Sales of ethical food are rocketing, and “better for you and the planet” logos
are popping up everywhere. But is this a big step forward, or is it all a
big con? The supermarkets see us as either “foodies” or “fuellies”. If you
are a foodie, you shop according to conscience and quality; if you are
driven by value, you are a fuellie. The foodies (who make up more than half
of UK consumers) spend more than £5.5 billion each year on organic,
Fairtrade and locally reared produce. It’s expected to rise to £7.5 billion
by 2011.
“Ethical” foods attract exclusive prices, but are they really any better? Is
organic more nutritious? What are Assured Food Standards? And who exactly
gets the fair deal in Fairtrade? Food labelling and ever-increasing numbers
of logos telling us about the history of our produce don’t make it any
easier. As a dietician, chef and someone trying to do my bit to save the
planet, I find the supermarket daunting. I’m not sure what type of shopper I
am any more. But here’s what I do know.
ORGANIC
In 2005, organic food sales were up by 30% on the previous year. Organic
licensing in the UK is predominantly overseen by the Soil Association and EU
law.
What it means
- Four permitted chemicals are used on organic crops, as opposed to more than
400 on nonorganic crops. They are sprayed less often, too.
- Livestock is drug-free, has more space and is fed predominantly on organic
feeds.
- Additives such as hydrogenated fat, aspartame and monosodium glutamate are
forbidden in the food.
- Hens must be free range, not battery-farmed.
- There are fewer pesticide residues than in non-organic food.
- No GM crops or feeds are permitted.
What it doesn’t mean
- That there are no additives — 30 are permitted, and some are used to fortify
food with vitamins and minerals. In the UK, for example, white flour has
added calcium and iron, whether it’s organic or not.
- That it tastes better. Chefs may think so, but research shows that there’s
no difference in the taste or appearance of organic and non-organic food.
- That it’s residue-free. Studies in the United States found that organic
produce has about two-thirds the level of pesticide residues of non-organic.
The health risks of residues are unclear, although hormonal imbalances and
reduced immunity are often quoted.
- That the risk of food poisoning is smaller. Some experts believe that
organic methods make food more prone to contamination. For instance, organic
eggs without a “Lion” stamp have not been protected against salmonella.
- That it’s more nutritious. A review of 41 studies found that organic fruit
and vegetables contained extra vitamin C and antioxidants, and organic milk
had higher levels of essential fatty acids. But the Food Standards Agency
concludes: “The current scientific evidence does not show that organic food
is any more nutritious than conventionally produced food.” The extra
nutrients just aren’t enough to give a measurable health benefit.
- That it’s locally grown. About 44% of organic foods are imported into the
UK, but there’s nothing to say how they are transported. A typical organic
Sunday lunch could have accumulated more than 16,000 air miles to get to the
UK. The Soil Association is so worried about these environmental
implications, it has launched a one-year review of the evidence, which may
lead to an outright ban on air-freighted organic food.
Do I buy it?
Yes, but not exclusively. Muddy carrots allow me to believe that I nearly grew
them myself, and I still believe that organic meat tastes better, but that’s
probably because it’s allowed to mature for longer than most supermarket
meat. For me, just an “organic” label isn’t enough. Only “local and organic”
really satisfies my conscience.
THE RED TRACTOR LOGO
The Assured Food Standards logo is like a basic MOT of food safety, animal
welfare and environmental regulations. Representing the National Farmers’
Union and the Meat and Livestock Commission, among other bodies, it’s by no
means independent. It’s so widely used that both foodies and fuellies eat
these foods.
What it means
- Minimum standards of hygiene, animal welfare and care of the environment
have been met. Those standards are broad, however, and not as rigorous or
effective as those of many other regulatory organisations. What it doesn’t
mean l That food has to reach nutritional standards.
- That the food is free-range. Chickens can still be kept in cramped
conditions, and animals kept in barns are not required to be given straw or
other forms of bedding.
- That it’s organic.
- That it’s local or British.
Do I buy it?
I have food with this logo in my trolley, but more by default than by choice —
it’s difficult to avoid. A code regulated by the people who have to adhere
to it doesn’t have the same priorities or objectivity as I do.
FAIRTRADE
Fairtrade is about the farmer’s welfare. Farmers in developing countries are
paid a fair price for their produce; profits go back into sustainable
farming and local social or economic development. It is overseen by
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International and currently covers 2,000
products, predominantly of vegetable origin.
What it means
- Workers and farmers have received a fair price for their produce.
- The local community benefits.
What it doesn’t mean
- That it’s nutritionally better. All produce (other than roses) is shipped,
rather than flown, and the longer transport times may mean reduced levels of
some vitamins and minerals in fruit and vegetables.
- That it’s organic. Many Fairtrade farmers use organic methods, but the
Fairtrade logo is no guarantee.
Do I buy it?
I buy Fairtrade foods that we can’t grow in this country.
SO WHO’S GOT IT RIGHT — FOODIE OR FUELLIE?
Organic has fewer pesticide residues, but we don’t really know if that means
definite health benefits. Many of us think it tastes better, but controlled
consumer tests show it doesn’t, and unless we know where it comes from, it
could have an unPC environmental profile. There’s a wealth of evidence
telling us that speedy field-to-freezer harvesting of frozen fruit and
vegetables means they can contain more nutrients than fresh alternatives, so
it’s unlikely there’s any nutritional bonus to ethical food.
With my chef’s hat on, however, I love to go to my local farm butchers for
meat, and I pick up the organic veg there, too. But that could easily be a
feelgood rather than a real-good factor.
The environmentalist in me sleeps easy knowing that my morning coffee hasn’t
exploited a farmer in the developing world, but if someone offers me a cup
of freshly brewed nonFairtrade Blue Mountain, I’ll drink it.
The bottom line is, if you buy food purely according to your conscience,
that’s great, but don’t be duped into thinking it will guarantee a long and
healthy life, or that the planet will thank you. There’s plenty of ordinary
food out there (any antioxidant-rich fruit or veg, for example) without
ethical logos that really deserves superfood status.
There can, of course, be healthy and unhealthy foodie and fuellie diets — and
that’s the key. Look at your diet as a whole, rather than getting hung up on
individual foods. Cook from scratch more often; eat more fruit, vegetables
and wholegrains; and watch your fats, salt and sugar. Then, whether you’re a
foodie or a fuellie, you’ll be doing just fine.
I wonder what the author of this article thinks of GM food. His article is linked to Monsanto's most recent newsletter to try and persuade folk to turn against organic food. GM crops would bring an end to organic food as many GM seeds use pesticides and herbicides that are rightly banned by the soil association.
Ashley Lovett, Stourbridge, UK
Heres something else.. cant let a battle go unresponded :). lets call this the rebound shot
Deleo, st J, vt