The wholesome truth about organic food

Far from "exploding myths about the benefits of organic food", Robert Johnston peddles some old chestnuts, as well as constructing myths of his own. Many seem familiar, stemming from 'interest groups' like the Hudson Institute, a US think-tank which receives funding from some of the world's largest agrochemical and GM companies.

Organic husbandry vastly reduces farmers' reliance on the products those companies manufacture, so any increase in public support for organic food and expansion of organic acreage threatens their profits.

Johnston is ignorant of actual organic practices allowed under Soil Association standards and UK and European law, ­ though the details are freely available on our website. For instance, organic chickens cannot be kept indoors, other than for a limited period in the event of an actual

outbreak of bird flu.

The article was sign-posted, 'Organic, the lies they tell', but Johnston doesn't specify who 'they' are. As the main organic food and farming body in the UK - funded by charitable donations - your readers might reasonably assume he means the Soil Association. We don't make unsubstantiated claims - ­ a significant body of evidence confirms distinct differences in and benefits from organic farming and food compared to non-organic.

Six published, peer reviewed studies have found that organic whole milk has more beneficial fat-soluble nutrients - omega-3 fatty acid, Vitamin E and beta-carotene. The most recent study by Glasgow and Liverpool Universities found UK organic whole milk has on average 68 per cent higher levels of omega-3 than non-organic milk. The Government Food Standards Agency acknowledges these nutritional differences, but doesn't yet accept these deliver demonstrable health benefits. (Although Dutch research published only last year showed that infants fed on organic dairy foods and whose mothers also ate organic dairy products, suffered a 36 per cent lower