Soil Association “stands firm” by flagship strategy
Soil Association has disowned the ‘O’ word, departing trustees claim
Feeding the world: understanding the limits of science
Vitamin D health claim authorized by EC
Who’s Who in Natural Beauty 2015 winner named
Soil Association “stands firm” by flagship strategy
The Soil Association says it “stand firm” by its flagship strategy The Road to 2020, after four trustees accused the organization of lacking commitment to organic.
The four trustees resigned from Soil Association Council last week, claiming that implementation of the strategy had led to a “demise in organic awareness” and “an avoidance where possible” of using the word ‘organic’ in the charity’s communications.
Georgina McLeod, the Soil Association’s director of communications, told Natural Products: “The Soil Association stands absolutely firm by its strategy. The organization isn’t at all embarrassed about the word organic. Organic is right at the core of what we are about, and it’s at the heart of our campaigns. In the summer we ran one of our biggest organic campaigns ever, to promote the findings of the Newcastle University survey. We’ve also just had a very successful Organic September and we’re currently promoting an organic Christmas.”
“Our message is very much, if you want to be a consumer-activist then buy organic – that way you are supporting the soil, wildlife and animal welfare.”
But she added that engaging with non-organic farmers and consumers was also an important and deliberate part of strategy. “We need to move beyond telling others they are wrong and ensure we are reaching out to a wider audience. You’re not going to change the world if you only talk to organic farmers. If we can help bring innovation and new ideas to all farmers, everyone benefits. And if we can encourage more farmers to farm sustainably it doesn’t matter if they do it because they’re ideologically inclined or if they’re doing it economic reasons. If we only advocate for certified organic farmers we will not have the relevance we now have for so any people, or have the opportunity to influence the whole food system. Our goal is to ensure that all farming is fair, humane and ecologically based.
The Soil Association also defends the principle of ‘starting where the peole are’. “Organic is the gold standard of sustainable farming, but we believe we should be working to remove the worst food, promote the best food and improve the rest.”
The resigning trustees, whose motion challenging the three-year old strategy, was rejected by the other trustees, also challenged the “questionable presence” on the Council of a “non-organic farmer and a doctor who frequently attacks a valuable tool of organic husbandry (homeopathy)”. Commenting on this, McLeod said: “Our trustee has been an organic farmer for many years and is one of the Soil Association’s greatest supporters, giving many years of service to the charity. We are delighted to have a non-organic farmer on our Trustee body, to help guide our important work of working constructively with all farmers. On support for homeopathy, as with any charity Trustees are expected to act in the best interests of the organisation. However, the subjects of food, farming health and the environment are very broad covering public health through to campaigning on issues such as GM – it is unlikely that all trustees will agree on every issue and within the broad aims of the charity healthy debate between trustees is encouraged.”
Soil Association has disowned the ‘O’ word, departing trustees claim
Four prominent Soil Association trustees who recently resigned from the charity have accused it of disowning the ‘O’ word and “a tendency to infantalise the organic message”.
In a blog the author and food campaigner, Joanna Blythman, says she and the other departing trustees – former Ecologist editor, Pat Thomas, organic baker Andrew Whitley and the journalist and long-time organic advocate Lynda Brown – felt Soil Association members had “a right to know” the reasons behind their decision.
The blog includes an edited version of the resigning trustees’ main concerns, which focus on the Soil Association’s key strategy document The Road to 2020, launched in Autumn 2011. They say that implementation of the strategy has been a “major factor in the demise of organic awareness”, which in turn has created “general confusion around what the Soil Association is, what it stands for, and what it does”.
The ex-trustees claim the Soil Association has “avoided where possible” the ‘O’ word (organic) in communications, preferring blander phrases such as ‘nature-friendly’ and ‘planet-friendly’. They accuse the charity of “the tendency to infantalise the organic message in major campaigns”
The resigning trustees warn of a “subordination of the organic message to a healthy eating message”, and say that the Food for Life and Catering Mark initiatives have become the organisation’s preferred voice. They warn that a policy emphasis of ‘starting where people are’ “leads to confusing messages and uncomfortable compromises”.
The trustees say they resigned after a motion they proposed to the Soil Association Council was rejected by the majority of Council members.
Pat Thomas tweeted yesterday that she had resigned “more in sorrow than anger”, while Lynda Brown said she was “sad, but proud to be organic”. Andrew Whitley’s message – from his BreadMatters account – was blunter, with his comment that the Soil AssociatiUnknownon “is drifting into irrelevance”.
But the Soil Association has rejected the criticism, saying that it “stands firmly behind (our) strategy, which focusses as strongly as ever on organic food and farming, but also reaches out to broader audiences”.
In a statement, the charity says: “We are absolutely committed to driving growth in the organic market; we’ve just had a great Organic September and are now into Organic Christmas, but the reality is we live in a country where not everyone yet has access to fresh, healthy, locally sourced food. In order to see real change, we need to work with all farmers – organic and non-organic – all communities, with food businesses, caterers, schools, workplaces and government and we are sorry these trustees felt unable to support this work. The Soil Association doesn’t just point out problems; we pioneer practical solutions and work with thousands of people to deliver these changes’.
