Sir, – I read Mike Gibney’s piece “No scientific evidence showing organic is better” (Opinion Analysis, July 5th) with interest. Beyond his argument, I would like to add my frustration with the term “organic”, carrying as it does the bizarre implication that other foods are somehow “inorganic”.
Nevertheless, the comparison alluded to in Prof Gibney’s article is almost impossible to make in reality. The choice presented is never between “organic” goods and otherwise identical goods that benefit from the best modern fertilisers and pesticides. Rather the choice is between orange, mealy tomatoes produced as quickly as possible and their small but bright-red organic counterparts; or pristine but tasteless apples against ugly but delicious organic apples at five times the price.
“Organic” can be a useful shorthand for “tasty” in the modern supermarket. If Prof Gibney and his colleagues are unconvinced by the “organic” movement, I would strongly encourage them to consider what objectively measurable standards could be used to guide consumers on taste.
I, for one, would buy a “Food Science-Certified Tasty” apple, if I could be assured that I was not just buying the same apple as before, but in a fancy package accompanied by a television advertising campaign featuring glistening fruit and sultry music, and at an obscene price. – Yours, etc,