One of the most popular new themes for lazy journalists - the kind who are happy to fudge facts for the sake of a quick and zeitgeisty counterblast - seems to be bashing the organic food label.

There's been a flurry of recent articles in both tabloids and broadsheets, 'exposing' the organic movement as some kind of 'scam' because some products that carry the organic label turn out to have a little more salt, sugar or fat in them than similar products that are not organic.

Typically sensationalist and one-sided was the Daily Mail's offering under the banner: 'THE GREAT CON ORGANIC'. The sub-heading continues: 'Dripping with fat. Packed with sugar. The shocking truth about "healthy" food.' The Mirror joined the party with the headline: 'THE ORGANIC FOOD THAT HAS THREE TIMES MORE FAT,' and the Telegraph, on the same theme, asked 'IS ORGANIC FOOD REALLY WORTH THE MONEY?'

Just how badly can a point be missed? The organic movement has never tried to claim a slice of the WeightWatchers cake, or a bar of the healthy heart chart. Yes, it claims some high ground - both in agricultural ethics and in terms of food quality. But in the former case it merely makes a positive claim for the ecological virtues of farming without chemicals. And in the latter what it principally claims to offer is the reassurance of cereals, fresh fruit and vegetables guaranteed free from chemical residues, and an ethical and natural approach to looking after and feeding the domestic livestock we rear for meat.

In the never-ending debate about taste and flavour, organic producers argue the case for their superiority with only limited success. But they will always be entitled to recognition for setting a benchmark of accuracy and naturalness in the taste of their unprocessed commodities. Who can dispute that a beetroot grown in good earth with no chemical fertilisers tastes how a beetroot should? Or that a chicken fed on grain and allowed to roam on grass tastes more truly chickeny than one fed on a refined protein pellet laced with antibiotics and chemical additives, and reared on a litter of its own excrement?

Of course a lot of people - sadly it's probably still most of us - don't care one way or the other about these issues. But it makes no sense for them to denounce organic farming, or complain about the price of fresh organic produce. It is what it is and it costs what it costs, and you can take it or leave it. You can hardly complain about people who want to produce food uncontaminated by artificial chemicals and additives.

Yet problems seem to arise, and the sceptics and grumblers find the stick with which to beat the whole movement, when basic organic commodities are combined and processed into the familiar 'treat' products of the modern food marketplace.

The consumer clearly wants to have the choice of organic and nonorganic cakes, biscuits and fruit cordials, breakfast cereals and jams, flavoured yoghurts and cured and processed meats. Many such products are a commercial success. But is the consumer entitled to be outraged when some of them turn out, under analysis, not to be a panacea for good health, or an instant answer to disastrous dietary habits?

In the recent organic-bashing articles, the selectiveness of the facts and statistics, and spin of the interpretation, varies from predictable and familiar journalistic guile

to jaw-dropping cynicism. For example, there is no question that in many cases, had the researchers not been out to discredit the organic products, they could have found other, non-organic versions of the products that, under scrutiny, scored worse for fat, salt and sugar than the ones they chose to publish. The worst they were really entitled to say about the organic versions is that they often fall within the normal range for these 'unhealthy' ingredients. And a frustrated and slightly impatient riposte - 'well what do you expect, it's a bloody biscuit!' seems to me entirely in order.

More disingenuous, and sometimes laughable, is the trick of presenting an organic product's undeniable virtue as its avoidable vice. Take the Mail article's verdict on vanilla ice cream, organic versus conventional. According to the Daily Mail 'the conventional ice cream wins all round. It has half the calories, less than half the fat and less sugar than the organic alternative'. The organic ice cream is being condemned for having a far higher proportion of real (and organic) double cream, and no artificial sweeteners. How mad is that? According to this almost Orwellian way of thinking, a frozen carton of milk would be a better vanilla ice cream than either of them - and an ordinary ice cube would presumably scoop the highest prize of all.

Another gripe is salt levels - fractionally higher in some organic cured meats, and mayonnaise, than in their non-organic counterparts. Of course none of the articles bothers to point out that some organic products may be higher in salt because other preservatives, often made from refined chemicals, and including some associated with the risk of cancer and other diseases, are banned under organic production rules. Only 27 additives are permitted under the Soil Association certification scheme (compared to 297 for non-organic products),and they are those considered both irreplaceable by natural alternatives and safe.

So personally I will be laying on the organics thick this Christmas. I'll be loading my pudding with organic suet, sugar, flour, eggs, fruit - and booze if I can get it. I'll be basting my organic potatoes in lashings of saturated organic goose fat. And if my home-cured organic ham, glazed with organic brown sugar and mustard, doesn't have more salt, sugar and fat than any of its 'conventional' rivals, I shall consider it a tragic failure.

· To find out more about Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's River Cottage products and events, or to order a 2005 River Cottage diary go to rivercottage.net