LIZZI Walton wrote in support of organic food; it is worth pointing out that the study she referred to was funded by the SheepdroveTrust, so was in part an organic industry funded study - a food and nutrition scientist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said the public health significance of the reported findings have been worryingly overstated.

The team involved in the study did not conduct any new original laboratory or field work, and has been criticised for including data from previous, weaker studies instead.

The reference Lizzi made to produce that has been “saturated in chemicals” ignores the fact that there are strict controls over safe levels with the use of synthetic pesticides, whereas those used in organic food production such as rotenone and pyrethrin are unregulated, and may be more toxic to people than synthetic alternatives.

As for the antioxidants mentioned by Lizzi, there is no good evidence that these have important public health benefits.

Organic farming and sustainable agriculture are not synonymous; the ecological cost due to the need for more cropland could be devastating if organic production were used for a significant portion of the world’s crops.

Minimising soil disturbance is one way of reducing soil damage, but organic growers tend to rely on tillage for weed control.

This is a complicated subject.

I agree, it’s not rocket science, and organic is an appealing marketing message, but we need to look carefully at where the so-called “evidence” is coming from, before making unwise, expensive choices.

H Saunders

Bowbridge