Arnold on ethical marketing

CHRIS ARNOLD

‘Anger as organic claims shot down ‘ was the headline on the Metro yesterday. The Soil Association and green food lovers are up in arms about a report by the Foods Standards Agency that dents the image of organic food. Far from it being healthier for you, the report says it’s the same as non-organic.

In a £2bn market that has already been dented by the recession – organics is the only ethical product suffering – this report does nothing to help sales. But then charging silly margins doesn’t either, I noticed that an organic cucumber in one supermarket was twice that of an ordinary one.

Based on both my own research (Ethical Shopping Survey) and others, consumers seem to buy organics for several reasons. Firstly a small number are true green buyers, seeing it as a much better ethical choice. They know the whole picture and it’s part of their green lifestyle.

The second group see it as chemical free, which is not quite true as they do use copper sulphate on onions and leeks for example.

Then there’s the middle classes who see it as a better quality, better tasting choice, a premium purchase. This is the group that’s abandoned it in the recession. I would like to add that a recent piece of research published in one marketing publication portrayed a decline in organic purchases as evidence that consumers were abandoning ethics. This isn’t an accurate interpretation when you consider the last group of buyers.

The reason people are angry is that the report focused just on nutrients not on the residue of pesticides and other chemicals. The Soil Association regard that as key to the definition of ‘healthier’. The FSA don’t. But their research is not shallow, they looked at over 162 research documents covering 50 years of work and over 3,500 food comparisons.

Meanwhile in the Mail, they have attacked the attack on organics as part of a cynical campaign by the food industry, in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies. They also claim there’s a hidden agenda to promote GM as they claim the FSA and the government are pro GM.

GM is another area that stimulates big debate. One organisation recently did a PR stunt by attacking a field of GM crop dressed in nuclear suits. Why? Stupidly they were risking their credibility, GM and nuclear have nothing to do with each other. But the organisation were using spin tactics to try and make dumb punters think so. Is that ethical?

The Guardian aren't fond of the FSA report either, with Leo Hickman calling the FSA "one of the most weak-willed, pro-industry government bodies out there ".

However, there does seem to be some truth in the claims that the FSA have ignored key facts that may not fall under the term healthier rather than nutritional. For example, in one study by the FSA it was found that some organics had 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins. So what does ‘healthier ‘ mean?

The claim that organic meat and veg tastes better is a debatable one. This can be as much about the growing method and breed as farmers tend to use better stock. But as a former allotment owner all my chemical free produce were usually misshapen and half eaten by insects. Of course they tasted better, as they were fresher. Not surprisingly, some tests have revealed a placebo effect is also at work.

One thing that came out of research I conducted last year (Ethical Shopping Survey) was that of all the symbols we tested Fairtrade came out top for recognition (the Grocer found a similar result). By contrast, the organic/Soil Association one came bottom. It’s a bad logo and I’d love to redesign it. Based on narratives, Tesco’s organic logo was seen as better. Soil association please note.

Personally I think the FSA report will make no difference to current organic shoppers. What it has done though is stimulate debate, and that's alwasy good.