Memorandum submitted by Professor Sir
John Marsh (F 4)
The press notice outlining the terms of reference
for this inquiry identifies a number of very practical issues
concerned with the development of organic farming. The Committee
will receive much informed evidence about these issues from practitioners
and from those who market the products.
This note addresses a different question, why and
in what ways should public policy become involved. It in no sense
makes irrelevant the important matters discussed in the press
notice but it may help the committee to assess what should be
the role of government as distinct from the private sector in
the evolution of this particular system of farming.
1. WHAT IS
SPECIAL ABOUT
ORGANIC FARMING?
It delivers products, mainly food,
produced within a recognised system of rules defining the methods
that may be adopted;
from a consumer point of view it
represents one way of satisfying needs, just as a bespoke tailor
is an alternative to a mass produced ready to wear supplier of
suits;
it is claimed that the product tastes
better, is safer and more nutritious than food produced by other
methods;
it is claimed to be more sustainable
and environmentally friendly than conventional food production
systems;
from a resource use point of view
it has different impacts from conventional farming:
for a given amount of output it requires
more land and more labour;
it does not add to the amount of those
pesticides and herbicides which it outlaws, but it does substitute
other materials or methods of cultivation to secure, as far as
possible, the same ends in relation to the control of pests and
disease and weeds;
it does not use manufactured fertilisers
to increase the supply of plant nutrients but it seeks to maintain
adequate availability of nutrients within the soil by using other
methods;
the impact of the methods used in
organic farming on plant health, the condition of the soil, including
the micro-organisms present in the soil depends on the specific
techniques used and the place, timing and skill with which they
are applied. It is claimed that they are less damaging to non-target
organisms and maintain a better state of soil structure than conventional
farming. They are thus consistent with a greater degree of biodiversity
within the farmed area.
2. THE ROLE
OF POLICY
Policy interventions can be justified:
where the autonomous process of the
market fails to capture adequately the social costs and benefits
of a particular business activity; and
where the cost of effective intervention
is less than the benefit secured as a result.
3. IS THERE
A ROLE
FOR POLICY
INTERVENTION IN
RESPECT OF
ORGANIC PRODUCTS?
organic goods are offered to consumers
who have to assess their relative value compared with other ways
in which their needs can be met. This is a perfectly normal competitive
situation and raises no problems that are not common to other
forms of production;
as with all products where it is
impossible for the individual consumer to validate the claims
made there is a need for some form of assurance that they are
not being misled. The UKROFS system of establishing standards
and authenticating their application provides a strong degree
of assurance about UK produced organic goods;
a substantial proportion of organic
produce is imported and although this is claimed to meet certain
standards there is less confidence, particularly among UK growers,
that this is always the case. Some protection should exist under
the Trades Descriptions Act. However, there may be a role for
government to seek to ensure that imported produce sold with the
organic label fully meets the implied assertions about the way
in which it has been produced;
apart from the provenance of the
goods there are questions about the capacity of consumers in general
to assess claims made about their superiority to alternative supplies.
Here the problems often lie with implications made by the advocates
of organic produce about non-organic produce. There are a number
of dimensions.
The notion that organic products are "safer"
needs to be set against the reality that, overall, foods produced
by other means are in the overwhelming number of cases safe. All
food has to meet these minimum standards if suppliers are to remain
in business. Failures of safety arise not because of systems of
production but because of failures, which may occur under any
system where appropriate procedures are neglected. Organic products
are equally at risk with others.
The notion that organic foods are more nutritious.
The nutritional content of any type food product can vary according
to the way in which it has grown, the methods used in harvesting
and storage. Some element of variation is inescapable in biological
processes over which we have incomplete control. Broadly speaking
however, all foods contain valuable nutrients and there is no
reason to conclude that consumers of conventional products are
in any way likely to suffer an inadequate supply of nutrients.
The notion that conventionally produced food
is damaging to the environment. The arguments concerning this
are explored below but the effect is that consumers may be misled
by assuming that the purchase of organic foods is necessarily
more consistent with a responsible attitude to environmental issues
than can be the case where conventional food is purchased.
