TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Column: It’s not just sandal wearing hippies who grow and eat organic food

Science remains divided about organic food and its benefits – so who’s buying it? Grace Maher explains what is happening in our supermarkets.

SO WHAT EXACTLY does it mean when you buy a product that is certified organic? Organic farmers do not use artificial chemicals and fertilisers on their land, strict animal welfare standards are observed and there are no GM ingredients. Every year farmers and businesses that hold an organic licence are inspected or audited to ensure that they are adhering to the organic standards.

Last week another study emerged which claimed that organic food was not any healthier for you than non organic food. This study was compiled in Stanford University in the US. It echoed a similar study done in the UK in 2009. Science remains divided about organic food.

So who eats organic food in Ireland? The domestic market in Ireland is worth approximately  €104 million annually – so a lot of people. The background to the Irish organic food sect or starts in earnest in the late 1970s. In the early years it was associated with sandal wearing hippies who grew and consumed organic food. However much has changed in the intervening years.

Healthy diet

Bord Bia annually compiles research on people who are buying organic food and it consistently shows similar results. The three main groups that purchase organic food are pre- families, older people and people with young families. The first group might surprise people however there is a growing section of that age group who are well informed and concerned about diet and how their food is produced. The second category the “empty nesters” have less dependents and more disposable income. Many in this category also have a desire to purchase natural foods and therefore organic food appeals to them. The third category is a more obvious one as when people initially have children they start to pay more attention to how food is produced and what raw materials are used. Here organic scores very high as the lack of pesticide residues appeals to new parents. The research for 2012 to date also shows that people are buying organic food more often however as a result of this they are also buying less each time.

The entry point to the organic sector for consumers is generally vegetables and fruit. Consumers then expand to other categories of organic food. In Ireland the 4 highest categories are vegetables, fruit, fresh meat and yoghurt. These products are staples of the Irish diet and illustrate the value consumers place on sourcing these products organically. Approximately 80 per cent of organic food purchased in Ireland is done in supermarkets. The rest is sold directly to consumers via farmers markets, box schemes, and websites. Usually to get the most competitive price in the products outlined above it is best to source directly from the producer. In Ireland a high percentage of organic producers are involved in direct sales to the public. Also it makes sense to buy in season as this is when local organic produce is at its best and cheapest! Often it can be cheaper than its non organic alternative in the supermarket.

As the price of non organic food production (which is dependent on fossil fuels) continues to rise the gap between the price of organic and non organic food continues to narrow. This is likely to continue and indeed reverse as the availability of cheap food disappears.

Pesticides

If the jury is out on whether organic food really is healthier then why do people buy organic food? The most consistent reason cited by consumers is that organic food is free from pesticides. Pesticide residues from non organic food are becoming increasingly worrying for consumers. How are these pesticides broken down and excreted by the human body? Much research needs to be done in this area. Animal welfare standards, GM free diets, preservation of biodiversity and natural resources are all other reasons why people in Ireland choose to buy organic food. Taste is also a major factor, if an organic product tastes good people will buy it. If not then people will not buy it simply because it is organic.

In Ireland there are 1,721 registered organic operators with 52,390 hectares of land certified organic. This translates to roughly 1.25 per cent of the farming community. This is small compared to the European average which is 5 per cent. This year has been extremely challenging for Irish organic producers and it is important to support them particularly when many large supermarkets are sourcing their organic products abroad as there is more availability of produce.

Grace Maher is a spokesperson for the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association. Events are taking place all around the country this week for National Organic Week which is running from September 10th – 16th.

Read next:

Comments (26 Comments)

  • I only recently started eating organic food due to an illness that has made me get small allergic reactions to pretty much everything I used eat. Eating organic food has stopped the allergies and tastes so much better it’s incredible. Dunnes Stores do really nice organic chicken and fruit and veg, real good quality. The doubters can tell me what they want, organic food is the way to go. Nothing beats food grown as it should be, in a natural environment with no chemical aid!

    Reply
  • Whether it is healthier or not may be a moot point because we know that commonly used pesticides are responsible for the decline in biodiversity especially bee populations which are essential for food production. The impact of this is reduced crop yields which is a problem far bigger than how healthy one salad is over another.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/351.abstract
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17535769

    While organic food may not be the full answer to the problem, there needs to be a serious rethink about how we produce and consume food.

    Reply
  • What ever about it’s human health benefits, it is a lot healthier for our environment.

    Reply
    • Not quite that straightforward. Yes it’s better not to have pesticides seeping into the ground and water supply and impacting wildlife. But organic produce is less efficient. It fails more often and requires more land. GM foods feed more people per hectare. So you could say that GM is better for the environment from that perspective.

      Reply
  • Nothing beats food grown in your own garden, picked, cooked and eaten on the same day. I agree that while organic may be better for you it’s defiantly better for the planet.

    Reply
  • What scares me about GM foods is that the GM companies are developing foods that do not produce seed so that one has to go back and buy from them again and again thus controling food production globaly. Now that is scary. Ban GM and stick to traditional ways for food production.

    Reply
  • sara 16/09/12 #

    My grandad grows his on veg out the back and the potatoes are delicious, also has the best rhubarb going, it keeps him busy and great for my kids when we visit they love seeing the big cabbages and helping pull up the onions its great :) I’m always saying our town needs a good vegtable shop..

    Reply
  • This article is very confusing. It refers to two studies which concluded that organic food was not any healthier than non organic. The author then goes on to state that science is divided and makes reference to the jury being still out. Surely if the two studies referred to come to the same conclusions, it means that science is not divided. Is there another study and if so where is it. This is a very weak endorsement of organic food by a spokesperson for organic food growers.

