Brainfade Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/15/organic-marketing-often-misleading/9110319/ As someone who has dedicated his career to agriculture, I’ve often wondered what drives the now double-digit growth in the $35 billion U.S. organic products industry. Why are so many people willing to pay premiums up to 100 percent or more for items that carry an organic label, and do they really understand what that label means and — even more important — what it doesn’t mean? Many of these questions have now been answered in a blockbuster report by the scientific-integrity watchdog Academics Review. The report examines the last 25 years of academic and organic industry market research, public statements and often questionable marketing practices. What they have found should be raising red flags for all of us. The organic industry likes to project a friendly image of small farmers and contented cows. But as this report extensively documents, the behavior of this multibillion-dollar industry is considerably less benign. Among the other findings is the extent to which the large organic food corporations engage in what it describes as deceptive advertising linked to scientifically baseless scares about conventional food. Worse, this “black marketing” takes place with the implied approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Organic Seal and the silent acquiescence of the regulatory authorities charged with ensuring that all labeling and advertising be “truthful and non-misleading.” As a leading consultant warned the organic industry in the 1990s, “If the threats posed by cheaper, conventionally produced products are removed, then the potential to develop organic foods will be limited.” Since then we’ve witnessed a remorseless campaign based on junk science or no-science attacking food grown with modern fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs and other technologies. Advertising and promotional material — including “educational” materials developed for schools — suggest non-organic food is linked to almost every disease under the sun, including “developmental and learning problems such as ADHD,” “high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, depression and cancer.” Tens of millions of organic marketing dollars flow annually to activist organizations such as the Environmental Working Group which spread misinformation and fear. Unsupported, provably counter*factual claims are so habitual to the industry that they are even included in official statements: “Not only is organic safer, healthier and more nutritious,” claims the Organic Consumer Association in testimony to USDA, but buying organic will “reduce food-borne illness and diet-related diseases.” The Organic Seal does not and cannot signify any health or safety criteria whatsoever. It merely certifies that products were produced using less modern inputs. “Let me be clear about one thing,” said USDA Secretary Dan Glickman when organic certification was being considered. “The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.” Yet USDA’s own research shows consumers buy higher priced organic products because they mistakenly believe them safer and more nutritious. The science is clear on this point: As numerous studies, USDA monitoring, and a massive “meta-analysis” recently conducted at Stanford University confirm, organic foods are no more nutritious, nor do they carry any fewer health risks, than conventional foods. In fact, a good case could be made that conventional food may be considerably safer. Modern pesticides, which have been designed to be more benign to humans, can be much less toxic than “natural” pesticides used by organic farmers, often in far greater quantity because they are less effective. USDA carefully monitors our conventional food supply for pesticide residues and consistently finds them comfortably within safety limits. As for GMOs, every reputable scientific agency in the world has deemed them safe — including in Europe, where GMOs have been severely restricted to political hysteria. President Obama, in referring to Norman Borlaug, said, “I share his belief that investment in enhanced biotechnology is an essential component of the solution to some of our planet’s most pressing agricultural problems.” I am supportive of those who choose to grow organic food and those who choose to buy it. However, I do not accept the organic industry’s attack on new tech agriculture. It is entirely without justification. If the roles were reversed and conventional agriculture engaged in similar “black marketing” against organics, the regulatory authorities and consumer groups would come down like a ton of bricks. One wonders why, then, this multibillion-dollar industry gets a free ride to propagate negative and false advertising denigrating the livelihood of the vast majority of America’s farmers. It’s time for it to stop. THE AUTHOR: JOHN R. BLOCK was U.S. secretary of agriculture from 1981 to 1986. He now is a senior policy adviser with Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz PC in Washington, D.C. Contact: jblock@ofwlaw.com.
ganeshran Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 A lot of industries get a free pass - religious institutions, alternative medicine - chiropractors, reiki healing, homeopathy etc. They usually have a set of lawyers who advice them of the right kind of claims to make which can withstand legal scrutiny. And decorate them with appropriate disclaimers.
f.b.m Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 This peer reviewed article shows why they are right: http://foodbabe.com/2012/07/30/why-its-time-to-throw-out-your-microwave/
Brainfade Posted May 19, 2014 Author Posted May 19, 2014 Were u fired from Whole Foods brah? I know you're joking, but I'll give you a serious answer. I study plant molecular biology. I teach cell biology and biochemistry. I have a passion for science, especially the life-sciences. I passionately detest junk science. It is especially appalling to me when the blatant violation of science is so easily accepted by otherwise intelligent people. It irks me to no end when perfectly rational folks buy into the misinformation that organic food advocates sell. It is a dangerous trend, and I try to do my part to quell it :-).
flamy Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 :) I just saw like three threads from you on this topic :D What's the real deal (as in all the stuff that organic advertises itself as) per your educated opinion?
