If there's anything certain to send our consumer protective media into hysterical campaigning mode it's GM foods followed closely by organics. And so it was last week when the head of the Food Standards Agency, Sir John Krebs, filmed a routine interview on organics for BBC1's Countryfile. That's the cosy Sunday lunchtime show for those in the Barbour brigade who yearn for the halcyon days of medieval, rural England. Innocent enough, you might think. But alas, the story soon provoked headlines chastising the FSA man for his audacity in suggesting consumers who believe organic produce has nutritional benefits are wasting their money. How dare the people's champion against that nasty MAFF lot be so controversial. Surely he's trying to cosy up to the all-too-powerful food producers. (Well, it is autumn, and chestnuts appear at this time of year.) But surely Sir John was voicing the view of many? Organics remain surrounded by considerable hype. And imagery can override fact, especially given much of the stuff sold here is from mainland Europe where standards are often far less rigorous than in the UK. It's not possible to say whether organics are safer or better than conventional food, although many perceive them to be and that's their choice. Sir John's philosophy, on the other hand, is that he's happy to eat GM, organic or conventionally produced food. He always chooses on the grounds of whether it's fresh and well produced, and why not? Protective hacks might do well to remember that the days of organics only appealing to those in beads and Roman sandles are long gone. They may only account for 3% of the market, but they're maturing fast as consumers make their choice. So the sales figures are speaking for themselves, thanks to the efforts of the more intelligent organic disciples like Patrick Holden of the Soil Association and the shrewd marketeers at Waitrose. As for Sir John, he's there to give a balanced view on major food issues. He didn't upset my Sunday lunch. Clive Beddall, Editor {{OPINION }}