Dangerous to mis-use science for PR  claims better to stick to emotion

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

Prof. Carlo Leifert, one of the STCRF Directors is co-ordinating a large EU-study, a component of which (subproject 2) studies  “Why there are differences in the nutritional composition between organic, low-input and conventional foods” . It investigates compounds thought to be beneficial for human health (e.g. vitamin, omega-3 fatty acids, glucosinolate and antioxidant content), but also compounds that are deleterious to human health (pesticides, heavy metals, glycoalcaloids), which were not covered by the FSA study. The study is based on carefully designed field experiments and surveys and is likely to come to different conclusion to the FSA study which was based on an evaluation of the literature review only. For further information please see the QualityLowInputFood website (www.qlif.org<http://www.qlif.org>).

A CPA update Dominic”s quote more PC than mine but means the same  GPW

CPA has been approached by the Daily Mail and a number of trade publications for a response to the report and we are using the following quote:

Dominic Dyer, Chief Executive of the Crop Protection Association said  “We welcome the FSA report which adds to a growing mountain of evidence that proves organic food is not any healthier than conventionally grown produce.

Food manufacturers and retailers should avoid misleading consumers by making health claims for organic food which cannot be supported by scientific evidence”

We will keep posted on further developments on this issue

Many thanks

Dominic Dyer

Chief Executive

Crop Protection Association