The fuss over organics

Proponents of organic food are in an uproar over a research study published last month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. A study of 50 years of scientific research concludes that organic food is no healthier than conventionally produced food, and the organic movement is not happy.

The ruckus started when Britain’s Food Safety Agency commissioned the research to determine whether that country’s organic industry could claim higher health benefits for its products over conventionally produced food. Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reviewed scientific studies between 1958 and 2008 and found no significant nutritional differences between conventional and organic produce, fruit, vegetables, meat and milk.

Little wonder that the organic movement is upset since sales of organic food have fallen in markets around the world as the recession has led consumers to reduce food purchases of all kinds, and especially of the more expensive organic variety.

From the perspective of organic producers, the study adds insult to injury. Sales of organic products in Britain, for example, slowed to 1.7 percent in 2008, dramatically below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade. Then came the plunge in demand at the end of 2008 and now this study.

Food is an emotional subject, and the study’s lead researcher told the Belfast Telegraph that he had been contacted by hundreds of people accusing him of dishonesty and incompetence.

Organic/all-natural meat outlook in U.S. market

The bad news for organics isn’t just related to its current bad press. Data from 1,600 in-store consumer intercepts conducted by the Perishables Group during March of this year shows some big negatives for organic, all-natural and free-range meat.

The problem, however, doesn’t relate to the category’s nutritional value. The challenge involves value and price in the current recessionary environment. A whopping 53% of consumers who already buy organic, all-natural or free-range meat plan to either reduce or stop those purchases. Twenty-two percent said they will not continue purchases; 31% said their purchases would be reduced.

Another challenge for the organic/all-natural/free-range category is that it remains small. More than half (53%) of the shoppers intercepted in the Perishables Group study never purchase organic, all-natural or free-range meat. Twenty-one percent rarely purchase meat in this category.

And it’s downhill from there: The largest purchaser group at 17 percent buys organic/all-natural/free-range meat “sometimes.” Six percent said they “usually” buy this category, and only 4% said they “always” buy the category.

Tiny and shrinking?

The current economic environment is severely punishing the organics/all-natural/free range category. Only 46% of intercepted shoppers who have been purchasers plan to continue those purchases. And here’s an eye-opener: 13% of consumers who “always” purchase meat in the organic/all-natural/free range category said they do not plan to continue those purchases.

At least until the current recession is over, it appears the debate over the nutritional superiority of organic foods will have less to do with the category’s fortunes than do the pocketbook issues of price and perceived economic value.

Never say die

Organic proponents, meantime, believe that more current scientific studies – two recent ones not included in the London School’s survey – will vindicate their claims of nutritional superiority. They also make pro-organic arguments based on protection of the environment and higher animal welfare standards.

Whatever their future clout is to be at the cash register, these true believers will continue to wield the political and social power to influence markets and regulatory systems.

For more information about the Perishables Group research related to poultry and other meats, visit www.WATTAgNet.com.