An organic red herring?
- December 2000
This Opinion was featured in the December 2000 issue of the the Anglia Farmer and Contractor
The reaction of the Soil Association (SA) to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling on the former's claims for organic food and its production is unfortunate. It suggests that the nature of this market is not well understood and the use of science in the debate is, paradoxically, obscuring reality.
With the SA actively promoting the organic cause at the expense of conventional farming practice, it was to be expected that sooner or later the ASA would become involved.
To everyone, except the most strident of organic advocates, the authority's ruling, made last July, that most of the claims made by the SA were unsupportable came as no surprise. The ruling should not detract from the legitimacy of the organic movement but it does put the issue of organic food and its production into perspective. It is a fashion in the food market.
The danger is that the pseudo-scientific debate that has followed the ruling is in danger of obscuring this reality. The implications of producing for demand of this nature is something new for farmers; they are significant and need to be understood.
Faced with grim economic prospects, most farmers are naturally looking at all options for enhancing income. While organic crops and livestock are more expensive to produce and their management is tricky, the very substantial premiums for organic food, even at the farm gate, are a powerful incentive.
Assessing future market prospects is difficult. Agriculture in the UK is an intensive user of technology. Farms are generally much larger than elsewhere in Europe and farmers are very dependent on a very wide range of pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other biotech inputs, many of which are prohibited for organic production.
It is not surprising that Britain is dependent on imports for much of its supply of organic food. The most direct concern for farmers is that a substantial switch to organic production would increase supplies and naturally erode those organic premiums on which profitability depends. The more vexing question is how robust the demand for organic food really is. Consumers are prepared to pay premiums for organic produce because they believe it is healthier, safer, tastes better and its production has animal welfare, environmental and conservation benefits. The existence of these premiums is a measure of this faith.
The ASA ruling that taste differences, health benefits, environment benefits, and "healthy, happy animals" should not have been regarded by organic food advocates as terribly important, and the SA reaction in attempting to marshal scientific support for its cause is unfortunate because it is evidence that the character of the organic market is not well understood. Had the SA understood it better it might have been more careful about the way it promoted the cause.
The pseudo-scientific debate that has followed has also been counter productive as it has tended to obscure the nature of the organic market. Farmers producing or contemplating producing organic food should not be deluded over the fact that demand for organically produced food is the result of subjective life style choices rather than objective nutritional considerations. The market is in many respects no different to that for designer clothing where appearance is more critical than utility.
As the consumer is always right, farmers need not look for objective proof to support the organic faith. But they should be aware that adverse publicity can destroy beliefs very quickly.
Organic farmers, like many other producers of retail goods and services, are increasingly faced with the challenge of assessing and moulding future trends in taste and life style traits. The skills required for this are very different to those needed in the conventional farm marketplace.
The change from objective measures of quality to a more subjective understanding of what consumers think must be confusing for many farmers. This is particularly so at a time when the safety of food and the sustainability of farm production practices are being subject to increasing and legitimate scientific and, therefore, objective scrutiny.
The application of science to the organic debate is in any event rather futile. Those that believe in traditional values and ways of doing things are unlikely to let science influence their faith. And if the superiority of organic food or environmental benefits is identified, science will almost certainly be brought to bear to close the gap.
top of page