Dishing the dirt on organic food

His comments came as a blow to the organic food industry, which is keen to obtain official recognition of the nutritional and environmental benefits which it ascribes to chemical-free farming.

Asked about the benefits claimed for organic food in an newspaper interview, Mr Miliband said: "It's a lifestyle choice that people can make. There isn't any conclusive evidence either way."

He went on to say: "It's only 4 per cent of total farm produce, not 40 per cent, and I would not want to say that 96 per cent of our farm produce is inferior because it's not organic." The minister described the rise of organics as "exciting" but he insisted that shoppers should not regard non-organic food as "second-best".

According to the Soil Association, sales of organic food increased by 30 per cent to 1.6 billion in the UK last year. The association's website states that organic food does not contain many of the additives that are allowed in non-organic food and has shown to have higher levels of vitamins and minerals, as well as being better for wildlife, causing lower pollution from sprays and producing less carbon dioxide and less dangerous waste. About 350 pesticides are allowed in farming, and an estimated 4.5 billion litres of chemicals are used each year.

Organic farmers and associations hit back at Mr Miliband's comments. Pete Glanville, the secretary of the Shetland Organic Producers Group, which farms vegetables and sheep, said: "Our producers are dedicated to producing foodstuff which is free of chemicals . You only have to look at the list of things that goes into creating lots of things to realise just how much we are not putting into our bodies by eating organic."

Mr Glanville added: "We are not saying the other 96 per cent which is farmed conventionally is rubbish, or second-grade. We are making a choice about what goes into our bodies."

However, Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers' Union, said he had seen "no evidence" to prove organic food is healthier. He said: "If there's a small but growing percentage of consumers who want a different product, then that's a great opportunity for members. But I have a real problem with conventional methods being demeaned at every opportunity."

Here, two experts make their case for and against going organic.

For

Hugh Raven

IF THE Environment Secretary, David Miliband, has been accurately reported, his comments are disappointing - but not entirely surprising. It's disappointing to hear he thinks organic food is a lifestyle choice. That doesn't seem to be the view of his department. For more than a decade, the agriculture ministry has being paying farmers to convert to organic production in recognition of the good things it brings.

The wildlife benefits are now very well-established: organic farms typically have more wildlife, a wider variety of species, and more especially of those species that have declined most in the last 40 years. There are other green advantages too. By avoiding artificial fertilisers altogether, and pesticides except under very specific circumstances, organic farming is good for water quality. And perhaps most crucially, by eschewing energy-intensive synthetic inputs and locking up carbon in organic matter in soils, organic farming is far more climate-friendly than its conventional equivalent.

Some people buy organic products for animal welfare reasons. They're right to do so: the main farm animal welfare charities back organic farmers because they respect the needs of the animals and give them a more natural life.

If support for these advantages is a "lifestyle choice", it's one the government makes year after year - through aiding organic conversion to get more of these goods. I think Mr Miliband knows this fine well: he seemed well-disposed and supportive when we discussed it with him recently.

On food and health, Mr Miliband is right that there's "no conclusive evidence either way". This is not really surprising - as it would be highly problematic, and ethically very dubious, to conduct on people long-run experiments able to prove the point. But we do know that a largely organic diet reduces intake of toxic chemicals, increases beneficial vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids and antioxidants, reduces consumption of food additives and colourings, and totally avoids GMOs. The composition of organic milk has been shown to differ in ways likely to be beneficial to health. The Food Standards Agency has advised that "organic food contains fewer residues of pesticides", so buying organic reduces the chances of eating them.

Many people think it's fair to conclude from this evidence that organic food is better for you. Certainly some sensitive and important groups think so - cancer patients choosing an organic diet, for example, and parents of young children whose buying decisions mean organic baby food now accounts for more than half of the prepared baby food sold.

Organic food is now flying off the shelves. Market growth in 2005 (the latest figures available) was 30 per cent. Political support will inevitably follow.

Against

Hugh Pennington

SALES of organic food in Britain