Feeding the world: understanding the limits of science
A frank discussion on the role of food science hears calls for public needs and choices to be made a top priority for industry and policy makers, writes Jim Manson
Leading figures from the worlds of science, food policy and farming came together at last week’s Food Matters Live event to take part in a discussion billed as ‘the great food science debate’.
Invited to consider the proposition that scientific innovation has the potential to feed the world sustainably, but only if consumers understand and accept new technologies, panelists were then asked to take on the question ‘will consumers allow science to save us?’.
The eminent food scientist, professor Colin Davies, argued that the “safe, tasty and abundant food we enjoy today owes much to advanced food technology”. He called for more education in food science and greater collaboration between scientists and professional communicators – including the media – to help explain “the enormous benefits that science brings to the table”.
Davies said that the consumers’ knowledge of complex and contested food issues typically came through a media filter. “As a result, what they don’t hear enough about is the very sound science and very sound technologies that we’ve been using over the long term to deliver safe and nutritious products to consumers at large.”
A complicated relationship
Clare Matterson, director of strategy at the Wellcome Trust, saw things from a different perspective. She began with some bald facts: “We have a global population of seven billion, 850 million are undernourished and 1.4 billion are overweight or obese. We all want to eat healthily, but the cheapest food is the unhealthiest, and the healthiest food the most expensive.”
“We all want to eat healthily, but the cheapest food is the unhealthiest, and the healthiest food the most expensive”
Our relationship with food is a complicated one, Matterson said. “It’s as much about the social and the cultural as it is about the science. Food is a subject where economics, personal beliefs and religion all collide in an unusual and often toxic debate”.
She said she wanted to see scientists “not just informing the debate but engaging with the public, hearing the public, and listening back to the public’s priorities”.
Soil Association chief executive, Helen Browning, thought the question the panelists had been asked to answer was a loaded one. “When I read the brief my hackles began to rise. It felt that we were being presented with an image of a fearful, ignorant public that was rejecting science as the saviour. And for me that doesn’t ring true”.
“Consumers have embraced many new technologies in food – new flavours, new forms of food, new kitchen appliances and new packaging. So, I don’t get this sense of the public backing away from science. But what I do see happening is the public being characterized as turning away from scientific development per se because they have firmly rejected one or two.
“There’s no doubt that the public do have concerns when they see the fundamentals of food being meddled with. And it’s no good saying, ‘well, if we just educate people a bit more, they’ll accept it this stuff’.”
“There’s no doubt that the public do have concerns when they see the fundamentals of food being meddled with. And it’s no good saying, ‘well, if we just educate people a bit more, they’ll accept it this stuff”
Browning argued that the priority for industry and policy makers should be “working out what people actually want and working with farmers to see how they can best meet the needs”. To that extent, she added, “we should be doing the things we do in all other walks of life where we are launching a new product or opportunity – not foist something on people they don’t want.
“Imposing technologies almost always leads to the wrong outcomes. Take GM as an example. If you had said to consumers, what do you want from your food supply, they weren’t going to come up with Roundup Ready soya!”
Horrendously inefficient
Tim Benton, professor of population ecology at the University of Leeds and a food security expert, set the debate into a global population context. By 2050, he said, the planet would have to feed a third more people. Not only that, climate change would increasingly start to interrupt food supply systems and there would be growing competition for land and water.
Benton said we have no alternative but to change our “horrendously inefficient” food system. “If demand growth carries on as it is now for the next 20-30 years the agri-food system alone will contribute two degrees of global warming, and that is the figure generally accepted to be the upper limit to avoid dangerous climate effects – it leaves no allowance for transport, energy generation or anything else!”
Benton had killer facts aplenty. On average, he said, people in the developed world over-consume by about 20% by need, while poor diet is the number one cause of obesity. And while we currently produce enough calories for 12 billion people, we choose to feed the about third of that number, the rest of those calories going to feed the livestock. Meanwhile, 20-30% of the food produced is wasted.
Benton said that the scientific opportunities and challenges were not those that he said had dominated discussions earlier in the day . “It’s not about formulation and individual nutrients, or 3-D printers, it’s about building resilience, reducing waste and modifying our diets. In future, the agri-industry cannot persist with the ‘demand is growing, we have to supply it at all costs’ mentality, it simply has to change.”
BBC presenter, Samira Ahmed, who chaired the debate, probed the panelists on their views about scientific ethics, which sometimes have been called into question. Colin Davies said that the reputations of entire organizations rested on the integrity of scientists. Although research departments may receive funding from industry, scientists always had to give advice, produce findings and reach conclusions, solely on the best available science at that point in time, he said.
But Helen Browning said there was a need to “protect scientists – who need to a completely objective research job – from becoming embroiled in debates about issues where the public have contrasting views”
Scientists, not salesman
She added: “I also don’t think scientists should become salesmen for industry. So, before we put public money into research, and before companies put money into research, let’s make sure we’re fulfilling a need, not just creating an opportunity to protect a patent.