    Reply
    • Hi Paddy, I know what you’re getting at, however, what the author says is correct, about science being split. I was listening to a debate between pro and anti organic scientists on the radio the other day and supposedly in the last 4 years there has been 5 extensive studies done on pros / lack of them of organic produce. Three have concluded there are benefits, two have cited there are none, so I would presume these two studies are the two he refers to?

      Reply
  • “Stanford University has deep ties to chemical agribusiness and agricultural biotechnology corporations. Agribusiness giant Cargill boasts it has a twenty-five year partnership with Stanford University, and faculty, including at the School of Medicine, have served on the Board of Directors of Monsanto while holding influential leadership positions at the university.
    http://climate-connections.org/2012/09/13/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-tainted-by-biotechnology-funding/

    Reply
  • This is a huge subject area that can’t be summed up by simply stating organic produce is safer/ healthier for the environment so it’s the only way to go. There are approx. 7 Billion people on our plant and growing ( if you pardon the pun).I would imagine that feeding all of those mouths organically would be a pretty tall order unless we to start taking the concept of GM production a big step further. Judging by the reaction GM potato trials this year I can’t see that mindset changing amongst the pro-organic movement. I have been growing my own fruit./veg for 25 yrs now and have adopted the organic “principle” slowly over time and I can tell you it is not easy. To simply throw away modern mono-cultural methods and produce the same amount of food on the same amount of land is a tall order. Back in the early 20th Century Fritz Haber was awarded the Nobel prize for developing the method of producing artificial Nitrogen fertilizer, later credited with saving millions of lives from starvation. This was at a time when there was a lot less people on the planet and more land per head to grow our food on. Whilst I agree that we must continue to find ways to protect our environment there is a lot of work to be done to scale up organic production to the scale required, if indeed it can be done at all.

    Reply
    • I agree with you but giving control of food production to companies like Monsanto is the begining of the end. Look what they are doing in the States. They sue farmers for copyright infringement after bees have pollnated crops adjacent to their crops and they have been successful, its easy to figure out where that is going. As some else said food will be the new cash and control.

      Reply
    • Pat, GM doesn’t need to be solely used by big corporations (its not that hard to do), the current potato trial by Teagasc doesn’t involve any. It was created by a Dutch university. What gives corporations such a edge in the area is that it is usually only them that can afford the exhaustive safety tests and lorry load of lawyers needed to get around the hurdles that have been put in front of GM. Don’t get me wrong, safety and testing are important but the safety requirements for GM in EU have been designed to try to stop GM with out much evidence to justify it. The US has been eating GM corn for decades and no significant health, safety or environmental issues have arising. A more measured approach would allow smaller companies to use GM. The irrational fear of GM as opposed to measured skepticism and measured testing and research of its impacts has therefore kept GM mainly in big corporations hands meaning we haven’t seen much good use of GM except perhaps for the golden rice project.

      Reply
    • @Niall , the resistance to GM in Europe,( much like many other issues ) is media driven to a large extent. When people don’t understand a concept they rely on the media for their information which can be pretty much twisted in it’s delivery. I’m not saying for one minute that everyone against GM is misinformed, what I am saying is that I have heard and read some pretty stupid “stories” about GM food. Often this type of information is all people have to go on. I can also understand skepticism based on what Monsanto is getting away with in the U.S. In the medium/longterm something needs to be done to address that situation.

      Reply
    • Niall, I dont have any problem with GM or mono production so long as government has control and seedless one hit crops are banned. To use food production as a means of control is just wrong on every level.

      Reply
    • Reply
    • There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it — it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.

      Reply
  • Grow your on veggies out the back garden thought i could’nt do it but its easy enough and saves a few bob plus its good therapy.

    Reply
  • Simon you have a good point there. The previous two comments are wrong though or at least the jury is out on it.. There is significant debate in the academic literature about the environmental benefits of organic. Simply put, organic has lower yields, which means, more land is required to produce it, meaning more natural habitat is used to make it (on a global scale). It also may have a much higher carbon footprint per kg of produce depending on the product for the same reason, same resources such as fuel resulting in lower yields. On a local level it gets a lot more complex, organic does promote a lot more bio diversity than normal agriculture so it is good for insects and birds on a per square mile basis. Normal agriculture can be almost as good with much higher yields depending on the product though. For example BT crops which are GM and contain a natural pesticide which is in no way harmful to humans means only pests are affected, preserving all the other useful insects which would have been killed by sprays. Organic uses pesticides and other additions as well some times such a BT or even copper sulphate but these fall on the other side of a arbitrary definition of what is “natural” and so are allowable.

    Reply
  • Would it not make sense to deal with this first before discussing to solve the hunger in the world withGM?

    Up to 50% of edible and healthy food gets wasted in EU households, supermarkets, restaurants and along the food supply chain each year, while 79 million EU citizens live beneath the poverty line and 16 million depend on food aid from charitable institutions. Parliament called in a resolution adopted on Thursday for urgent measures to halve food waste by 2025 and to improve access to food for needy EU citizens.

    Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120118IPR35648/html/Parliament-calls-for-urgent-measures-to-halve-food-wastage-in-the-EU

    Reply
  • the organic food “free from pesticides” is incorrect and misleading….see recent Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland ruling on this claim…..http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=984&BID=48

    it states: “since a form of pesticide was used in organic farming a claim that all pesticides were withheld from organic food or farming was likely to mislead.”

    Reply

Add New Comment