Submission to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee Enquiry
Into Organic Farming
NOAH represents the manufacturers of animal medicines in the UK.
NOAH’s 34 corporate members supply approximately 95% of all the animal medicines sold
in the UK, and an even larger share of those sold for use on farm. Thus we inevitably
regard ourselves as part of the Animal Welfare sector, taking a particular interest in the
livestock sector, which currently takes about 50% by value of the animal medicines sold in
the UK.
The British countryside is the product of 10,000 years of farming, and
current conventional farming techniques produce affordable, high quality food whilst also
minimising the negative impact on the environment. Conventional farming methods were
developed as a way to solve the problems of earlier farming generations, but now many of
these practices may be rejected in favour of ‘organic’ production.
While we have no objection to any farmer choosing to farm in a
particular way (laws and standards permitting) we are most concerned that some proponents
of organic farming tend to promote themselves by attacking the conventional 97% of farmers
– accusing them of abusing animals, poisoning consumers and the environment.
Organic farming is widely perceived to be a ‘Good Thing’ and
it may be predicted that the majority of those responding to your enquiry will be
supporters of ‘Alternative’ agriculture who will urge that organic farming
should be given greater political and financial support. We beg to differ, and to suggest
that in four important ways those promoting organic farming have the potential to do
enormous damage – indeed much damage may have been done already:
- Public confidence in farming and in the process of regulation as laid down
by Parliament has been undermined.
- Animal health and welfare could be jeopardised by restrictions on medicine
usage
- Misleading the public with claims that organic food is
‘healthier’, tastes better, is better for the environment.
- Sustainability and the ability to feed future generations.
(Some of the information in this submission is based on quotes from
research – more details can be found in Appendix 1).
1. Public Confidence
The last decade, or more, has been notable for a change in public
attitude to farmers and farming – farmers are no longer seen as providers of the food
we need to survive, but as rapists of the countryside – destroying the environment,
poisoning wildlife and people, abusing their animals – and all for
‘profit’. It is no coincidence that this is the message, the ‘knocking
copy,’ which has been used by organic proponents such as the Soil Association to
promote their method of farming, (the fact that organic farmers also make a profit is
seldom mentioned, although for many of the system’s newest recruits it is a major
attraction).
Organic organisations have been particularly harsh in their criticism
of agricultural inputs: agrochemicals, fertilisers and animal medicine. Such criticism
ignores the stringent controls required under EU and UK law, and, in the process, public
distrust of science and of government regulation has also grown.
For over thirty years Animal Medicines have been regulated, under laws
first laid down by the Callaghan Government’s Medicines Act 1968. This law, and its
subsequent updating by UK and EU law, requires a Medicine to be of high quality, effective
and safe to animals, users, the environment and the consumer. Equivalent laws apply to
crop chemicals. However, organic organisations prefer to pick and choose which products
may be used – by implication rejecting the systems of public protection laid down by
parliament and the expertise of the officials and scientists appointed, under law, to
administer them.
The simple message of organic organisations is that only they know
best, and in so doing they happily and consciously denigrate the work and ethics of the
vast majority of decent farmers and government employees.
The current crisis of confidence in farming and Regulation is clear
evidence of the success of organic publicists.
2. Animal Health and Welfare
Veterinary treatment in organic systems raises some serious animal
welfare concerns.
Firstly the use of unregulated homeopathic and herbal remedies, as
opposed to strictly regulated conventional animal medicines, raises questions over the
safety and efficacy of the product and its likely effects on the animal and the consumer
of the animal treated. Unlike regulated animal medicines, there is no system for setting
withdrawal periods for unlicensed homeopathic, herbal or other ‘alternative’
remedies.
The requirement in EU and UK Organic regulation to automatically double
withdrawal periods for animal medicines is illogical, unscientific and a potential threat
to animal welfare. MRLs and withdrawal periods for licensed medicines are based on
rigorous, independent, international scientific standards incorporating massive safety
factors. There is no logic to a ‘blanket’ doubling which takes no account of the
properties of the individual product. Such additional delay could prompt a farmer to
withhold treatment of an animal near to market (or to cheat).
The organic insistence on using medicines therapeutically (as opposed
to preventative treatments), means that the animal has to get sick and suffer before it is
treated, whereas preventative medicines would have prevented the suffering from happening
at all. While symptoms develop there is also an increased risk of the sick animal passing
infection to its fellows, further increasing suffering and increasing the total volume of
medicine used. (See Appendix 1 (8.8)).
