DAVID RICHARDSON
DAVID RICHARDSON
The organic debate
engaged some
heavyweight
contenders at this
years Oxford
Conference
One of the highlights of the Oxford Conference earlier this month was the debate in the Oxford Union. It was a cold evening and the room was freezing. The lady president of the union, clad in an elegant evening dress and with bare shoulders, must have been perished. But the subject and the manner in which it was debated warmed up the rest of those present.
The motion was that: "This House believes that by 2010, 30% of agricultural land should be certified as organic". The date and the percentage were clearly copied from a speech made at an RSPB conference last July by Renate Kunast, Germanys agriculture minister, in which she declared them her objective for Germany. DEFRA secretary Margaret Beckett shares fellow feelings with her. They held a private meeting to compare notes only last week. So, it was particularly relevant for the subject to be debated in a British context.
Speaking in favour of the motion were Patrick Holden director of the Soil Association and Lord Peter Melchett, the associations political adviser. Opposing were ex-agriculture minister, John Gummer and Oliver Walston. Both sides debated vigorously, although the prize for humour went by a sizeable margin to Gummer and Walston. But between the gales of laughter many good points were made and they included excellent contributions from the audience.
The opposers said organic farming was not the best way to produce food – merely a different way that appealed to the sensibilities of a limited number of consumers. They also pointed out that organic production was not all its proponents claimed. For there is a list of 17 chemical products that may be used on organic crops, some of them old fashioned and known to be toxic. They also drew attention to the fact that organic livestock farmers are permitted to use antibiotics if traditional remedies for illness fail.
The proposers spoke of the rising demand for organic produce in recent years that had led to a retail turnover in excess of £800m last year and to a projected £1.2bn this year. They appeared to hold out an olive branch to conventional farmers who, they implicitly conceded, they had criticised in the past. And in spite of the over production of organic milk and some meat products, which were only temporary in their view, they pleaded with conventional farmers to join them. For 75% of organic produce consumed in Britain is imported and this countrys farmers should be supplying organic food to this countrys consumers.
Its a persuasive argument, until you look a little deeper. A fair proportion of imported organic, produce, such as oranges, bananas, grapes and the like, cannot be grown in the British climate in any case. And much of the rest comes from countries where organic production is more generously subsidised than it is here or is grown by exploited native workers who receive a fraction of the wage paid in Britain.
Both situations allow produce to be marketed at significantly lower prices than would be viable in this country making it more attractive to supermarket buyers. The different standards for organic production that may, or may not be in force in the exporting country of origin are often conveniently ignored. That 75% of imported organic produce is therefore not as easily available to UK growers as is often portrayed.
Incidentally, the result of the Oxford Union debate was about a dozen voting in favour of the motion and the rest of the room – about 250 I estimate – voting against it. I had expected more would have voted for organic expansion. After all it is a sector that has done better than most in recent years. But when it comes to business the hard- headed Oxford delegates are no fools. They presumably concluded the organic market will remain a niche and that there would be little profit in significantly increasing production.
A recent survey by Mintel would appear to confirm their skepticism. According to Mintels opinion poll the proportion of British adults who believe organic products are safer than conventional equivalents has fallen from 22% in 1999 to 16% now. And among young people – 15- to 24-year-olds – that figure has fallen from 20% two years ago to 11%. And Mintel, like many before them, speculates that the organic boom may be coming to an end.
So, as they set off for their annual conference in Harrogate next week, organic farmers should perhaps pause and think through their enthusiasm for universal conversion. For over-production of any commodity leads, inevitably, to lower prices. And without substantial premiums organic farming is not viable.
Far better, it seems to me, to modify production methods, if not already done, to the half way house of integrated farming. This economises on inputs and helps conserve the countryside, while holding unit production costs down. Further, I believe there is a growing market out there for local produce, grown to known and declared standards, whether organic or not. And bulk commodities that are fully assured and traceable will soon be the only ones for which there is a ready market. That direction, to my mind, holds greater promise for farmers than expanding organic.