And fashion as a victim.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference. . .

Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.

The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.

It isn't news that organic foods are not more nutritious. Many studies have shown this and there is no way that they could be more nutritious even in theory. The nutritional value of foods can vary with total soil fertility but this is true for every agronomic system.

What is news is that the spell seems to have broken, the scales have fallen from the eyes of fashion victims as they have come to feel poorer and so no longer are as eager to flaunt their ill gotten gains on conspicuous consumption of fashionable foods.

I suspect that there will be a regrouping as food conscious consumers examine their biases and impulsive purchasing habits somewhat, looking for true value more than fashion. I've been counseling my sales and marketing person to emphasize real benefits, with lab analyses and supportive research, while not going overboard on technical detail and MEGOing customers, but making it clear that such detail can be provided on request. If they want to talk science rather than religion then we do have answers, and if necessary we can do a pasture walk so that they can see for themselves. My beeves never have a bad day . . . well, except that last one.

Update: The empire strikes back

Of course, nothing will convince the zealots. One wrote to abcnews.com:

“This is just another attempt for the big corporate farms to try to quell the culture of positive living and organic farming. I never once claimed that these foods were higher in nutrients. I chose them because they are free of hormones,. antibiotics, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.”

Of course, there’s no good evidence that residues of hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and chemical fertilizers in food hurt anyone either. We keep consuming more of them, and yet we living longer, and spending more years cancer-free. Says American Council on Science and Health’s Jeff Stier: “It’s like playing a game of whack-a-mole. It was already proven that people aren’t getting sick from pesticides on food, so the organic crowd claimed their food was more nutritious. Now that that has been disproved, they’re going back to the pesticides thing.”

The research replicates the results of an earlier study by Emeritus Professor of Food Toxicology at Rutgers University, Dr. Joseph Rosen.

I've seen this type of knee-jerk response in other discussions as the true believers finger their beads to help keep the faith. They are pathetic, intellectually and ethically impoverished, but IMV this isn't just the darkly humorous antics of some sub-cult with tin foil hat beliefs since they do real harm to agriculture, especially in food insecure developing nations.