The banning of genetic modification in any form by the Soil Association
raises serious concerns over the availability of medicines to treat animals. Many
veterinary medicines today have biotechnology somewhere in their parentage – if not
in the active ingredient, then in the excipients. The use of biotechnology in veterinary
medicines allows improvements to existing products, for example, vaccines, produced with
the techniques of biotechnology, which can replace chemical treatments for internal and
external parasites, offer considerable opportunities for environmental and operator safety
and the reduction of residues. By banning GMO’s in any form farmers and vets are
being denied the benefits of modern medicine developed through biotechnology.
The EU, however recognises the importance of genetic modification in
the production of veterinary medicines and therefore has excluded animal medicines from
the ban on GMs in their regulations.
3. Misleading the public
Organic proponents claim that organic food is healthier, tastes better
and is better for the environment. (Appendix 1 [1]) A MORI survey for the Soil Association
(June 1999) showed that consumers buy organic food because they believe it to be
healthier, free of chemicals, better tasting, GM free and better for the environment and
animal welfare and that half of those did so because they believed it to be safe and
healthy.
There is no conclusive evidence to support these claims, the organic
movement has been further misleading the public by claiming an exclusivity of virtue on
these areas.
Scientific evidence suggests that organic food is no more nutritious or
better tasting than conventionally produced food and variations depend more on other
factors such as soil type and freshness of the produce. (Appendix 1 [2][5])
The safety of organic food is also questionable – recently there
have been concerns over the use of animal manure which can lead to increased risk of E.
coli 0157. Where chemical methods are not used to treat pests and diseases, plants under
attack produce their own toxins which may themselves be harmful to humans. (Appendix 1
[3])
The safety of unlicensed and untested herbal and homeopathic remedies,
listed for organic farming use, is questionable as they do not comply with EU or UK animal
medicine legislation which is designed to protect consumers, animal users and the
environment.
While in general fewer agrochemicals are used in organic farming some
forms of pesticide are used and over 30 additives are allowed.
Imported organic food (70% of organic food in the UK) may not be GM
free as the standards of organic produce vary from country to country. (Appendix 1 [6.1])
Not only can the claims not be applied to all organic farms, but
equally, many conventional farms can show the same benefits, but unburdened by dogma.
Claims that organic farming is better for the environment than
conventional farming is not necessarily true. While birds and wildlife are a valued
adjunct to organic farming, the use of similar management techniques on conventional farms
can lead to the same benefits. The more extensive methods of organic farming means it
requires more land to produce a given amount of food than a conventional farm. Thus, to
institute organic farming countrywide to provide the required amounts of food, a large
amount of wilderness, hedges and woodland would be have to be utilised. This questions the
sustainability of organic farming. (Appendix [7])
4. Sustainability
The fundamental principles of sustainability are, we believe, clear,
and may be summed up as the careful use of all resources, and in particular of
non-renewable resources; for agriculture this includes both on-farm resources (such as the
land itself) and purchased inputs such as fossil fuels, mineral fertilisers and equipment,
as well as the latest technology. Farming must be able to sustain itself, to plan and
invest for the future, to change and improve outmoded and outworn equipment, products and
practices. This can only occur if British agriculture is allowed to remain efficient and
profitable.
The use of animal medicines in agriculture not only reduces suffering,
and prolongs useful life, but healthy animals invariably produce more efficiently and
perform better, so utilising less feed and other resources.
For organic farming to remain sustainable it must also be profitable.
Organic livestock production requires organic inputs, notably fodder and feed grains.
Producers of such organic crops themselves expect higher premia – can organic
livestock producers continue to produce profitably as produce prices drop, approaching
those for conventional farming, if their input costs rise?
Organic produce prices cannot avoid the law of supply and demand –
as organic production increases, prices must fall – supermarkets have declared their
intention to supply Organic food at equivalent prices to conventional farming. These lower
prices will inevitably be passed back to organic producers.
Thus organic producers are increasingly being caught in a pincer –
on the one hand steady escalation of standards by organic organisations, for example by
increasing the proportion of organic inputs (which cost more to produce) on the other
hand, increased supplies and supermarket buying powers will reduce prices received –
the net result is likely to be that those who have converted to organic production for
commercial rather than philosophical reasons are likely to be disappointed.
