Steve Ott’s Green Reality Check

[Geoff]

In his latest editorial Steve Ott asks for our opinions on the organic debate re-ignited by the recent report from the Food Standards Agency. The forum has been a bit quiet on this recently so here’s my response to the invitation to start it up again.

The main problem is that the label ‘Organic’ has been hi-jacked by a self-appointed organisation and has come to represent a narrow and unrealistic view. What I think he is saying in his editorial is that people want food that is safe, nutritious and well flavoured but is also available in sufficient quantity to feed everybody and at an affordable price.

Every crop needs its ration of NPK for it to grow properly, the source of these nutrients has no effect on the finished product so why should this be a criterion for the labelling? Similarly, despite strenuous efforts to convince us otherwise, the easiest way to raise healthy plants is to use composts that contain peat. Again this approach has no effect on the finished product so why should it influence the labelling? I have recently seen lime advertised as ‘organic’ to fit in with this idea – if lime is organic so are oil based products, they come from the same ancient marine organisms. ‘Organic’ labelling is now trying to extend to taking account of so called food miles. It is probable there is less effect on the planet by growing crops where they do well and transporting them than there is by struggling to raise them in inhospitable local climates.

Residues of ‘cides’ (pesticides, fungicides, herbicides) are always going to be a contentious issue (personally I am more concerned about things like waxes on fruit as you are more likely to consume significant quantities). I don’t think sufficient food can be grown without their responsible use, we have to ensure that only approved chemicals are used and in the lowest quantities possible. Genetically Modified crops have a role to play here, another ‘organic’ no no, as they can reduce chemical requirements. I wonder how that debate would change if GM technology overcame blight?

We need a new labelling regime that allows safe pragmatically grown produce to be identified, perhaps including more variety information and date harvested, and that concentrates on describing the finished product rather than the growing process. That way we can get rid of the irrelevant baggage of the current Organic Certification criteria and concentrate on good food.

If the same effort was put into the real environmental issue of population control that is wasted on the organic debate, some aspects of climate change and religious dogma there would be a far better chance of mankind surviving without the impending mass starvation.

[Tony Hague]

The main problem is that the label ‘Organic’ has been hi-jacked by a self-appointed organisation and has come to represent a narrow and unrealistic view.
[snip]
We need a new labelling regime that allows safe pragmatically grown produce to be identified, perhaps including more variety information and date harvested, and that concentrates on describing the finished product rather than the growing process.

So, what will it mean if the label says "pragmatically grown" on it ? Either
(a) Anything and/or nothing at all.
(b) A narrow view set out by a self-appointed organisation ....

Point being, in defence of the SA standards, if a label is to mean something, it MUST be defined as something, with hard (even if a bit arbitary) boundaries, by someone.

I don’t think sufficient food can be grown without their responsible use, we have to ensure that only approved chemicals are used and in the lowest quantities possible.

"The lowest quantities possible" is subjective; an organic grower might say he can do the job with none at all, others may view prophylactic spraying against all possible problems as the minimum needed not to risk loosing a crop.

Every crop needs its ration of NPK for it to grow properly, the source of these nutrients has no effect on the finished product so why should this be a criterion for the labelling?

Because it has a significant environmental impact ? The carbon footprint of nitrate fertilisers is large. The solubility of nitrates applied in salt form means greater impact from leaching on rivers, etc. Herbicides and pesticides are being withdrawn quite frequently because of environmental consequences of their use.

If the same effort was put into the real environmental issue of population control that is wasted on the organic debate, some aspects of climate change and religious dogma there would be a far better chance of mankind surviving without the impending mass starvation.

Absolutely.

[Geoff]

At least somebody has replied, I was beginning to think I was the only person who had read the magazine. Perhaps you are all emailing Steve direct?
To answer your points.
I'm not saying a label should say 'Pragmatically Grown' but that the defined standard to which it is grown be pragmatic rather than the impractical SA zero tolerance - let's call it FSA Grade 1 for example. This standard would define chemical levels probably in terms of residues that would in turn define application levels and timings.
Doubtless over application of nitrates causes problems but not to the food produced. I am suggesting food safety and quality are separate to environmental objectives and should remain so

[Cider Boys]

It may surprise you Geoff but I have a few thoughts on this debate.

From a commercial point, if you are organic you produce less so charge more if non-organic you charge less but produce more, this in turn polarizes the issue between two opposing methods of food production. However this does nothing to encourage the large section of growers who wish to produce food in a pragmatic way using the best from organic practices and when necessary using chemical aids.

If you are not organic approved by the SA (or other body), you by definition have no commercial incentive but to grow using all the so called nasty chemicals available.

In my view there is an argument for the slow food movement and for generally buying locally produced food where local knowledge informs people of how the food is produced.

