http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...nic-labels.php

Three years ago we were appalled when Organic Oreos were launched,
convinced that the organic label was being misused to make a fat and
calorie rich product somehow healthier. Now a new study, reported in
Livescience, confirms that not only do people think it is healthier, but
that organic products like this actually are less fattening. And the
study actually used those Oreos.

114 students were asked to read the labels of both conventional Oreos,
and the ones made with organic sugar and flour. Then they were asked
which they could eat more of. Most thought that the organic Oreos had
fewer calories and that they could eat more of them.

In another test,

215 college students read a story about a character who wanted to lose
weight, but wanted to skip her usual after-dinner run. Participants read
she had eaten either an organic or regular non-organic dessert. Then
they rated whether it was OK for her to skip the run. The participants
were more lenient toward the character if she had eaten the organic
dessert instead of the conventional one.


So a product with just as many calories, just as much fat from a whole
lot of palm oil are percieved to be healthier to the point that you can
skip your after dinner run. Even though, as we pointed out in the
earlier post, the cookies are not even really organic. (they have all
kinds of other ingredients, and carefully claim that they are made from
organic sugar and flour). A researcher concluded:

"I think the take-home point is that, in everyday judgments and
decisions, organic foods might be treated as something they're not,"
said study researcher Jonathon P. Schuldt, a graduate student in
psychology at the University of Michigan. "They might be treated as
health foods that are lower calorie when in fact that's not always the
case." Perhaps the USDA should look more closely at how the word
"Organic" is being misused. And perhaps college students should learn
what it actually means. More in Livescience