An Urban's Rural View

Just days after my post (http://tiny.cc/…) on Americans thinking organic food has all sorts of improbable virtues, the Harris folks release a poll (http://tiny.cc/…) that further befuddles the question.

The results are befuddling because in one breath 55% of the respondents think "organic foods are healthier in comparison to non-organic, but otherwise similar, products," while in the next breath 59% think "labeling food or other products as 'organic' is just an excuse to charge more."

Those answers wouldn't seem so inconsistent if the second statement had been worded differently. It's one thing to admit organic food is healthier but be unwilling to pay for it and quite another to think it's both healthier and "just an excuse to charge more."

But even granting the charitable interpretation, the poll is at odds with the research from Cornell I reported on last week. There the subjects were willing to spend 23.4% more for organic food. And not only did they deem it healthier, they attributed to it such previously undiscovered and unclaimed benefits as fewer calories, less fat and more fiber.

Maybe it's a matter of methodology. The Harris poll was an online survey of 2,276 adults -- large sample, maximum anonymity. Respondents could say whatever they want without worrying about what anyone thinks of them for their opinion.

The Cornell researchers recruited 115 folks from a shopping mall and had them taste and assess two different yogurts, two different cookies and two different potato chips. In each pair, one item was labeled "organic" and the other "regular" even though they were in fact identical.

Presumably, this was done face to face. Much more intensive, much more personal, much more perceived pressure to seem politically correct.

Still, you have to wonder how people can think that organic food has fewer calories, less fat and more fiber while also deeming it a rip-off.