| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Oct 2007 : Column 195WH—continued
10.20 am
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on introducing the debate, which is a timely one. I did not anticipate that I would be speaking quite so early on, and I expected more hon. Members to contribute. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has entered the fray and made a valuable contribution. I anticipated that more hon. Members who support the organic farming movement would be present to put their point of view, but perhaps the reputation and rigorous approach of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on these matters deterred them.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East has been very fair in his remarks this morning. I do not think that any hon. Member present would want to imply that organic farming should not be an integral part of British agriculture. What we are saying is that organic food and organic farming should be subject to the same tests as for all food production, and that those tests should be carried out objectively so that the public can be assured that the food they are eating is safe and reflects the claims that are made for it.
I want to congratulate the organic movement and compare it in some ways with the fair trade movement. Those are two strands of agriculture that have really engaged with the public, and the great benefit that that has brought to the food industry in this country is that consumers have been encouraged to question the origin of food, the way in which it is produced, and the return that is given to the producers. That inquiring frame of mind is good for the industry, because we need consumers who are knowledgeable and capable of making choices.
As has already been said, organic food should be tested on a number of criteria. Food safety is one, and is a key issue. There is a lack of clarity in the claim that pesticides are not used—whether straightforward ones, or herbicides or fungicides. Hon. Members have given
examples of certain substances that have been used in organic food production that have questionable implications.
I do not believe that the health benefits of organic food have been properly tested. I agree with the National Farmers Union that the organic food movement should not make claims against other forms of production. That is unfair. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said, I think, that no food should be sold in this country that is unsafe. Consumers should be able to have confidence that that is the case.
Animal welfare is another issue. Over the years, conventional agriculture has not had a good record on that, and if the organic movement has progressed the thinking on it, it has achieved a lot. I think particularly of the use of antibiotics in conventional agriculture —both to prevent disease and for growth promotion. That has led to antibiotic resistance that has implications not only in animal production but in human health as well. The same concerns apply to the use of anthelmintics in animal production.
I wonder sometimes why the organic movement is against vaccination in general but very much in favour of it in relation to foot and mouth disease. I have no doubt that that will be explained now that I have raised it in this debate.
A number of claims have been made on the environment, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley was quite right to refer to the problems of deep ploughing in organic production as a means of weed control. In conventional agriculture, the move is towards minimal cultivation, with less energy use and less herbicide use too. Plants will not grow without nitrogen, so it has to be found somewhere—whether in organic or inorganic fertilisers or from nitrogen fixation by legumes. A standard organic rotation with the use of clover to build up fertility requires the ploughing up of the clover to allow planting of grain crops or cash crops. The plant breeding objective of trying to get nitrogen fixation into cereal crops has so far been unsuccessful.
Carbon emissions are an important issue. Current estimates of the contribution of British agriculture to greenhouse gases vary, but a figure of 7 per cent. has been proposed. Of that 7 per cent., however, it seems to me that at least 50 per cent. comes from nitrogen oxides that are made either in fertiliser production or as a result of emissions from the soil after the use of inorganic fertilisers. Some 33 per cent. is from methane, and perhaps only 16 per cent. from carbon emissions from fuel use and other sources.
It is questionable whether organic farming can contribute to lowering carbon emissions. Although the inputs are lower, and the energy use is probably lower, the output is lower as well. The thing to look at is the units of greenhouse gases produced per unit of food.
Another issue is taste and consumer preference, and I am all for customer choice. In my constituency is Graig Farm Organics. When I talk to the head of that organisation, he puts great emphasis on food handling—particularly of meat, so that it is not rushed from slaughterhouse to plate and so that time is given for carcases to mature and be presented to the customer in the best possible way. I am sure that the taste that is often claimed for organic food is very often due to its handling, and the same techniques could equally be applied to conventional food.
An issue that has not been touched on today but that will become more important is that of food security and of competition between the use of land for energy production and for food production. We should consider the absolute quantities of food that any one piece of land can produce, because there is going to be competition for that land for energy production as well as food production. I am very concerned about the destruction of the Amazon and other rain forests for the production of food and energy. If there is a reduction in food production because of a move to a less intensive system, we shall obviously need more land, which raises the possibility of more rain forests being destroyed.
The variations in certification are another issue. Although a unified scheme across the European Union provides at least a minimum standard—the Soil Association claims to have higher standards—without doubt in other countries certification is either less rigorous or less well observed. Organic producers in this country could be at a serious disadvantage if it is claimed that imported food is organic when it does not meet the same criteria as our food. Will the Government ensure that when food comes into this country it meets the same standards as are required from our producers?
A great range of agriculture is carried out in this country, from organic to very intensive, but there are a huge number of levels in between, too. Not only that, but nowadays, with the single farm payment and cross compliance, environmental considerations are at the heart of the Government’s support for agriculture.
I want particularly to mention LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming. It promotes a responsible level of input, so that it is not put on in excess. Farmers cannot afford to do that because of the costs of the inputs, and they also have a detrimental effect on the environment.
