http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,855663,00.html

Meacher in organic food row

James Meikle, health correspondent
The Guardian, Saturday December 7, 2002

Britain's food standards watchdog has clashed with environment minister
Michael Meacher after he was asked by the minister to be more positive
aboutthe benefits of organic food.

In letters seen by the Guardian, Professor Sir John Krebs, chairman of
the food standards agency, has warned ministers not to challenge his
independence adding that it would be "inappropriate" to "support any
particular food promotion scheme".

Organic campaigners who have seethed for two years over the agency's
apparent antagonism to their movement are now threatening open warfare,
questioning Sir John's credibility,and suggesting a "more neutral body"
should conduct research into the health, quality and environmental
differences between organics and conventionally produced food.

The agency says there are no significant differences on safety and
nutrition, and its advisers prompted further anger recently by suggesting
the campylobacter food poisoning bug common in poultry could be more
easily controlled by factory farms than by organic or free-range producers.

But Sir John's cool response to Mr Meacher threatens to be the final
straw for organic supporters. The minister chairs a government advisory
group which produced an action plan to boost organic farming. It was
endorsed by Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, who said
organic farming and food offered "real benefits for the environment".

Mr Meacher wrote to Sir John in October asking whether the agency could
make "a positive but factual statement on the pesticide, additive, GM and
regulatory assurance benefits that are associated with organic food". Mr
Meacher said: "I do appreciate the FSA would not wish to see any words
not based on scientific evidence.

"However, it is a fact that organic food production uses a much narrower
range of pesticides and additives than conventional farming, eschews
GMOs, and that there are environmental benefits. I would hope that it
would be possible for FSA to acknowledge these points as a matter of
consumer information for those who wish to choose food produced by
organic methods."

But Sir John replied that "the agency's position on organic food is that
it is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition
from food produced conventionally". The agency had no remit on
environmental matters.

"The organic action plan team invited the agency to make a positive
factual statement about organic food in order to help organic producers
sell more of it. Our independence of industry interest is of paramount
importance to us. Only by maintaining this can we operate credibly in
the consumer interest.

"I am sure, therefore, that you will understand that it would be
inappropriate for the agency to make statements supporting any particular
food promotion scheme."

Sir John has since sent Mr Meacher a summary of a workshop last month
that considered whether further research was needed into organic food's
safety and nutrition. They will meet in the new year, although a date
has yet to be fixed.

Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said of Sir John: "The
prejudice he is displaying is indefensible, given his position of being
charged with the responsibility of restoring public trust in the food
chain after all the previous food scares."

Peter Melchett, the association's policy director, has suggested that
unless the agency distanced itself "from Sir John's idiosyncratic
views... a more neutral body" should be found to conduct research.