After a recent bout of anti-organic propaganda in the UK's mainstream media - which was led by elements from within the UK's government and associated agencies - a picture is emerging of the exact nature of this particular beast. What seems to be going on here is an attempt by multi-national chemical companies to get looser laws governing the use of their pesticides within the UK, and when considering who is saying what, this is more than likely supported by the big food industry giants too. A worrying sign is the lack of government or opposition support for the organic/anti-pesticide side, from whom we only hear the usual voices, and their opinions are not being published quite as often as those who would prefer us to totally forget about organic produce.

NEW WAVE OF ANTI-ORGANIC PROPAGANDA WHICH BEGAN RECENTLY

There was a huge raft of mostly low-key anti-organic articles which were doing the rounds in the UK's mainstream media only a few weeks ago relating to a UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report which was released at the end of July. It stated that there were no major nutritional benefits to be gained from eating organic produce, as compared to conventionally-grown produce, and the report itself was painted as wide-sweeping, and inclusive of every investigation into organic produce which has been published in the past 50 years. The UK's Soil Association immediately hit back by saying that amongst other things the report failed to include long and short-term human health problems associated with the use of pesticides, and the effect which they have on our environment and livestock. Now the Soil Association has further hit back by clarifying their position even moreso in an article printed in the Guardian, which was wrote by the groups policy director, Peter Melchett, in response to a piece by Ben Goldacre in his 'Bad Science' column, which was also printed in the Guardian.

BEN GOLDACRE'S ATTACK ON THE SOIL ASSOCIATION

Ben Goldacre in an article titled 'Argument is about capitalism, not food' stated that the Soil Association had put forward bad arguments against the FSA report findings which were not based on science, but on economics. He says the coverage received by the Soil Association's response was "testament to the lobbying power of this £2bn industry, and the cultural values of people who work in the media", and he argues that they have three bad arguments in their stinging attack... "Firstly, they say that the important issue with organic food is not personal health benefits, but rather benefit to the environment. This is a popular strategy from losing positions: Don't talk about that, talk about this... Secondly, they say that there are positive health benefits of organic food, but they are related to the absence of pesticides, and cannot be measured by the evidence that has been identified and summarised in the FSA paper. This, again, is gamesmanship... And thirdly, sadly, like many industries in a corner, the Soil Association seeks to undermine the public's understanding of what a systematic review is, which itself causes collateral damage to everybody's ability to engage in debates on evidence. They say that the report has deliberately excluded evidence to produce the answer that organic food is no better". Ok, so we got a pretty good picture of what this guys opinions are, but before we look at what he is saying, who is he?

WHO IS BEN GOLDACRE?

I don't trust this guy because of who he is not, and who he may want to be. He is not an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, in this area of science, and his online presence points to a guy who wants to be treated like some sort of a 'celebrity expert'. To me he is a comic character, attempting to travel in the footsteps of a highly respected uncle, and this is a dangerous type of individual, if the public take him seriously. Along with writing his 'Bad Science' column for the Guardian he has also published his 'Bad Science' book and runs the Bad Science website too. And with his Bad Science brand he has run high profile campaigns against folk who have tried to fight against certain immunisation programs in the UK and has also fought to get vitamin pills pushed to AIDS sufferers in Africa (why not campaign for food aid, better farming practices or a fairer world trade system which would allow these people to get out of that poverty which prevents them from growing or buying nourishing food?). Both of these areas are big profit industries for the multi-national pharmaceutical giants, and he has also (in-directly?) protected the government policy makers and pharmaceutical companies in other ways too. He has been known to try to calm people over scare stories relating to MRSA outbreaks, anti-depressants, water fluoridation, and much much more. This guy seems like a one man scientific knowledgebase who is rolled out every time the public get worried. A Scientific Conspiracy De-Bunker of sorts. And the funny thing is, he is actually a 35 year old junior medical doctor, who works for the NHS, so how all of this media work comes about must be down to his management agency, because surely a junior doctor working in a London hospital would not have all of this time available for organising all of this media work? Nevermind the media work itself, and in particular when it must involve research into a tremendous amount of scientific disciplines. The evidence, sadly, points to this young chap not really knowing as much as is portrayed. He simply couldn't. Chances are this lad is trying follow in his famous uncle Robyn's footsteps. Robyn Williams is a Welsh-born Australian-based science journalist and broadcaster who has presented the 'Science Show' on ABC since 1975, and has wrote ten books, three of which are included on high schools reading lists. He has received awards from the United Nations and the Human Rights Commission, amongst others, and in 1998 he was voted one of 'Australia's Living National Treasures'. That is a lot to live up to, and the way in which Ben is going about his 'branding' - because you cannot call it anything else - leads one to believe that he too wants to be thought of as an all round knowledgeable person who would be the nations first point-of-call for any scientific opinions. And I do mean any! I suppose we should think of him like the Jamie Oliver of Health, Science and Environment-related issues, because it seems like that is where he is heading, and with a name like Goldacre, what housewife wouldn't trust him on such issues? But not everybody trusts the young doctor, and his opinions have been rubbished on occasions, including by the Soil Association's Peter Melchett who has stuck the boot in on this latest issue, and rightly so too.