Organic farming has, I believe, played a valuable part in re-engaging the consumer with food production. Government support is needed to ensure that the demand for organic food is at least met in the medium term because of the costs of changing from conventional to organic farming. I also support the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East in urging the Government to ensure that all food in this country meets the same standards for food safety. It is only then that the customer can have confidence in what he is eating and can make the choices that are needed.
10.32 am
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I am happy to serve again under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate and on dealing with an important subject in such a reasoned way. I confess that when I was asked to come and speak on behalf of the Opposition on organics, I had a horrible feeling that I was going to listen to a series of eulogies on the benefits of organic farming and that I would feel that it was all very difficult. I think that most people know that I am personally slightly sceptical about the benefits of organic food, but I want to represent a balanced position and some of my colleagues take a different view on the subject.
The debate reminds me that a long while ago, there used to be car stickers that said, “Don’t criticise farmers with your mouth full”. Much of the debate reflects the fact that we are well fed and looked after, that we have got used to having plenty of food ever since the war and that we can give ourselves the sort of benefits and luxuries that organic food in some ways provides. I feel that the reasoning is slightly the same as that behind why people go out and buy branded trainers and T-shirts and so on. They might be twice the price, and there might be no evidence that they are any better, but it somehow makes people feel better that they have something with one of the famous brands on it.
We cannot get away from the fact that organic food is the fastest growing sector of the food market, which is basically, for obvious reasons, a stable market. It saw a 22 per cent. increase last year and passed the £2 billion mark. It is still a very tiny sector of the market, but, nevertheless, it is the only bit that is growing and it is very important. What has changed is that many of the farmers who are producing organic food and farming organically are not doing it out of some personal absolute conviction of the benefits, but because it is a market opportunity. A large vegetable and salad producer in my constituency already has 1,500 acres converted and more land in conversion. That is all going to lettuce, celery and such salad crops. That demonstrates the scale of the business.
Of course, the vast majority of our organic food is imported. The points that several hon. Members have made about the different standards around the world are extremely important. There are 11 different certification bodies in this country—I hope that that is right, but the Minister will correct me if it is not. In any case, it is a lot. That in itself worries me because, as we have already heard, they do not all have the same standards. We know that other countries in Europe operate on the minimal European standard and my understanding is that outside Europe, exporting countries simply need to be recognised as applying equivalent standards and inspection regimes. However, they seem to be a variable feast.
Ultimately, what worries me is the consumer. I passionately believe in choice, which has been mentioned several times, but that choice has to be based on accurate information. I seriously wonder whether, if we were to challenge a range of consumers who buy organic food, they would be aware that one packet of organic something or other might not be produced to the same standards as something else that was labelled organic. I strongly suspect that for most consumers, organic is organic, and the different standards are of meaningless consequence. I have a great concern about whether the consumer is being misled by the range of different organic standards not only in this country but in those countries from which we import a huge quantity of product.
I do not intend to waste the Chamber’s time by going into the rights and wrongs of organic food; other hon. Members have done a much more successful job of analysing those points than I would. However, we need to consider what comes next. Those who advocate organic food—many people have referred to the Soil Association, as it is the largest body in this country—would obviously like to see far more land converted to organic production and to put pressure on the Government, and the Opposition parties, to have policies that encourage
organic farming. However, I cannot help recalling a few years ago, when there was a lot of support for organic farming and a lot of dairy farmers converted to organic milk production. The result was that the price collapsed as there was not the demand for organic milk at that stage, and the farmers found themselves having to sell highly expensive-to-produce organic milk on to the ordinary milk market. They lost a great deal of money, and to me the lesson of that is that if production is artificially stimulated ahead of demand, that invites trouble. I have a big question mark in my mind about whether there is a role for Government artificially to stimulate organic production any more than the market already does. Obviously, as I have said, it is a great market opportunity and if producers want to fulfil it, it is only right and proper that farmers, who are increasingly encouraged to consider what the consumer demands, should be able to do so.
Hon. Members have gone through some of the contradictions about chemicals, pesticides and other things, and I will not repeat them. I strongly suspect that the consumer does not understand that and that the consumer believes that what organic means is that a product has not been treated with chemicals. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. However, the biggest issue is the confusion to which several hon. Members have referred between local food, fresh food and organics. There is a huge amount of confusion. I like to eat fresh food, and I like to eat local food. Personally, I am not worried whether it is organic or not because I think that freshness and the fact that it is local, which often goes with that, are far more important in terms of taste, quality and so on. Again, however, there is an issue here: some people have, perhaps, confused others unintentionally.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to energy, which is very important to think about in today’s world. There seems little doubt that, overall, organics are friendlier to the environment in terms of energy consumption—estimates reckon they emit about 26 per cent. less carbon. However, that ignores the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) about deep ploughing and other issues about the environmental impact beyond the direct issue of carbon emissions.
Dr. Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a study carried out for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the Manchester Business School, which shows that in actual fact organic farming might be more expensive in terms of energy than conventional farming—the reverse of what he just said?