Barney

[Tony Hague]

I'm not saying a label should say 'Pragmatically Grown' but that the defined standard to which it is grown be pragmatic rather than the impractical SA zero tolerance - let's call it FSA Grade 1 for example. This standard would define chemical levels probably in terms of residues that would in turn define application levels and timings.

Then this would not differ a lot from the current "conventional" growing system. Farmers can't just spray what they like with the gay abandon of a hobby gardener you know. As I understand it agrochemical manufacturers have to make label recommendations for dose, timing and harvest interval, which they have shown to leave residues within permitted levels. Growers must stick within the label recommendations, or go through a costly process themselves to show what they want to do is OK.

A problem with this is that it assumes that a "safe" level of residue can be established, not just for the original chemical but also any of its metabolytes. And that a "safe" level of environemntal impact can be defined. As any good scientist should know, it is almost impossible to prove something safe; all you can say is that you have not yet found a way in which it presents a hazard, which is not the same thing.

[alan refail]

All credit to Steve for starting the debate, but to sound a pessimstic (realistic?) note, arguing about the relative merits of any method of agriculture to feed the world is little more than whistling in the dark.

The world's population was about 2.5 billion in 1950, is now approaching 8 billion and is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php

The WHO estimates that one third of the world's population is well-fed, one third under nourished and the remaining third starving -
http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/h ... /stats.htm

Whatever means is sought to increase food production comes up against the stumbling block that the main cause of hunger is the inability to buy food. Little point in western agribusiness increasing production by any means if the hungry cannot afford it.

[FelixLeiter]

Residues of ‘cides’ (pesticides, fungicides, herbicides)

To save us all a bit of typing, the term pesticides encompasses fungicides, acaricides, insecticides, herbicides, algicides (and many more becides) .

For my part, I look for locally grown produce, that's in season and fresh. I take little notice of labelling, much of which is flannel to reel the customer in. We all have eyes, noses and taste buds to be able to make our own judgements. I saw in my greengrocer the other day locally grown bobby beans, lovely quality, for 60p a pound (I bought some and they were excellent). The same shop had organic green beans imported from Kenya, twice the price and wrapped in cling film, presented on a plastic tray. We don't need standards or labelling to see that that's all wrong.

[Cider Boys]

Hi FelixLeiter

I could not agree more with the sentiments of your last paragraph, it sums it all up succinctly.

Barney

[Johnboy]

`In Steve Ott’s penultimate paragraph he poses a question.
Can organic methods address the imbalance?
The answer to this must be a resounding NO!
Having been organic for about half of my gardening life I have watched the antics of the Soil Association for close on 60 years and I have seen them change from a bunch of cranks to a bunch of dogmatists. The only thing that has remained constant in all this time is that they have always presented Organic Theory as Fact and are still doing so. They have been allowed to brainwash the population to a point where they have people running scared and believing that conventionally produced food is containing a cocktail of chemicals at high concentrations. This is simply not the truth.
They have accused those who produce food using conventional methods to the point of poisoning the nation and poisoning the very ground in which these conventional crops are grown. This again is simply not the truth. On the other hand the Soil Association have been found guilty of overstating their case, to me this is another way of saying that for years they have been misrepresenting organics to the public.
British Growers shy away from Organic growing because they simply cannot trust the Soil Association. The example of this is when the government paid growers to go into intervention prior to becoming organic who found that most of the organic rules didn’t make sense and simply waited until they didn’t have to repay the grants and reverted to conventional growing. For this reason the vast majority of organic produce sold in this country has been imported and not grown under the jurisdiction of the Soil Association or any other a British accreditation scheme. It seems that foreign growers can undercut British Growers because they do not have to pay the swingeing accreditation fees as do our growers. This means that as usual British Growers have a very unlevel playing field.
If you pause and reflect on the amount of land used to produce organic crops and the amount of cereals and vegetables needed to feed the nation you will realize that if we were to become an all organic country, as the Soil Association have proposed, there would be some very large shortfalls of the essential foodstuffs needed. This would in turn mean that some people in this country would go hungry. This must never be allowed to happen!
The biggest of all the ‘porky pies’ from the organic faction is: With Organic Growing you simply do not get the pests and diseases! This is of course what is called Organic ‘Pie in the sky.’
JB.

[PLUMPUDDING]

I've already stated some of my opinions when this report by the FSA first burst onto the newspapers, and I think most people take these findings with a pinch of salt.

What we need is choice to eat organically produced food or conventionally grown. My preference is always home grown, then locally produced fresh, good quality, then in season, British if possible from the supermarket. If the quality is good then I would choose organic fruit and veg. Also organic meat and milk over conventional to avoid the antibiotics and possible growth hormones we are told are in higher quantities in those conventionally produced.

