News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Hazy truth about organics 

Hazy truth about organics

29 Aug, 2010 04:00 AM
ENTHUSIASM for ''clean, green'' food is being tempered by confusion about what constitutes organic, with shoppers often not getting what they pay for.

Australians spend about $1 billion a year on organic food and other products, paying up to 50 per cent more than for conventional produce.

Yet there is huge confusion about what the label "organic" means. There are now calls for the introduction of better industry standards.

Industry expert Joanna Hendryks, from the University of Canberra, said that from a consumer's point of view ''it's a dog's breakfast".

"Consumers need to be incredibly motivated to tell if something is organic just by looking at the label."

Chairman of the Organic Federation of Australia (OFA), Andre Leu, said shoppers deserve a better deal.

"Consumers find it very hard to decide what are genuine organic products," he said.

The fact there are seven separate organisations that certify products as organic, each with a different logo, adds to consumer confusion.

In 2008, OFA commissioned research to find out how well understood the logos were. It found that even the best recognised symbol, which belongs to the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia, was recognised by only 28 per cent of regular organic shoppers. Only 5 per cent of regular organic buyers recognising the other logos.

There is even confusion among the various certifiers about how to define a product as organic.

One of the certifying bodies, Demeter, will only put its logo on food that has been grown using "bio-dynamic" principals, including the application of fermented cow manure that has been buried in a cow's horn.

Assistant professor Hendryks said shoppers gave a variety of reasons when asked why they buy organic.

"For some consumers it is about taking back control and being able to make a difference to the environment in their own way," she said. "For others it is about the health benefits - or perceived health benefits, as the studies to date are still contradictory on whether there are or aren't benefits.

"Then a lot of people swear by taste, particularly when they are talking about things like organic chickens and tomatoes."

Research shows shoppers are often casual when selecting what they assume is organic food - some believe chicken labelled free-range is also organic.

"In my research, many people assumed Lilydale chicken was organic," Professor Hendryks said. "If you look at their packaging they don't anywhere say they are certified organic - and I'm not wanting to imply they are deceiving consumers - but there is a lot of confusion.

"People will also assume that what is being sold in a farmers' market is organic when that's not necessarily the case."

A popular range of skin and haircare products is not certified as organic, despite having the words "Nature's Organics" on the label.

A spokeswoman for the Melbourne company admitted many customers probably assumed the products were organic.

"It is as natural as we can make it at this point," she said.

Until late last year there was no legal definition of the word "organic". As long as a product was not labelled ''certified'' organic, a manufacturer or grower could imply that it had been produced organically.

Only goods destined for export had to meet a minimum standard set by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.

"On domestic markets there has been no legal requirement at all," Mr Leu said. "It's been at best a gentlemen's agreement that products on the market are certified but [there] has been no law to say that.

"We always felt that was a bit of a problem because people could make organic claims when they haven't had anyone to accredit them or certify them as genuinely organic."

A new voluntary domestic Australian organic standard that, among other things, bans the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and genetically modified material was introduced last October.

It will be up to the ACCC to prosecute producers who fail to comply under trade practices legislation. The OFA is pushing for the seven certifiers to accept one standard logo.

Professor Hendryks said the move would be a great boost to consumers: "I think with a big education campaign it will definitely solve a lot of the confusion.".

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The application of manure from farm animals does not constitute true organic produce if the animals are fed chemical supplements to accelerate their growth or maximise production as in the case of milk yield or egg yield. Factory farming & mass processing have developed so much reliance on lab-science that it is only a matter of time until the consequences prove catastrophic. Indeed, if endemic obesity & cancer are any indication, the catastrophe is already unfurling.
Posted by jock, 29/08/2010 1:06:47 PM
There is nothing hazy about foods grown on depleted soils with only 3 fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides and chemicals. None of this is good for what we eat. Organics seeks to return us to the natural state of food that we have evolved on and this will always be far superior.
Posted by twawki, 29/08/2010 7:10:42 PM
Don't blame farming for human behaviour jock. Deep fried mars bars and all you can eat food joints and food sports that involve obscene consumption.
Posted by THE FARMER, 29/08/2010 8:45:01 PM
There is far more food and fibre sold as organic than is produced. I take my hat off to genuine organic farmers as they have to be really on top of their management - they do not have the simple to use technologies that conventional farmers have. Putting aside the perceptions of benefit to the end users, organic farmers need to generate a premium for thier product to make their enterprises profitable. I am a converntional farmer, but am learning lots from the organic production systems.
Posted by Concerned, 30/08/2010 10:20:05 AM
Hey, The Farmer, I was not blaming farming but simply drawing attention to fact that when it comes to obesity & cancer, all things need to be investigated incuding chemicals in stock feed & food processing. If you know of any research as to whether growth accelerating chemicals in stock feed & fertilisers are stimulating the growth of cancer tumors I would like to read the results of such.
Posted by jock, 30/08/2010 12:15:10 PM
It must be about time we said "enough" with respect to this organic food phenomenon. All the available information indicates that organic has no nutritional superiority over conventional - there is no evidence that artificial fertilizers or approved insecticides etc. are responsible for heart disease or cancer or that obesity is caused by any aspect of conventional farming - we are just eating a little more energy each day than we need and it slowly accumulates as body fat. It is alarming that in this so-called clever country people would still beleive that burying a manure filled cow's horn in a paddock would do wondrous things re. food value. No evidence can be produced to support this ridiculous practice. What sort of people are we?
Posted by humphrey, 30/08/2010 10:22:10 PM
How can you blame farmers for anything in the food chain, including the 3 fertiliser principle? The consumers vote with their wallet and buy the stuff, so the market provides it. As for the 3 fertiliser produce we have, it’s because terms of trade for food producers are so low, they have no choice as well as the fact payment is based on more KGs, more income. The research I have done, and information from travel, food in Australia is sold at the farm gate equal to the lowest price in the world. On the other side, the cost of producing the food, it is one of the highest in the world due to over govt regulation that allows all cost imposed by govt to be passed to the food producing sector, almost the only industry forced to be totally exposed to the world market in income. Someone tell me where the fairness in that is!
Posted by dunart, 31/08/2010 9:54:10 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
27 August, 2010
26 August, 2010
POLL
Q: With which major political party should the independents and Greens side in order to help form a minority Government?

Labor
(21.2%)

Coalition
(78.8%)

Total Votes: 816
Poll Date: 22 August, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...