Mr. Paice: I confess that I am not aware of that study and I shall look it up readily later. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention. Perhaps that is the price of following a brief that came from the other side of the argument.
I want to touch also on the issue of food security, which has been referred to by a number of hon. Members. I take the view that this will be of increasing importance in this country. There is an apparent contradiction between lower yields from organics and the demand for more and more food production. I understand that the lower yields vary very much depending on the type of
product. For salads, the difference is marginal—5 or 10 per cent.—and in dairy foods it is about 15 per cent. However, for bulk commodities, such as grain, the difference in yields between organic and conventional farming can be about 40 per cent. Obviously, that is a horrendously large number and would have a huge impact on food security.
Those are the figures for north-west Europe. The organic movement claims, however, that in much of the rest of the world, and particularly the developing world, there is virtually no difference. The movement seems to argue, therefore, that everything is perfectly all right. I would point out, however—I think that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made this point—that agriculture in those countries is very under-developed. They do not use what most farmers would describe as modern technologies to produce their crops and aid self-sufficiency. I think that if we all adopted the same standards, we would find the same difference in production across the world, which has huge benefits. That is why I started my remarks by saying that we should not criticise farmers with our mouths full. We should never forget that, ultimately, we need to keep people fed.
I want to touch on the issue of genetically modified foods as well, which obviously is a hugely vexed issue. I have little doubt that generally people in this country are completely opposed to it, which is why there are virtually no GM products on the market, although a lot of livestock products have been fed on GM foods. My personal view—I stress that it is a personal view—is that the organic movement will live to regret discounting GM foods in the way that it has done. I believe that GM foods have the potential to achieve a great deal of what the organic movement seeks to achieve—a reduction in the use of artificial chemicals to aid production. GM foods could do that. The obvious example is that if we could produce a wheat with its own nitrogen-fixing nodules, such as those in legumes, we could reduce massively the demand for nitrogenous fertiliser, which we have all referred to, in different ways, as one of the major agricultural emissions. I feel that the organic movement has made a fundamental error there. I do not know how long it will be before it thinks twice about it.
I was interested in the comment by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East about the origins of organics. I am much more of a practical man, and was interested in the way in which he described the purpose of horns or, indeed, antlers—about how they are all part of the digestive process. I am lucky enough to own a small herd of pedigree highland cattle with very large horns and can see uses for those horns much more prosaic than aiding digestion, and sometimes I am on the wrong end of those prosaic uses.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this fascinating debate. I shall pay him the credit of rereading what he has just said, which is not something that I often do, I must confess. It was a very worthwhile introduction. I believe strongly in choice, but that choice must be on the provision of accurate information. Like other Members, I object strongly to conventional farmers criticising organic farmers as a bunch of cranks, but equally I share strongly the views of everybody who has said that organic producers and the organic movement should stop suggesting that everybody who uses pesticides is out to poison the world. That is blatantly untrue. I am
quite certain that if it had not been for the development of pesticides in the last 60 or 70 years, most of us would be going hungry today.
10.45 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble, and to reply to this debate on behalf of Lord Rooker, who is the Minister with direct responsibility for the matter before us. In my view he is one of the best Ministers that any Government have been fortunate enough to have serving them. He is an incredibly successful and hard-working Minister.
I am in danger of agreeing with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I suppose that I might be accused of pinching his policies if I say that I agree with his summing-up on the point about choice and the accusations and counter-accusations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is to be congratulated. This is the first debate in the House on this subject for two years. I wish that the media would report the debates in this House, and in this Chamber in particular, with greater coverage. I think that we have had a most stimulating and well-informed debate today.
My hon. Friend is a scientist, and it is characteristic of science not only that it must use deduction in order to make a point, but that it makes testable propositions. If a proposition is not testable, it is probably meaningless. The question that faces us, therefore, is: what methods do we use to test the claims? My Department tests its policies on science. We are one of only two Departments with our own chief science officer and a network of access to science that, in my experience, is unparalleled in environment Departments in countries of a comparable size—the United States is probably the only one that could claim greater reach.
Despite increases in recent years, organic farming remains a very small part of food and farming in our country. Some 3.5 per cent. of the total agricultural area is under organic management. The market for produce is between 1 and 2 per cent. of the total. Nevertheless, as I say, it has experienced phenomenal growth in recent years and is now, I believe, established as a permanent feature of the food and farming landscape. On the geographical coverage, in 1997—I pick the year because it is 10 years ago, and not in order to make a partisan point—the area under organic management in the United Kingdom was a little less than 51,000 hectares. By the beginning of this year, that figure was 620,000, of which just more than 120,000 were added by conversion. In other words, we have seen a twelve-fold increase. In 1997, there were fewer than 1,000 farmers of organic produce in the United Kingdom, but by the beginning of this year that number had increased to 4,600—we heard an example of one this morning.
As has been said, the retail sales of organic products in the UK are approaching £2 billion. The forecast is that that figure will grow steadily. The share of the organic market for produce that we grow here, supplied by home producers, also continues to increase.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |