Because nature is nutritious, man.

Organic equals good, right? In fact I would, up until very recently, have ventured to say organic equals better. This is a belief I think I can fairly say is shared by a lot of people, but ask them why and you’ll receive some kind or rambling answer involving “bad chemicals” and “natural nutrients”. Exactly what it is that is so great about organic foods has always been rather vague.

I can buy that the quality of life of organically reared live-stock is way better than that of the battery chickens reared in shoeboxes. I also understand that intensive farming, through its liberal use of pesticides and fertilisers, have an environmental impact that we are still coming to terms with. And the fact we are then putting these chemicals into our bodies certainly should give one pause for thought.

However where things start to get a bit quacky is in the repeated cries of “It’s not GM!” and “It’s more nutritious!” To the first claim I say….so? This is a good thing why? Bring me some evidence of the apocalyptical nature of GM foods and then we’ll talk.

As for the claims of organic food being more nutritious, it has been dealt a blow this week with a publication from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which systematically reviewed 55 articles that compared the nutritional content of organic and conventionally (i.e not organic) produced foods. They found absolutely no difference in the quantities of “vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, β-carotene and sulphur”¹ available in organic versus conventional food.

Organic food has developed an almost cult like following which is determined to beat the benefits of their choice of food-stuff into us, whether these claims are true are not. It almost feels similar to the natural remedy cartel, who’s repeated claims that “natural molecules are so much better for us than those horrible man-made ones” seems to sit well with so many people. And organic has some good PR on its side.

Jamie Oliver, despite literally slaughtering little fluffy chicks on national television (not in English I’m afraid, though the slightly dubious dubbing does add a somewhat surreal quality to the whole thing) has managed to convince Guardian readers around the country that they need to buy organic. Aided by the slightly sinister looking Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, the organic industry was worth £1.6 billion in the UK at the end of 2008. Not bad.

So I can understand why the organic industry (Big Orga? Doesn’t quiet sound right…) might be a tad protective of their claim to the sustenance high ground. And indeed the Soil Association has quickly hit out, saying they are “disappointed” in the conclusions of the FSA. They go on to quote a study which they claim undermines the findings yet, strangely, fail to provide a reference for it and only point their confused readers towards a website which appears to make no reference to nutrition.

I do not want to come over as anti-organic here. I believe there are lessons to be learned about not thrashing the environment. And we need some more sound science done on the effect exposure to pesticides is having on us.

On a shallower level, you can put whatever the hell you want into your body. If you want to pay three times the average price for a tomato you should feel absolutely free to go ahead and do that. Just don’t expect me to listen to you when you start preaching about the nutritious wonders of organic. And please, would it be too much to ask to bring a bit more science to the whole topic?

¹ Dangour, A.,  Dodhia, S., Hayter, H., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., Lock, K. & Uauy, R. Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature. Report for the Food Standards Agency. Submission July 2009