It does feel like a bit of a bandwagon all this debate about buying organic food, but we really should consider the potential harm of 'un-organic' food, says Elspeth Waters
The growth in sales of organic products in the last couple of years has astonished even its most die-hard advocates. According to the latest report by leading UK Organic levying body the Soil Association, in the past year alone, the UK organic market has grown by 30 per cent to total almost £1.6 billion – roughly an extra £7 million a week. But, where has this additional interest come from? And is there a worthwhile reason for going organic, or are these new converts being dwindled out of their hard-earned cash in buying into the promise of better-tasting, better quality, more environment-friendly food?
The hype surrounding the issue may only have gathered significant pace since the millennium but the concept of organic production and manufacture is far from novel. Rather, it is a return to the original format of generating such products, to which some farmers continued to cling faithfully while the majority of the world embraced intensive farming in a bid to feed the masses for the least expense possible.
However, these days organic has become much more of a mainstream issue, prompting all the major retailers to up their game in this arena, in the bid to become greener, as well as cheaper. Major revamps have been rolled out and two of the top chains, Tesco and Sainsbury’s made media waves this summer by branching out into the organic box delivery arena, formerly reigned by a growing number of independent, and largely UK-faithful suppliers. For said regionally-minded enthusiasts the venture was seen not so much as a threat as a half-hearted attempt on the part of the national supermarket giants to appeal to the significant sector of consumers who enjoy the possibility of seeing from whence their delicious fruit and veggies originate. But however successful their box schemes prove, in these times of the one-stop-shop, supermarkets are still the first point of entry for most organic virgins.
For those with even a moderate interest in current affairs, the dawn of the conscientious era has well and truly broken. From Al Gore to Harry Hill, everyone is talking “green” and for an increasing majority of middle class and even less privileged social strata (the Soil Association found two out of three consumers now knowingly buy organic food, including more than 50 per cent of groups C2, D and E), shopping organically constitutes a proactive step towards global conservation, which doesn’t necessitate giving up the three annual long-haul jaunts and bi-monthly city breaks or the beloved gas-guzzling 4x4.
For other shoppers, the ethical aspect isn’t a strong enough incentive to part with more money for produce that is often irregularly shaped and, unsurprisingly, ‘unconventional’ looking. For age-old organic fans, the ‘natural’ appearance of the produce is a point of preference, but for the average UK shopper, uniformity has become an unconscious prerequisite for purchase. However, in their bid to appeal to all, supermarkets have been putting increasing pressure on their organic suppliers to iron out such aesthetic differences and this, suggests Sainsbury’s vegetable product technologist, Debbie Winstanley, may partly account for added interest in the category. “The balance of organic quality has got much better with the introduction of technological advancements,” she says. “The difference between organic and conventional produce has eroded.”
Like many whose livelihoods depend on the success of both organic and conventional production, such as the head of the National Farmer’s Union (NFU) who recently defended conventional farming in an online debate against the Soil Association’s chief exec, organised by Waitrose, Winstanley is doubtful of the alleged benefits of organics, be they related to taste, health or otherwise. However, she readily admits the focus on environment-friendly farming initiated by the pro-organic movement has had a positive knock-on effect on conventional production, with more farmers adopting Integrated Pest management (IPM) and other chemical-free methods of crop control.
Someone at Sainsbury’s is more convinced of the value of organics, however, albeit in a rather vague manner (or perhaps it is simply just a non-committal marketing ploy) since the chain’s packaging tells a different story. I found the following message on a bag of organic carrots: “So why Sainsbury’s Organic? Sainsbury’s Organic means working with the growers and producers in our quest to bring you the highest product quality and to enrich the environment through the use of organic farming methods. So isn’t that a step in the right direction?” Then further down, it says: “Organic carrots take longer to mature and take on less water which means they often have a much more intense burst of flavour.” I readily concur that organic carrots consistently offer a more flavoursome taste than their conventional counterparts and given the choice would now always opt for the organic version, but so far no other product has been so emphatically distinguishable.
Taste is decidedly important for most shoppers, many of whom will happily lament the fact that fruit and veg no longer tastes as good as it used to. However, according to the Soil Association, the health factor is the biggest pull for new converts to organics, in the wake of scare stories such as the Sudan 1 incident and salmonella outbreak at Cadbury’s. The jury is still out on whether there are any real health benefits to eating organic food. The pro-conventional authorities insist that by law, farmers only use the most minimal amount of pesticides, and only then when absolutely necessary – constituting levels which present no harm to the human body. However, others, including those who have worked with the chemicals in question, hold a different opinion.
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) UK recently hosted a visit of four fruit and vegetable producers from Senegal who came to Europe to campaign for assistance in eliminating the use of pesticides, reporting workers were consistently afflicted with a myriad of ailments following close handling of the chemicals. However, PAN’s research suggests the dangers are not restricted to those working with the noxious products. The organisation’s feature entitled Pesticides in your Food makes for disturbing reading. The symptoms of chronic toxicity range from a sore throat and eye damage to asthma, spontaneous abortion, hyperthyroidism and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (see www.pan-UK.org for more information). These and all of the other conditions listed can be caused by any number of other factors, which makes proving the adverse effect of pesticide exposure nigh impossible. However, one interesting observation made by PAN is that safety testing of pesticides has hitherto been restricted to healthy adults, without taking into account “vulnerable groups whose hormonal systems are rapidly changing: foetuses, babies, adolescents, the old and infirm”. Furthermore, it stands to reason that any individual with compromised immunity would be more susceptible to any side-effects caused by chronic toxicity, however small each individual dose may be.
In response to public interest in such matters, PAN also published a feature on its website, detailing the most significantly contaminated foods. Not surprisingly, fruit and vegetables accounted for eight out of the top 10 danger foods, with potato, apple, pear, strawberry, grape, tomato, speciality beans, cucumber listed as the worst offenders. However, flour was the most contaminated product of all, closely followed by rice in third place. Other poor contenders included citrus, pear, strawberry, apricot, cherry, raspberry, banana, apple, melon, grape, celery, pre-packed salad, potato, peas (with edible pods), beans, plantain, lettuce, sweet potato, tomatoes and cucumber. Conversely, star fruit, plum, kiwi fruit, peach, corn-on-the-cob, baby corn, cauliflower, marrow, squash and swede were found to have the lowest residue levels. PAN’s Clare Butler Ellis says the list is not intended to put people off eating fruit and veg, but rather to give them the facts before they do, as taken from the government’s Pesticide Residue Committee’s reports from 2000-2005. “People are advised that they should continue to eat at least five portions of fruit and veg each day for their health and wellbeing and we appreciate that not all consumers can afford to switch all their produce to organic but if they are concerned about the pesticides in their food, we suggest they could switch or avoid the worst foods and they could also contact their supermarket to register their concern,” she says.
So, would we be better off eating organically? Like many such health issues, the negative effects are largely so gradual that the chances are most healthy people will not be struck down by pesticide-related illnesses in the near future. However, the truth is, no single generation has yet grown up purely on intensively produced food, for anyone to judge the real consequences, and do we really want to wait until half of all societies are infertile or plagued with chronic headaches and asthma, before we change our dietary ways? The laws concerning pesticide usage are unlikely to change anytime soon so it is up to the learned consumer to decide whether even a minimal dose of pesticides is really what they want to wash down with their dinner.