Brainfade Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 :) I just saw like three threads from you on this topic :D What's the real deal (as in all the stuff that organic advertises itself as) per your educated opinion? The real deal is - don't throw your money away on organics. Why? (1) thorough, peer-reviewed meta-studies have shown that organic produce is no more nutritious than conventional produce. (2a) Organic does not mean "pesticide-free." It just means "synthetic-pesticide-free." The big fallacy here is that non-synthetic pesticides are harmless (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html). They are not; they are just not as well-studied. Look up safety data sheets for copper sulfate and rotenone, both approved for organic agriculture. You'd be surprised. Also surprising will be the fact that coffee is more carcinogenic than most synthetic pesticides. Dose makes the poison. (2b) Conventional produce, of course, has higher levels of synthetic pesticides than organics. But those levels do not even come close to approaching the doses that can cause harm. Think of it this way. It may take a 1000 units of a synthetic pesticide to cause harm. Organics may have 1 unit of it, conventionals may have 3. Neither is in the ball park of harm. Again, dose makes the poison. (3) Organic yields for cereal crops are typically 40 - 60% of conventionals. So, to produce the same amount of food organically, you will need twice as much land. More forests cut down. Less earth-friendly. (4) Finally, if you can't use synthetic herbicides (like glyphosate), you have to till the land more. More erosion, more nutrient loss from soil, less earth friendly. (5) This last point is tangential, since I want to bring GMOs into the discussion. For this, I am taking a play out of the anti-science activist playbook - anecdotal evidence. Dozens of people have died from consuming E. coli contaminated organic produce. Dozens more have gotten sick from eating Listeria infested organic prioduce. Not a single case of death or sickness from eating GMO-food.
Brainfade Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 Cool. GMO has ecological concerns' date=' though.[/quote'] Like?
Brainfade Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 The prime driver of the organic movement? Mommy Mafia. http://nypost.com/2014/04/19/the-tyranny-of-the-organic-mommy-mafia/ “Am I going to be an outcast?†A friend, who recently moved to an upscale neighborhood in Madison, Wis., called me last week to ask if she would be able to make mommy friends if she continued feeding her children — gasp! — non-organic food. She had just come back from the park where two mothers were discussing a recent vacation to a resort in Puerto Rico. One told the other that there, for the first time, her toddler was given Jif peanut butter. He loved it. Prior to that he had only had Whole Foods peanut butter, which (one might guess) pales in comparison for a 3-year-old palate. When the boy came home and asked for more Jif, his mother told him it wasn’t available — that it was “Puerto Rican peanut butter.†Wrapped up in that phrase is all of the arrogance and class snobbery of the organic-food mafia. If these moms haven’t come to your neighborhood yet, just wait. Another mom, a class parent at a preschool in Westchester, told me she was being harassed by one of the other mothers to issue a new rule: Only organic snacks would be allowed in the classroom. A mom in Washington tells me that she was unable to participate in a number of nanny-share agreements she looked into because the other parents were so crazy about not having their children come into contact with anything non-organic. One mother she met was convinced her child’s ADD became worse when he was exposed to non-organic food. A stray Goldfish or Cheerio might set him off. But sometimes these parents are not even worried about their own child’s well-being. They’re worried about yours. The organic foodies are not satisfied with controlling their own family’s dietary habits, they want to “evangelize,†says Julie Gunlock, author of “From Cupcakes to Chemicals: How the Culture of Alarmism Makes Us Afraid of Everything and How to Fight Back.†The pressure on parents to use only organic food is, she says, an “outgrowth of helicopter parenting. People need to be in control of everything when it comes to their kids — even the way food is grown and treated.†“Moms feel guilty,†Gunlock adds. They can allow themselves to think that even if they’re not perfect at something else, at least they feed their kids the best food out there. The organic-food industry is thrilled by this attitude. But let’s be clear. Organic food does not necessarily mean better. It’s a term that’s been co-opted and manipulated into a billion-dollar industry by some of the biggest food companies in America. According to a recent report by Academics Review, a nonprofit group of independent scientists, “consumers have spent hundreds of billion dollars purchasing premium-priced organic food products based on false or misleading perceptions about comparative product food-safety, nutrition and health attributes.†Researchers found that “perceived safety concerns tied to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs are the critical component driving sales in the organic-food sector.†Never mind that the USDA ensures the safety of our food, whether it’s conventionally grown or organic. Time and again these safety concerns about conventional foods have been debunked. Take the most common mommy worry — pesticides. According to the calculator at Safefruitsandveggies.com, a project of the nonprofit Alliance for Food and Farming, “a child could consume 1,508 servings of strawberries in one day without any effect even if the strawberries have the highest pesticide residue recorded for strawberries by USDA.†Or how about this: “A teen could consume 206 servings of peaches in one day without any effect even if the peaches have the highest pesticide residue recorded for peaches by USDA.†Nor are organic foods healthier. As Scientific America notes, 50 years of studies in the UK found that organic and conventional foods have the exact same nutritional content. Organic-food companies continue to profit from the misinformation that conventional food is somehow dangerous. If this were any other industry trying to take advantage of them, mind you, these moms would be up in arms. But try telling that to parents. In a recent blog post, Gunlock describes the shocked reaction of a mother who saw Gunlock feed her child regular non-organic apples. Gunlock reports: “She hasn’t been back, and I have no doubt that she now views my home as some sort of toxic-waste dump.†It’s not just that these mothers are misinformed. Or that they fear for the safety of their children. For some of them, feeding their families organic is a status symbol. Because let’s face it, if you can afford the organic version of everything, you’re doing pretty well for yourself. Not like those folks reduced to eating Puerto Rican peanut butter.
Recommended Posts