“I’m a professor of sustainability and I can’t work out whether something is better for the environment”
FullSizeRenderTim Benton took the discussion back to the complex issue of price. “All things being equal, choosing things on the basis of price is a rational thing to do. But all things are never equal. If you go into supermarket you cannot make a judgement about the sustainability or the really important nutritional attributes of a food product because the information isn’t there. I’m a professor of sustainability and I can’t work out whether something is better for the environment.”
Helen Browning acknowledged the particular challenge that organic has with price. “People are price sensitive and I respect that. We need to make sure that organic systems keep pace with non-organic systems with out R&D work so we don’t end up with a big price difference – we know that the price barrier is to great for some people.”
The limits of science
The panellists agreed that there were limits to the role that food science could play in creating solutions to environmental and health challenges.
Matterson said: “What we’ve learnt from some of the previous debates is that science can tell us what is, but it can’t tell us is what ought – and ought is where the real debate is.
Benton agreed: “In a sense we already know how to do the science. In the future I think that GM will be useful in certain situations, to move genes around quickly, to allow us to feed bigger populations and more challenging climate conditions. So, I think there will be elements of that. But the really fundamental challenge is the issue of food sovereignty. People should have the opportunity to choose themselves the type of food they want to eat.
Vitamin D health claim authorized by EC
An Article 14 EFSA health claim has been authorized by the European Commission stating that vitamin D helps lower the risk of falling associated with postural instability and muscle weakness.
The claim was submitted by DSM Nutritional Products and can only be used for food supplement that provide at least 15μg (600IU) of vitamin D per daily dose.
Wouter Claerhout, head of global marketing, human nutrition & health at DSM, commented: “We have been working closely with the scientific community on the preparation of the dossier to meet the strict requirements of the European Commission – a process of more than four years. We are proud to have been able to contribute in such a meaningful way to public health – fall prevention has important psychological benefits to seniors and it helps to reduce osteoporotic fractures.”
Who’s Who in Natural Beauty 2015 winner named
Kirstie Sherriff, co-founder of Pinks Boutique, has taken the coveted number one position in the annual poll to discover who’s who in Natural Beauty.
The announcement was made at a reception in London yesterday evening where leading figures from the natural and organic beauty world gathered for the launch of the 2015 edition of the Natural Beauty Yearbook. Natural Beauty Yearbook editor Julia Zaltzman announced the Natural Beauty top five before unveiling the latest edition of the Yearbook. Sonia White, managing director of Amarya and LoveLula, was voted number two, Kinetic co-founders Alexandra and Kim Barani were at number three, beauty PR Rebecca Goodyear was at number four and Janey Lee Grace – a previous two times winner – was voted in at number five.
Accepting her award, Kirstie Sherriff said: “It’s a very exciting night for Pinks Boutique at Wholefoods and a genuine lovely surprise to win. I had always had a belief that the Number one slot would have to be quietly revealed beforehand to make sure the winner was there – but apparently not! Hence my unprepared acceptance speech!
“I have slowly climbed my way up the Who’s Who from my first placement at number 17 four or five years ago so it is such an honour to have reached the top. The Who’s Who is year on year becoming a genuinely sought-after award, you can see and tell the brands are becoming more and more serious about it and Diversified should be proud of all the hard work they have put in. The Round Table discussion this September was another great step in the right direction for the industry and we look forward to more. Thank you once again.”
Natural Products publisher, Dominic Roberjot, said: “Julia came up with the initial idea of the Natural Beauty Yearbook just over eight years ago. We are therefore delighted to welcome her back as editor this year. Her initial vision for the Yearbook was one that educated, informed and entertained the entire industry and I believe we have produced a guide that really delivers on her initial vision.”
The reception was sponsored by organic beauty brand Melvita and took place at Whole Foods Market’s Fulham Broadway store. The full Top 25 Who’s In Natural Beauty 2015 – as voted for by the industry – is:
Kirstie Sherriff, co-founder, Pinks Boutique
Sonia White, managing director of Amarya and LoveLula
Alexander and Kim Barani, co founder, Kinetic Natural Products
Rebecca Goodyear, Rebecca Goodyear PR
Janey Lee Grace, journalist and author
Sarah Brown, owner, Pai Organic Skincare
Simon Golding, owner, Australis
Elijah Choo, founder, Bodhi and Birch
Claire Vero, founder, Aurelia Probiotic Skincare
Tracey Robinson, founder, Vert PR
Jayn Sterland, commercial director, Weleda
Graeme Hume, owner, Pravera
Rivka Rose, founder, Faith in Nature
Dr Pauline Hili, founder, Nourish
Tracy Taylor, product development manager, Herrco
Fiona Klonarides, founder, The Beauty Shortlist
Imelda Burke, owner, Content Beauty
Margo Marrone, co-founder, The Organic Pharmacy
Joanna Jensen, founder, Child’s Farm
Dr Mariano Spiezia, Inlight skincare formulator
Simon Ford, brand manager, Melvita UK
Abi Weeds, founder Odylique (previously called Essential Care)
Victoria Brock, founder, SoukSouk
Wendy Stirling, founder, Botanicals
Emma Coleman, founder, Inner-Soul Organics