A lot on their plate

Last year was a tough one for the organic food movement. For one thing, overall sales were nosediving by the summer.

Then there was the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's infamous review published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in July concluding that organic food offered no substantial health or nutritional benefits.

As we enter a new year, critics and supporters of organic production are watching with interest to see how it will bounce back.

It's been a shaky start. The government's chief scientist John Beddington and Gordon Conway professor of international development at Imperial College, London University have called for more use of genetically modified (GM) crops to secure global food supply. Organic food champions oppose GM technology on principle.

Meanwhile, Kantar Worldpanel sales figures for organic food and drink for the 52 weeks to December 27 2009 read like the government's balance statement. Total market value fell 13.8% from £1.1bn to £942M, with slightly steeper volume declines of 16.1%, from 930M packs to 781M packs. The biggest value declines were seen in fresh poultry and hen's eggs, while volume sales of organic bread plunged by more than 45%.

Only two sectors show any growth compared with 2008. There was a 0.1% rise in value sales of milk from £137.7M to £137.9M although even here, volume sales fell by 3%. There's also a 1.4% rise in volume sales of yogurt, from 72.2M packs to 73.2M packs, although value sales dropped 4.5%.

All that makes the Organic Trade Board's (OTB's) promotional campaign which starts in October and aims to grow organic food sales by 15% every year for the next three years look fiendishly hard. That said, Kantar's data is based on supermarket till rolls, whereas organics champions cite sales through other outlets such as farm shops and co-operatives.

Even the Prince of Wales' organic food firm Duchy Originals saw turnover almost halved in 2009, from £4.06M to £2.2M. And it posted a loss in operating profit for the first time in more than 10 years of more than £3.3M.

However, there are positive signs for the organics movement. The OTB argues three-month figures to the end of 2009 compared with the same period in 2008 show sales declines are slowing. There's a 9.7% drop in value for the 12 weeks to December 31 [Kantar Worldpanel].

Reinforcements

Then there's the morale-boosting addition of Jamie Mitchell, formerly a joint md of Innocent Drinks, to the organic food supporters' ranks.

Mitchell took the reigns at food and farming business Daylesford Organic as chief executive in January. And he's already used his business acumen to secure listings for more than 50 products with online grocery retailer Ocado and appeared on panels at the Soil Association's annual conference last month. The stage is set, therefore, for his profile to increase within the organisation.

Mitchell says he has not so much converted to organic food as realised it embodies his existing principles. "I believe in sustainability and it's a very big emphasis at Innocent. I was always a member of the organic movement I just didn't know it." When asked what organic principles he identifies most with, he says: "I care about the planet, animal welfare, farmers and suppliers, health ... I don't need science to tell me that being close to nature is healthier." Interesting line, especially in the light of the FSA study.

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, plays down the review, saying: "I'm not sure the report had much impact." Equally, Lawrence Woodward, director of Newberry-based Elm Farm Research Centre in Berkshire, says: "The presentation of that was a scandal; the review itself was not as bad as was made out."

Organic food proponents seem to have emerged from its findings relatively undaunted. Some stress that the FSA review was based on existing literature, not new scientific research. And the OTB says exactly this type of work is currently underway associated with the QualityLowInputFood project, under the European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development. That could help counter the FSA study.

The project, which aimed to improve quality and safety and cut costs in the organic food supply chain, ended last year, but many of its findings are still being assessed, says the OTB. "There are various studies looking at food products at different stages of peer review. We did ask the FSA to delay the publication of its study last year until these other studies were peer reviewed, but it didn't."

Woodward for one still boasts of the healthy nature of organic food, although he is currently talking in terms of holistic benefits rather than nutrition. Speaking at the Soil Association's annual conference at the Custard Factory in Birmingham, he said: "We have failed to get across the central concept of what health means." He argues that human health cannot be separated from the 'health' of the ecosystem, and that organic food is better for the latter, and thus better for the former.

Melchett doesn't flinch from this argument either, maintaining that organic food production is more sustainable globally in the long run. "In Africa, to feed the indigenous population, you have got to produce food locally. You need systems that rebuild the soil, don't rely on expensive inputs, are resistant to drought and where fertility and crop protection are built in."

For Melchett, the growing prioritisation of sustainable and eco-friendly methods, especially the drive to cut greenhouse gas emissions is good news for supporters of organic food and farming. For example, the production of oil-based pesticides and fertilisers, which are rejected by the organics movement, involves higher emission levels than the production of organic equivalents. "Fossil fuel, artificial approaches are more of a challenge, such as nitrogen- and phosphate-based fertilisers."

However, aside from the broader scientific issues, organic food lobbyists know that individuals may eschew or favour them for more self-centred reasons. Which brings us to the perennial issue that organic food and drink is viewed as more costly than other options.

Price points

Huw Bowles, chief operating officer at the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative, cites cases in which organic products not on promotion are less expensive than even retail brand counterparts in the same outlet. At the Soil Association conference, referring to Sainsbury's online retail site, Bowles highlighted a 250g pack of Kellogg's Cornflakes costing £1.42 and a 375g pack of organic cornflakes costing £0.79. And he had a shopping list of other examples.

Organics supporters still tackle this issue, while recognising that the argument isn't just about the figures it's also about value for money. That means that as long as consumers can be convinced of the benefits, they may well be prepared to spend more for organic food and drink than for conventional options.

The organics movement has been heartened by the results of a survey of 3,000 consumers conducted by Mintel on behalf of the OTB published last month. They illustrate some of the areas in which shoppers believe organic food offers value for money. The top three reasons for buying into the category listed by respondents are (in the following order) that it: is more natural and less processed; restricts pesticide use; and tastes better.

Some say this means the organic lobby's message is hitting home. But 10 different reasons are listed, embracing everyone from animal welfare advocates to GM dissenters. The challenge for the organics lobby, as it is for any cause, is to avoid overwhelming consumers with so many messages they can't see the wood for the trees. Identify the most vital, simple issues; communicate those, supporting them with hard evidence, and sales of organic food and drink may well recover, even in the supermarkets.