Select Committee on Agriculture Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 14 August 2000