It's been a bad week for organics. First came the Iceland bombshell, in which the freezer-chain-turned-innovative-supermarket-group admitted it had dropped a marketing clanger by going overboard with the concept during the last six months of 2000. And then, as we went to Press, the Commons Agriculture Committee took a swipe at the organics apostles by arguing some of them still proselytise with a religious fervour which helps nobody. Iceland went wrong because it rolled out the bandwagon too quickly, without introducing an education process for its particular brand of customer. The chain's Malcolm Walker was already the darling of the anti-GM set for being the first to outlaw "Frankenfoods" and apparently possessed the Midas touch when it came to retail innovation.Yet he took a big risk when he organised a whizzbang PR launch for his plan to sell only organic frozen veg in his own label range. And now it's all rebounded in his face in the shape of figures that have made the Square Mile shudder. But given Iceland's traditional customer profile is among the older and slightly less affluent than for some of Walker's major competitors, you could ask if organics are right for Iceland anyway? Higher priced products and no real signs of promotional price cuts were hardly the ideal fare for their customers' Christmas tables. Sadly, some parts of the organics world has still not shaken off that dated Roman sandal and lentil soup in Notting Hill image. As the MPs put it, the past perhaps belonged to messianics; the future belongs to marketing. But the parliamentarians' idea of an organic stewardship scheme based on clear government objectives has merit. And they're also right when they suggest that far more work needs to be done to establish a scientific basis for the claims made about the products. There is a demand for organics. But the apostles must clear the hype from their gospels to allow sound science rather than soundbites to take centre stage. Clive Beddall, Editor {{OPINION }}

Topics