THE UK SOIL ASSOCIATIONS LATEST REBUKE TO ANTI-ORGANIC PROPAGANDA

Melchett makes a clear and concise argument in an article entitled 'The case against organic food does not stand up' which was printed in today's Guardian, relating to the information and dis-information which is being published by the UK media regarding the reports findings. He wrote this latest article mainly in response to the piece wrote by Ben Goldacre in his 'Bad Science' column. This is what Peter Melchett had to say... "First, he said we were trying to change the argument by saying that the important issue with organic food is not personal health benefits, but rather benefit to the environment. More farmland wildlife, high animal welfare and lower pollution were not mentioned in our own initial response, but were put forward strongly by the government when the FSA launched its report, and we repeated it as the government's view, with which we agree... Second, we argued that absence of pesticides, no routine use of antibiotics on farm animals and far fewer additives allowed in organic food all deliver health benefits. Goldacre says that as these cannot be measured by the FSA research, mentioning them is gamesmanship. These are real benefits, confirmed by other research. But we also answered the FSA head-on, making clear that more recent science than the FSA's has found more beneficial nutrients in organic food... Third, Goldacre says we wrongly said the FSA deliberately excluded evidence. When the FSA announced its review two years ago, we asked it to wait so it could include the results of the largest-ever research programme into organic food, funded by the EU. It refused. Goldacre claimed of the EU papers published so far, almost all are irrelevant. The full results of the five years of EU research, presented at a conference in April, and including a positive review of nutritional differences, will be peer-reviewed and published next spring. Goldacre would have learnt this if he had talked to the scientists involved".

THE PATTERN EMERGES

Goldacre is no different to many of the 'experts' which have been wheeled out for this particular campaign, but he has made some glaring mistakes. When refusing to give any credence to the largest every study of organic produce, by the EU, he is showing himself not to be a man of science, but a man of opinion, and a very loose opinion at that, because it is hard to see what information he is actually basing his opinion on if it wont include a relevant, recent and large-scale study. He also accuses the Soil Association of gamesmanship because it mentions that the FSA report did not include the pesticide issue, because the data is not available so is therefore not relevant. That's wrong on two levels. Firstly it is available in many studies, it just needs to be included, and secondly, that is important data and very relevant to what we are putting into our bodies, as any medical doctor would be aware of, so it is relevant. But he is not the only spin doctor working with a selective outlook, Dominic Lawson wrote a piece in The Times called 'Organic food is just a tax on the gullible - I could have become a fatal casualty of the organic movement' (that link is for a PDF, because The Times have deleted their opinion article for some reason), and an overall pattern is certainly emerging of a full scale assault on the organic industry.

THE UK CROP PROTECTION AGENCY JOINS THE CHORUS

The UK Crop Protection Association's chief executive, Dominic Dyer, wrote a BBC article called 'False fears threaten food supplies' in which he states that... "If farmers' yields were still as low as those of the 1950s, we would need nearly three times as much cultivated land to feed today's global population... The truth is that if we enjoy a steady, year-round supply of fresh produce at affordable prices, it's thanks to modern agriculture and well-trained professional farmers... Modern agricultural achievements are the result of technological advances, new management techniques and new chemical treatments that have made it possible to feed 6.7 billion mouths". Again this is not the most rounded argument. If we farmed organically we would have brought our yields up, by those better management techniques which Dyer mentions have been advanced since the 1950s. It's called natural progression Mr Dyer. And we could also have the better machinery with organic farming, it's just the chemicals and genetic modification of the seeds and plants which is different with the route which we have travelled for our current style of chemical-laden agriculture. But that is where it matters for his association, as they represent those "active in crop protection, amenity, home and garden with a strong focus on food production", so we can definitely include the food producers in that, all of which have a vested interest in ploughing chemicals into our land for short term financial gain. He is a lobbyist, and nothing more.

ARE CHEMICAL PROFITS THE REAL REASON?

It is clear that there is a prolonged attack on the organic industry so expect some measures to go through which will add more chemicals to your food and environment very soon. One great example is the possible reinstation of a pesticide called aminopyralid, which damages fruit and vegetable crops, and which was withdrawn from the UK market last year by the government. The "stewardship" of the hormone-based weed killer is said to have been made safer by it's producer Dow Agrosciences - the second largest chemical manufacturer in the world by revenue after BASF - but the last batch is still causing crops to fail all over the UK. They say that they will only sell it in large batches, which will cut out casual usage, and they along with the UK government seem to feel that this will now make it safe. But that's not strictly the case because here's the problem. It gets sprayed on grass, the livestock eat the grass, it comes out as manure which is then spread onto our crops. We digest those crops, but before we do that, they are transported here and there when they are at risk of contaminating food and vegetable crops. It is in the system, and our system, and is dangerous. There is simply no evidence that their better "stewardship" will make the British countryside any safer to live in, or off, but Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), is somehow considering allowing it to be used again. I bet that has something to do with this recent flurry of anti-organic and pro-pesticide media activity in the UK.