Rational Agriculture

Although this is not new, I thought I would bring to your attention an article in January's food monthly supplement in the Observer (see link). This compares the treatment of "organic" and "non-organic" fruit and vegetables, in a way guaranteed to increase the yuk factor and reinforce Guardian and Ob readers' prejudicies about the way their food is being "poisoned". The distance food is shipped, often from abroad, is also subject to criticism.

This tells us nothing about the nutritional value or eating quality of the produce. It tells us nothing about the many toxins and carcinogens naturally present in foods at much higher levels than any residues of synthetic pesticides. It tells us nothing about the harmful effect that local sourcing of all our food would have on the economies of developing countries, whose main competitive advantage lies in the supply of out-of-season fresh produce to the industrialised world.

In my view, unbalanced and partially-informed comment of the worst kind. Implicit in this is that "natural" = good and anything else is bad. Recent figures show that organic produce sales are levelling off (at least in the UK) and experience in supermarkets certainly shows this is still a niche market. Nevertheless, this sort of food snobbishness reinforces the public view that "organic" is better, despite the singular lack of evidence to support this view. Fruit and vegetable quality is determined by a whole range of factors, including variety, degree of ripeness and freshness, and the cultivation method is but one of these.

Now I've got that off my chest, I'll go back to enjoying my weekend!