More Spin Than Science: The Latest Efforts to Take Down Organics

Several weeks ago, a group called Academics Review published a report harshly attacking the organic industry and its nonprofit allies for what they called "deceptive marketing practices," designed to instill "false and misleading consumer health...

May 8, 2014 | Source: Civil Eats | by Kari Hamerschlag

For Related Articles and More Information, Please Visit OCA’s All About Organics Page and our Health Issues Page.

Several weeks ago, a group called Academics Review published a report harshly attacking the organic industry and its nonprofit allies for what they called “deceptive marketing practices,” designed to instill “false and misleading consumer health and safety perceptions about competing conventional foods.” The study also implicates the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a willing partner that allows companies to use their sanctioned organic label to deliver fear-mongering messages about the dangers of industrial food.

And while most coverage of the study appeared in small and agriculture-focused publications, some other sources, like the

New York Post and Food Safety News, picked up the story without much in-depth research about its source. The headlines-“Report: Organic Industry Achieved 25 Years of Fast Growth Through Fear and Deception” and “The Organic Industry Has Been Fibbing All Along“-were especially alarming.

But the more important questions here, and ones overlooked by the glaring headlines, is who is behind the Academic Review and how might they benefit from dragging organics through the mud?

Academics Review claims to be an “independent association of academic professors” and “researchers” from around the world “committed to the unsurpassed value of the peer review in establishing sound science.”

However, recent articles on its website and Facebook page paint another picture. In one example, an article titled “10 Ways to Keep your Diet GMO-Free” is described as “slick, deceptive internet advertising for the lucrative health and wellness industry,” based on “unqualified, hopelessly unreliable writings.”