It is ridiculous to say we have to grow GM crops in order to produce enough for us to eat when the Government is not protecting our farmers from the strangle hold of the big supermarket on pricing. So many farmers have retired around here and their children are not interested in carrying on the farms as they are just not profitable enough for all the hard work involved. Farmers should be ensured a good return for their produce and the supermarkets told to reduce their profits rather than passing any increase on to their customers.

There are hundreds of acres of good mixed and arable farmland round here which just have people's pet horses grazing on them now - what a waste.

The Government should get its finger out and encourage farmers to produce far more of our food instead of importing it then we wouldn't be reliant on other countries. I sometimes wonder whether we would be better off being more insular and restricting all the global free market ideology and accept that we are now a small, much more insignificant country than we used to be, and stop trying to keep up with and wasting the country's money playing with the "Big Boys" and fighting other people's wars.

[Johnboy]

Hi Plumpudding,
In essence I agree with what you have written with a few exceptions.
I think you are mistaken with your thinking's regard the FSA. However that is my opinion.
It is, also in my opinion, not ridiculous to say that GM could play its part because as a nation we have been fed a whole plethora of untruths by the organic faction. What I find is that other nations are doing very well out of the use of GM and the Organic faction have been behind the wrecking of GM field trials in this country which is totally unacceptable. This has been mainly because of the untruths fed to the nation.
Certainly there are hundreds of acres wasted in this country but you should be aware that good grazing very seldom makes good growing soil.
Remember grass will grow on .5" of soil!
As far as I am aware growth hormones are against the law in the UK and
an abattoir would very soon detect the presence of these. The meat would not reach the market. I feel that your fears were planted there by the organic faction which was one of their scare tactics.
If you saw the quality of the organic produce for sale in this area you would head straight for the supermarket as on the whole the quality is absolutely abominable!
Like you I go for locally grown produce which is fresh but only when my own grown are depleted or something special catches my eye.
I know that you support the organic cause, which I did for many years, but from your postings, over quite a period now, you actually sound to be more pragmatic than organic. Remember that the vast majority of people who call themselves organic on this forum would never pass organic accreditation.
When we joined the common market we showed our commonwealth countries two fingers and since then things have gone badly down hill.
We are too restricted by the European Parliament for us to be truly independent ever again.
JB.

[Cider Boys]

Johnboy presents a well informed balanced argument to support his organic views.

Below is an extract about Lord Peter Bond (Melchett)
2 Jun 2008: Peter Melchett is policy director of the Soil Association, a UK organic food and farming organisation. He runs an 890-acre organic farm in Norfolk, with pigs, beef cattle, sheep and arable crops. He is a member of the BBC's Rural Affairs Committee and the Government's Organic Action Plan Group, and was a member of the Department of Education's School Lunches Review Panel

For many years until quite recently Peter has been able to promote his ideals on the BBC, especially Radio4 with little scutiny, in my opinion, from the BBC presenters. This has allowed an unchallenged pro-organic view to develop in many otherwise well intentioned individuals. You may note from the above paragraph that Peter was a member of the BBC's Rural affairs Commitee, a fact that never seemed to be mentioned by the presenters when questioning him. However whenever organic issues are to be discussed on the BBC up pops Peter as the complete and only authority on this complicated science of food production.

It is healthy for debate on this issue because all is not Black or White, or should that be Green and White, concerning organic farming. We must all do our best to seek the facts rather than quote the rhetoric of self interested pressure groups.

Barney

[Johnboy]

Hi Barney,
You have mentioned Lord Peter Melchett so I will give you an idea as to what he gets up to.
On Radio 4 I heard him proudly telling us how he produces Organic Seed Wheat.
It takes three years to produce Organic Seed Wheat. there are two crops of Clover to build up the nitrogen needed in the soil. The third year the Wheat is sown and it is hand weeded to conform with a weed free standard. I suspect that he was too ashamed to mention his yield so it wasn't mentioned but at best he would get only 2 tons to the acre.
This works out at .66tons per acre per year. In that time 12 tons of Conventional Seed Wheat could have been grow and every grain of it of a higher quality.
What this really uncovers is the fact that organically you must build up the fertility in the soil before before you can reliably grow Organic Wheat and this would be done by leaving the acreage fallow or with an enhancing crop of no immediate food value.
We simply do not have enough land for this form of growing.Our population has now risen above 61 Million and is set to rise even further.
It is the job of Farmers and Horticultiralists to provide the nation with as much food as is possible and this can not be acheived by using Organic methods.
JB.

[WestHamRon]

Come back Thomas Malthus, all is forgiven.

[Tony Hague]

We simply do not have enough land for this form of growing.Our population has now risen above 61 Million and is set to rise even further.

Reality is that we do not have enough land in the UK to feed 61M with any sort of growing. In the long term, we will not have enough oil to feed the population by "conventional" growing either.