The agency says it stands for "safer food". But while it has a mixed record on additives that cause hyperactivity, toxic dyes, illegal GM foods, or pesticides, it has, from the start, campaigned against organic food, which no one claims to be dangerous. Indeed, in 2005, its performance review showed that this – and its vigorous support of GM foods – had undermined confidence in its impartiality, and led to calls for it to "revisit both areas". Well, I suppose it has revisited organic food – though not as the review intended. It spun its new report as showing that it had no health benefits over conventional produce. But the report only looked at the weakest part of the case for organics, that they have better nutritional content. Then, though it merely reviewed other studies, it excluded the most comprehensive one, which showed that organic produce has significant nutritional advantages in fighting cancer.