It must also be recognised that today’s organic farms, both
livestock and arable, benefit from the eradication and control, by conventional means of
many pests and diseases over many years. They also benefit from being surrounded by a
‘cordon sanitaire’ of clean, conventional farms. If the organically farmed area
was to spread, would existing controls break down and the artificiality of organic disease
control methods be exposed?
Thus we believe that the assertion that organic farming is
“sustainable” should be seriously questioned.
Research
Organic supporters frequently call for special funding and emphasis to
be given to “organic” research. Such demands would appear to be based on a
number of misconceptions.
- Much of MAFF’s research is into “generic” activities which could apply
equally to conventional and organic production.
- Similarly, commercial research into agricultural equipment, conventional breeding of
plants and animals, animal feed etc. is equally applicable to both sectors.
- Research into animal disease carried out by universities and other quasi-official
institutions is applicable to both, as is most of the commercial research carried out by
animal medicine companies.
- MAFF research into animal medicines is predominantly into methods of public protection,
such as residue testing, which is again of general benefit. Furthermore, much of this is
paid for by levies on industry rather than from the taxpayer.
- We believe, however, that there is a case for more research to be devoted to an
open-minded investigation of some of the claims made by organic farming, in order to
ensure proper protection of the public, both as purchasers and consumers.
Assurance Schemes
In the Committee’s call for evidence, comment is invited on
assurance schemes - such schemes are increasing in all sectors of farming and we
particularly welcome the launch of the British farm standard, backed as it is by strict
and independently enforced rules.
It could be argued that through such schemes conventional farming
provides most of the elements of ‘Public Good’ for which the organic movement
has tried to claim exclusivity - Animal welfare, environmental protection, food safety.
Assurance schemes should, we believe, acknowledge and build on the legal controls and
codes which already exist - Medicine and pesticide licensing, welfare and performance
codes - such as the Code of Practice for the Responsible use of Medicines on farm -
launched by Nick Brown last year, and the RUMA (Responsible Use of Medicines in
Agriculture Alliance) Antibiotic guidelines.
We applaud the increasing maturity of Farm and Food Assurance Schemes;
gone are the early problems such as claiming meat to be “hormone free” (which is
biologically impossible, and also ignored the fact that the use of Growth Promoting
hormones has been illegal throughout the EU since 1986)
We also welcome the ending of competitive and often meaningless claims
that food from a particular scheme is “healthier” or from “happier
animals.”
Sadly, the organic sector continue to employ such negative marketing
methods, which are currently the subject of a complaint to the Advertising Standards
Authority.
Conclusion
Under the circumstances outlined above, we cannot agree with those who
argue for additional funding for organic farming. We believe that public support for
agriculture should be applied equally to all forms of farming, and farm inputs, acceptable
under the law.
We find it a peculiar contradiction of the concept of “joined-up
government” that one part of MAFF is giving special support to organic farming which,
by statement and implication, denigrates the work of other parts of MAFF which scientifically
licence as “safe, effective and of high quality” animal medicines, agrochemicals
and other farm inputs.
The continuing and unjustified attacks by organic farming organisations
on the vast majority of farmers who use conventional methods is particularly
reprehensible.
In continuing their support for efficient, safe and sustainable
agricultural systems, the member companies of NOAH do not seek to restrict the farming
activities of any particular sector; they do however support rigorous and fair assessments
made as evidence based decisions with respect to veterinary medicine’s role in
agriculture.
APPENDIX 1
Research on Organic Farming
In the United Kingdom, demand for organic food is growing at over 40
per cent a year. (3)
1. Consumer attitudes towards organic food
1.1 A MORI survey for the Soil Association (June 1999) showed that
consumers buy organic food because they believe it to be healthier, free of chemicals,
better tasting, GM free, better for the environment and better for animal welfare (13)
1.2 The MORI survey showed that over half of those who bought organic
food, did so ‘because they believed it to be safe and healthy. This attitude is,
presumably, based on the perception that hazards in foods derive from agrochemical
additives, whereas microbes, not chemicals, are the major source of foodborne
illnesses’ (16)
1.3 These attitudes have been based on the information available to
consumers, some of which is very misleading.
Examples include:
1.4 ‘Organic food is produced from safe, sustainable farming
systems, producing healthy crops and livestock without damage to the environment.’
