When you pick
up a packet of pasta for a carton of milk from the ‘organic’ section of the
supermarket or from a health food shop, do you try to find out how many
non-organic substances it may contain? Very unlikely. You trust the label, ‘Certified
Organic.’ There must be a government-approved process that makes sure that only
organic things get that coveted certificate and license to charge a hefty
premium. You don't have to think. You don't have to ask. Someone else has done
it for you.
Well, there is a process of certification. We also know that certification as
organic allows the use of certain non-organic substances such as baking soda,
without which you can’t make organic bread. In the US the list of permissible
non-organic substances, however, grew from 77 in 2002 to more than 250 in 2012.
How come?
According to a report (“Has ‘organic’ been
oversized?” by Stephanie Strom) in the New
York Times of July 7, 2012, Big Food has quietly invaded and colonised the
organic foods space. Gradually they have come to dominate the National Organic
Standards Board set up by the American government to determine what can be
certified organic and what cannot be. Thus, instead of fresh food produced
organically in small farms and consumed locally, Americans are now treated to
countrywide brands such as Wholesome & Hearty, Walnut Acres, and Healthy
Valley – all owned by Big Food that has been drawn there by the premium which
discerning customers gladly pay. Giant agri-food corporations including
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg, Heinz, and Kraft have
driven out most independent organic farmers after buying their brands. Those
big companies shape the average consumer’s purchase decisions through influencing
the certification process .
The more than threefold increase in the
number of permissible non-organic substances during the last ten years closely
matches the growth of Big Food’s influence in the certification process.
Big Food has its own cheaper standard
products side-by-side with organic products under a variety of pastoral-something
brand names. They make money through both these channels. Consumers who are
tired and scared of the business practices of Big Food may think that when they
buy organic milk or pasta, they support small farms. What they buy may be safe;
but they might not be willing to pay a premium for those products if they knew
more about the certification process.
Companies and governments exploit our blind
faith in certain processes and reluctance to ask questions. They persuade us
gently to do many things that we would not want to if we knew the inside story.
Photocredit: http://istockphoto.com/
Photocredit: http://istockphoto.com/
Organic foods are all the hype these days, but are they really worth the often substantial premiums you have to pay for them in comparison to our conventional "green revolution" grade food?
ReplyDeleteA new study takes a critical look.
The well-respected German Stiftung Warentest has made an overview of 85 tests of food products since 2002. Organic food does have its strengths, they say, but also its weaknesses.
While there was a total of 85 tests, going from apple juice to cinnamon, the tests were not all of the same type: 52 tests included a quality evaluation. Eleven tests, such as alcohol, did not include a quality evaluation. Nineteen tests measured residues of pesticides and other dangerous products.
For the 52 tests that included a quality evaluation, 249 organic products and 1007 conventional products have been tested. Stiftung Warentest says that organic products represent just barely 4 percent of the market. Hence, they are still niche products.
In a 2007 review, Stiftung Warentest had concluded that conventional and organic foods were on a par. This result became uncertain after two tests in the past three years, in which organic products were better represented than conventional foods. The organic foods failed to convince and were not considered "good".
Of 15 baby foods, 13 turned out to be safe with respect to harmful substances and germs, but they failed to convince with respect to their nutritional value as they did not contain enough vitamin C and fat. As a result, the group as a whole got a "satisfactory" result.
Canola oil fared even worse. While there are quite a few organic brands of native canola oil, most of them failed the sensory test and got a "poor" evaluation.
Since 2007, two organic products have clearly done better than conventional products: fresh whole milk, where six of seven organic brands got a "good" evaluation in comparison to only five of twelve conventional ones and spice oils where all four products tested "good" and seven conventional ones got a "poor" evaluation.
The final result puts organic products slightly behind conventional foods. One percent of conventional and organic foods received a "very good" evaluation. Forty percent of of organic foods was considered "good" in comparison to 44 percent of conventional foods. They were on a par in the "satisfactory" category, with 28 percent each.
Sixteen percent of organic foods and 13 percent of of conventional foods received an "adequate" evaluation, while 15 percent of organic foods and 14 percent of conventional foods were considered "poor".
Considering that organic products are still sold at a premium when compared to conventional foods, the consumer may not be getting maximum value for her/his hard-earned money when buying organic foods, the study found.
Please take into account that Stiftung Warentest is a German agency and that its tests may therefore not be representative for other parts of the world. However, given the prestige of the institution and the fact that it is their job to inform the German population (82 million people), they should not be dismissed out of hand.
There are two questions. First, is organic food worth the premium we pay for it? Second, how organic (and therefore different from the standard stuff subjected to chemical fertilizers and pesticides), is 100% organic?
DeleteThank you Professor for asking intelligent questions. My comments are as below.
ReplyDeleteOrganic foods are often more expensive than nonorganic foods. "On average, you'll pay 50% extra for organic food, but you can easily end up shelling out 100% more, especially for milk and meat," states Consumer Reports.
I have just finished Consumer Reports and they recommend checking that fresh organic fruits and vegetables aren't placed too close to nonorganic produce in grocery stores, since misting could let pesticide residue run. It should cost less, because the farmer doesn’t have to spend money on pesticide right?
Unfortunately that’s not the case and the organic version of whatever produce you’re shopping for usually carries a premium of 25-100% over the conventional version. As the primary grocery shopper, I find myself faced with this dilemma quite often. I sometimes buy organic if it’s cheaper than the regular version (duh), and lately I’ve been buying organic if it’s relatively reasonably priced compared with the regular version. I have no concrete rule for what I consider a “reasonable” mark-up, but let’s just say if it costs double, I’m not getting it. I survived this long without organic food; what are the odds another non-organic apple is going to kill me?
In general I feel good when I buy organic food. I don’t mean taste — it tastes more or less the same.
I mean I get a warm fuzzy feeling like I’m doing something good for me and for the planet.
Because I’m worth it.
But how much of that is the product of marketing and perception and how much of that is reality? Are the benefits of buying organic quantifiable? Is there a concrete rule about the price premium we rationally should be willing to pay to buy organic?
Or will we be stuck with some vague sense of self-worth, without knowing the true objective benefits?
So I set out to see what I could find. I found a citation that the average meal travelled 1300 miles before it got to your plate. The biggest polluter in farming isn’t the farmer (organic or not), it’s the transportation to bring the product to you.
When it comes to pesticides, I’ll admit my general thinking has been, “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” This may be flawed.
According to some studies, pregnant women and small children are most vulnerable to this exposure.
When it comes to eating food, I think we can all be in agreement we want to eat the food and only the food, not some synthetic fertilizer, pesticide, or chemical ripening agent.
But just because it’s organic doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for you.
I anticipate we’ll see more research on the subject published in the near future, but currently the data is inconclusive and there doesn’t seem to be any scientific consensus on whether or not there is a tangible nutritional benefit of buying organic.
Your blog is distinctive. I have found your blog innovative. You have chosen very incredible theme for your sketch. I cherished it.
ReplyDeleteorganic products
Thank you, Peter.
Delete