experimentation are far more useful than 95% of the written word.

So, when I saw a report today by BBC Breakfast proclaiming "Organic 'has no health benefits'", I was instantly provoked. Why? Because a lot was at stake: the sanctity of peoples' spending logics, continued freedom of choice, animal welfare, sustainablity ...

The benefits of "organic" as I understand them are straight forward: reduced exposure to toxic chemicals, access to nutrients essential for continued robust health and more sustainable and palatable methods of harvest and distribution. Oh ... and better taste, if you still have any functional taste-buds remaining.

Simple!

In exchange for the relative peace of mind that comes with all this, there is a premium to pay. Why? Because economies of scale don't yet exist because people don't understand the implications of toxic, nutritionally-deficient, environmentally-irresponsible choices to their long term health and well-being.

Any perceived benefits fall outside the category of immediate gratification. "Enlightened" consumers want to hear that cheaper is also more prudent.

So now our illustrious Food Standards Agency (FSA) has commisioned an "independant" report under the guise of helping people make "informed decisions".

And the waters are further muddied by "experts" debating whether "57% more beta carotene is statistically significant to health".

Another contentious issue appears to be the timing of this report, which comes before a similar EU report, drawing supposedly different conclusions, could be released.

If it's research, then it must be true. My report is bigger than yours! Please.

So a definitive authority on national television now vindicates the cynics who rail against the idea of paying a premium for anything, by implying that "organic" is nothing more than a cleverly-marketed brand. According to this report, there "is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced foods". So we are all just suckers.

Thank you folks, the damage is done. Please would all conventional commercial farmers make their cheques payable to ...!

How do I feel about this?

Sick to my stomach. Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this one! I'll say this: I think a report like this is reckless and that any discussion about it only serves to confuse issues to the detriment of anything meaningful.

I also think that when an agency comes out with statements such as "there is not sufficient research on the long-term effect of pesticides on human health" it is fence-sitting and backside-covering on a reprehensible scale.

One can only hope that there are sufficient people who will see all this for what it is and will remain undeterred in their personal pursuit of more responsible choices.

Next week ... research shows no clear relationship between obesity and your consumption habits and sedentary lives. Don't worry tax payers ... we've got you covered.