The conclusion to this discussion is that there
is no general case for intervention in the market by government
although it must ensure that the responsibilities it has, in relation
to food safety and to ensure that consumers are protected from
misleading information are discharged. The registration system
for organic products is a major step in that direction. In the
other areas there may be a need to make it clear that conventional
foods are safe and nutritious and that there is no need for consumers
to fear they are damaging their health or their environment by
eating them.
4. IS THERE
A CASE
FOR INTERVENTION
IN FAVOUR
OF ORGANIC
PROCESSES OF
PRODUCTIONS?
it is believed that in a number of
respects organic methods of production have beneficial environmental
effects and that these gains to society are not reflected in the
price consumers pay for the products. As a result some system
which rewards organic producers in addition to their earnings
from the market place would lead to a more satisfactory pattern
of resource use.
this is a perfectly respectable argument.
It hinges on identifying the net impact of this method of production
on resource use, the consequences of this for the environment
and the values to be attached to particular bundles of marketable
product and environmental cost and benefit. Calculating these
elements is far from simple. Some examples of issues that need
to be assessed are discussed below:
for a given level of output organic
systems use more land than conventional systems. Thus, if production
is to increase it will be pushed towards land which is less suited,
of lower productivity and potentially at greater risk of damage
through erosion than would be needed using conventional techniques.
The pressure to increase production within the UK, as a relatively
rich society that can import food from the rest of the world,
is currently very low. However, globally the need for additional
supplies on a substantial scale cannot be escaped. In effect,
if the UK requires food to be produced by organic methods it will
add to the pressure on marginal resources and so contribute to
pressure on the environment on a global scale;
at a more domestic level, it is clear
that whatever the level of output maintained, more land would
need to be farmed in order to sustain an organic than a conventional
system. This has implications for land use as a whole. Given the
demand for development, for recreation, for open space and for
a diversity of habitats, it is not clear that the net impact in
terms of the national environment would be positive;
much of the attraction of organic
farming stems from anxiety about the use of agricultural chemicals
as pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers. The picture drawn by
Rachel Carson in Silent Spring has captured the imagination. Undoubtedly
the concerns expressed have powerfully influenced the development
of the agricultural chemical industry. We now have more efficient,
better targeted and better controlled use of chemicals than in
the past. This has enabled yields to increase simultaneously with
a decrease in adverse environmental impacts;
a major source of improvement in
the performance of agriculture has been the introduction of new
strains of plant and animals. Much has been accomplished by traditional
breeding methods. The potential of using biotechnology to make
further steps in this direction represents one of the most hopeful
routes through which we can produce the food needed by a growing
population and reduce the load this implies on the environment.
Organic farming rules out full exploitation of this technology.
As a result it may imply avoidable environmental damage;
there is an additional more pedestrian
area of concern. It seems likely that organic products will experience
as supplies rise to meet demand the same inelasticity of demand
as conventional goods. In effect to expand production to secure
environmental goods in this direction would imply proportionately
increasing public subsidies to bridge the gap between what the
market will pay and what the organic farmer requires to remain
profitable.
None of theses issues imply a categorical answer
to the question, "should organic farming be supported on
the basis of its contribution to the environment?" But they
do direct attention to a consideration of other means by which
the benefits it promises might be secured.
the regulatory framework within which
farming takes place should provide assurance that damaging practices
are not allowed to continue. Progress has already been made in
relation to many types of pollution and as understanding of biological
and ecological processes increases this may be expected to improve.
This must establish standards within which all farming, organic
or otherwise, will have to take place;
environmental benefits and costs
need to be clearly articulated. Where we seek improved habitats,
greater biodiversity or the maintenance of a particular landscape,
we need to consider what is the least cost means of achieving
this. At this stage there exists great potential, through precision
farming and biotechnology to make major improvements in securing
environmental gains consistently with sustainable levels of production.
Rational policy should pay for the delivery
of these benefits. It should encourage not deter the evolution
of systems which respond to increased understanding of the underlying
natural processes. Rewarding a particular system, which is defined
in terms of an inflexible system of rules, is not helpful. Policy
will make a much more positive impact if it identifies and rewards
the specific outcomes it seeks. In such a context organic farming
would qualify fully for those goods which it delivered but so
would other more flexible approaches such as integrated farm management.
The incentive policy should seek to provide is to develop not
to ossify.
19 May 2000
|