The Truth About Organic Foods

Reader’s Digest
Michael Downey
February 26, 2007

Excerpt…

Like a growing number of Canadians, Jennifer Kavur shops regularly for organic groceries. She buys organic tomatoes, lettuce, apples and many other items. And the 31-year-old Toronto editor pays dearly for them: For example, last fall she paid $2.99 for a head of cauliflower in the organic section of her local grocery store, while, a few metres away, the conventionally grown version was priced at just 99 cents a head. Her reasoning for spending more? “It’s better for you, healthier. You don’t get all those pesticides.”

Organic food is still a niche market, representing just over two percent of all food sold, and, according to Consumer Reports, costs consumers on average about 50 percent more than conventionally grown foods. But organic food is more visible today than ever before, with most large supermarket chains in Canada now offering dedicated organic sections. A reason for its growing popularity? People think it’s better for them. A 2005 survey by the large American chain Whole

Foods Market showed 53 percent of organic-food consumers think it is healthier, in part because they believe it’s pesticide-free. Most Canadians who buy organic, according to a 2005 survey by ACNielsen, say they do so because it’s healthier than conventionally grown food.

But are they right? (Read on …)

Telegraph
Harry Wallop, Business Correspondent

The middle class’s love affair with organic milk might be starting to sour, according to the latest industry data. After years of paying a premium for supposedly healthier milk, shoppers are no longer buying organic milk in ever increasing numbers. According to market research company TNS, which closely monitors the market, sales of organic milk grew from 73.8 million litres in 2004 to 158 million last year. Though that represents rapid growth, it has slowed down considerably in recent months. Growth in the last 12 weeks has faltered to zero. Organic represents only six per cent of all milk bought. Despite being championed by a host of celebrities such as Anthony Worrall Thompson, this percentage shows little sign of rising substantially. (Read on …)

The Independent
By Cahal Milmo
February 19, 2007

Excerpt…

Organic food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce and in some cases is contributing more to global warming than intensive agriculture, according to a government report.

The first comprehensive study of the environmental impact of food production found there was “insufficient evidence” to say organic produce has fewer ecological side-effects than other farming methods.

The 200-page document will reignite the debate surrounding Britain’s £1.6bn organic food industry which experienced a 30 per cent growth in sales last year.

David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, drew a furious response from growers last month when he suggested organic food was a “lifestyle choice” with no conclusive evidence it was nutritionally superior. (Read on …)

I saw this and could not have said it better myself. This was a post on Terry Etherton’s Blog, by Chad Dechow.

The evil “Big Oil” companies are under threat of legislation and Congressional investigation for profiteering because they dare to make an entire 9 to 10 pennies per gallon of gasoline. Imagine the fun Congress could have with the folks selling rbST-free milk. For a mere dollar or two extra, you can now buy a gallon of milk from cows not treated with rbST. Only don’t pretend you’re helping out the hard working farmers who milk non rbST-treated cows. They will receive little or none of that premium.

Dairy producers are obviously not happy. The consumer-farmer price disparity is easy to spot with rbST-free milk, but this disparity is simply a time condensed and dramatic example of the long-term trend. USDA keeps track of trends in farm and consumer prices and the appalling rbST-free milk marketing gimmicks motivated me to dig up the numbers. Through the early 1980’s, farmers typically received 50% of the retail dollar. Today’s farmer will only pull in around 30% of the retail dollar. Genetics, biotechnology, and evolving management practices have helped make our dairy farms more efficient, but that efficiency is not being passed to consumers. Retail prices have gone up at essentially the rate of inflation while the price paid to farmers has remained stagnant. The farm-to-retail price spread increased 241% from 1983 to 2005 (see Figure 1). Many dairy producers have lost the farm they’ve poured their life into because they could no longer pay their bills in such an environment. Cows lose in this deal as well. The constant drive toward greater farm efficiency makes proper stewardship of the creatures we care for that much more difficult. (Read on …)