Reading the headlines this week, I must admit that we have come a long way since the 1970s when awareness of a very limited consumer interest in organic fruit and vegetables began to feature on the agenda at the annual conference of the Produce Packaging & Marketing Association, held at Stratford-upon-Avon.

Since then, following a period in its early days when the product’s authenticity could be open to question, organic production and marketing have become well disciplined and controlled. So, rightly, the sector has earned a permanent place on most supermarket shelves, based on consumer demand and, I would guess, for less publicised reasons.

Namely, that apart from enthusiasm derived from the capability of generating higher margins, inclusion of organics was seen by the main retail players as vital in the broader battle on and off the high street to ensure customers with their special requirements kept coming through the doors rather than decanting elsewhere.

What is surprising is that despite it still being a niche market, of which produce is the major part in volume terms, organics continues to achieve and enjoy a status out of all proportion to its scale. This is all the more surprising as opinions still vary widely over its efficacy.

Organics have also become linked to social status, a must-have in order to achieve culinary delights, far beyond the simple, unprovable belief held by devotees that it tastes better.

However, when it comes to assessing health benefits, the message has still to be clarified. This must have been enough reason for the University of Newcastle to win massive financial support from both the European Union and food companies to complete a four-year project, at a cost of millions of pounds, aimed at nailing down what certainties, if any, do exist.

What has come out so far - perhaps to be expected - is that, apparently, organics are healthier and more nutritious than conventional product. What is more contentious is whether they are of more help in warding off diseases such as cancer and heart disease. If true, that would be good news for everyone, but my experience of listening to enthusiasts and attending conferences on the benefits of “superfoods”, which are high in antioxidants, is that their supporters are still not able to travel the last yard to absolute certainty.

Organic opinion, as a result, may still find itself in the same crossfire when the report is subject to an independent review by the Food Standards Agency - which has been lukewarm over organic benefits.

At least its exponents will be assured that they will continue to rouse support from the Soil Association, although I still cannot grasp its logic - despite public demand - of diametrically opposing importing additional product from overseas to make up for a UK shortfall. One argument is the energy cost, but surely this is an entirely different debate and, in terms of current trends, an organic red herring?

Nearly 40 years on, it seems the subject is still as much a two-edged weapon as ever. And the grower needs more cash to produce less, while a fraction of the public still demands having its organic cake and eating it.