Talking Point : Patrick Holden
THE SOIL Association has been attacked recently by two of its resident critics. First, Sir John Krebs, recently retired as chair of the Food Standards Agency, who has just been told that the FSA “deviated from its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific evidence” when “speaking against organic food and for GM food”.
That criticism came not from the Soil Association, but from an enquiry set up by his own agency and carried out by an independent and expert reviewer, Baroness Dean.
Our other critic, Geoffrey Hollis, after a career at MAFF, is spending his retirement undermining the credibility of organic farming in articles such as his Talking Point (Apr 8).
The last thing I want to see is this debate again sink into a boring and acrimonious exchange of insults. Instead, I shall try to explain the motives and philosophy behind organic farming practice.
I went into organic farming as a nave environmentalist in the early 1970s. I became convinced that the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides did not constitute farming with nature and after a brief period of training on a conventional farm and at a Rudolf Steiner college, set about putting my theories into practice on the holding in west Wales where I still farm. That was 31 years ago.
Over this period the Soil Association has developed standards for organic agriculture – in effect writing down a prescription for the application of sustainable farming principles. These are based on the philosophy first expressed by the founding fathers of the organic movement back in the early 20th century: Namely that if the farming practice is right, good health and welfare will be the consequence.
To quote Sir Albert Howard, the eminent agricultural scientist who developed this approach: “We should come to regard pests, parasites and diseases as nature”s professors of good husbandry, because they reveal to us the deficiencies in our management”.
This approach is almost the exact opposite of the way in which input-based farming approaches weed, pest, disease and parasite problems.
For example, they claim that a farmer who does not use an antibiotic to treat mastitis, or an anthelmintic to kill worms in sheep is, if the animal is suffering, compromising its welfare interests. We agree, and that is why organic standards explicitly state that, where an animal has a parasite or disease problem which is causing it stress, veterinary treatment must be used.
Where we differ is over our conclusion that many modern intensive livestock systems place the animals under conditions where they will almost inevitably suffer from such problems, unless routine doses of antibiotics and other veterinary drugs are used, to suppress what are in effect indicators of bad husbandry. We aim to design farming systems that promote the health of the animals, thereby avoiding the need for routine dosing of any kind, and ideally any medication.
welfare problems
That is the fundamental difference between the organic and conventional approach. Organic farming definitions are far from perfect. Critics will continue to find farms where there are welfare problems and aspects which still fall short of the ideal.
That said, we are engaged in a sincere attempt to build alternative, husbandry-based, management systems. We want to allay current public fears about the intensive nature of farming, thereby rebuilding much-needed trust between our two communities.
The public increasingly trusts organic farming to deliver its new requirements from agriculture – high food quality and taste, wildlife and environmental benefits, higher welfare, improved economic and social conditions for farmers and workers, and a greater emphasis on sustainable practices.
The Soil Association doesn”t have all the answers, but we do believe we have the most developed system of sustainable agriculture. The public think so too, that is why the market is growing by up to 25% and we will shortly be needing new converts to organic farming.
