How organic food hunts fools

I have nothing against organic food, but I won’t go out of my way for it, and certainly not pay more until I am convinced of its benefits. I’m confident those who claim to be ‘pro-organic food’ are equally clueless because neither are they from farming background nor have they ever grown any crop.

Much of the ‘pro-organic’ movement hovers around metros and finds support in social media influencers and self-proclaimed health gurus claiming miraculous health and nutritional benefits. These are experts with no credentials, no research nor any first-hand experience in the world of nutrition science. It’s the word ‘ORGANIC’ that sells.

Organic food has a perceived innocence and sob-story tied to it. It’s the idea that farmers, mainly the poor ones, who still use cowdung and organic compost to grow non-genetically-modified (GM) crops. These perceived benefits persist because of the belief that since it involves technologies from decades past, a time when cancer, cholesterol and diabetes were rare, or at least that is the myth suggests.

There are realities to face and difficult questions that need to be asked. The decision to use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and other technological advancements were taken for a reason. Inconsistent rainfall patterns, pests and nutrient deficit soil could never keep up with the growing demand. So, when and how did organic farming turn feasible?

To be fair, there is an example where organic produce is better. In the pursuit of quality and size, genetically modified tomatoes lost their flavour gene in the bargain. They are one example, and a valid one. This is news to me.

Even if start-ups and brands insist on traveling back in time and take concrete steps at being natural and organic, how does one verify these claims? Multiple blind taste tests uncovered a simple truth - people cannot differentiate organic from inorganic food, by its taste, colour or size. After a point, most people choose to be ignorant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IoNQHMFLk&t=81s

The Indian context takes matters to the next level. There is an opportunity there is a feeble-minded customer base and where there is such a base, there will be marketers diving in to sell a product.

As I walked through a mart this Sunday, I noticed more than half of the packaged products, labelled as ORGANIC in large, bold, centered characters, sometimes overshadowing the brand itself. Meanwhile, indifferent consumers find it easier to believe in the health benefits of organic food than to verify the merit of these claims. They have no way to discern whether these foods grew in manure or if the animals were taken care of and whether the sprouts were that of non-genetically modified seeds. This information is available neither as literature on their web sites nor on their packaging or by their promoters.

Seasonal crops are now available through the year, even when they are supposedly organic and natural. Usually, such produce would perish within days or weeks without the aid of technology, sometimes cold storage, but mainly chemical preservatives.

Another example of superior marketing I have encountered is in organic milk. A popular start-up based in Mumbai uses stock images from shutterstock.com to display their cows and claims that they supply organic milk in recyclable bottles. With no photos of its farms, they claim their cows are happier, hormone-free, are treated well and humanely. The price you pay is double that of the more traditional, ‘evil’ milk.

Somehow, I’m inclined to believe that non-pasteurized and less adulterated milk is a good idea, and maybe that is what they are supplying, but the same cannot be said of the other claims.

What’s out of sight, stays out of mind. Questioning involves time, effort, and the odds of being wrong. Till that changes, the consumer will be happier knowing they’re consuming organic, whether it’s true or not.