(24)
1.5 ‘The best reason for buying organic food is simply that it
tastes extremely good, but undoubtedly there are also sound health reasons for doing
so.’(24)
1.6 ‘Organic food is produced without artificial fertilisers,
chemicals, pesticides or genetic modification. This natural method of farming helps enrich
the soil, minimises pollution and supports the environment.’ (24)
1.7 ‘Food produced by organic methods is nutritious, healthy and
safe. Organic farming relies principally on the application of animal manures, the
rotation of crops, and in our case the growing of clover to provide the nitrogen for its
accompanying grasses. No artificial fertilisers, insecticides or herbicides are ever used.
This encourages the establishment and well being of both flora and fauna. We rely on
homeopathic medicines for ourselves and our stock, no antibiotics or other drugs are used
routinely.’(14)
1.8 However there is no conclusive evidence to support many of these
claims. There are a range of positive and negative factors to organic farming, as there
are with conventional farming. In organic farming positive factors have been heavily
promoted, but the negative factors have been ignored.
2. Is organic food healthier than conventionally produced food?
2.1 The MORI survey (13) showed that over half of those who bought
organic food, did so because they thought it was safe and healthy.
2.2 As far as nutrition is concerned, the evidence suggests there is
little difference between the two types of food:
2.3 ‘Although there is some evidence of differences between
organic and conventionally produced foods, there is not great deal of evidence that these
differences represent differences in food quality....The significance of any such
differences for health depends upon the proportion of the diet derived from the particular
product and, indeed, the other constituents of the diet.’ (11)
2.4 ‘There is no evidence whatever to indicate that chemically
fertilised plants are less nutritious than non-fertilised.’ (25)
2.5 ‘Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious. Experiments
conducted for many years have found no difference in the nutrient content of organically
grown crops and those grown under standard agricultural conditions.’ (2)
2.6 ‘There is no scientific evidence at this time to suggest that
organically produced foods are more nutritious’ (21)
2.7 ‘Jeanne Goldberg PhD, RD, an associate professor and director
of the Center on Nutrition Communication at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts
says “Nutritionally speaking, there is absolutely no evidence that organic is better,
you’re not going to get any more vitamins and minerals in a peach or strawberry grown
with manure than you will in one grown with commercial fertilisers”’ (10)
2.8 ‘We have not found consistent and valid reports of differences
in the mineral contents of organic and conventional foods. An early report (4) of
differences in mineral content between vegetables grown on widely differing soil types has
commonly been misquoted as evidence for the benefits of organic production. There are many
factors, environmental and cultural, that influence the nutritional composition of produce
and that are not unique to either cultural system’ (16)
2.9 ‘Investigations both in Europe and in the US have failed to
find any difference between organic food and other food in terms of all the major
constituents, minerals and vitamins.’ (27)
2.10 However, one study has actually shown processed organic products
to be less healthy than their conventionally produced equivalents:
2.11 A Sunday Times study has revealed that compared with ordinary
products, many processed organic foods contain higher levels of fat, sugar and salt - all
of which can cause heart problems (5)
3. How safe is of organic food?
3.1 ‘There is no conclusive evidence that organically produced
food is safer or less safe than that produced conventionally.’ (11)
3.2 However, there have been particular aspects of organic farming and
food that have raised concerns over safety:
3.3 Prof Tony Trewevas of Edinburgh University’s Department of
Cell and Molecular Biology was quoted as saying “Organic food is considerably less
safe than we are led to believe because it depends on animal waste for its production
which means a higher risk of infection of organisms such as E-coli 0157” He said that
fresh lettuce, cabbage and parsley from ‘organic’ sources posed a potentially
serious public health risk and went on to say: “It is just a matter of time before we
see the appearance of mycotoxins in our food chain from so-called organic farming.”
He also said microbial spoilage of organic food was a recognised problem and that there
were no current plans to monitor the long-term effects of present day organic food.(15)
3.4 Prof Alan Gray, Acting Chairman of ACRE (Advisory Committee on
Releases to the Environment) said “It was a myth that organic food was safer. You are
30 times more likely to poison yourself with organic produce because it allows Bt (the
bacterium Bacillus thruringiensis) to spread directly. When ingested the bacterium
produces endotoxins which attack the walls of insects’ guts. In mammals they can
cause death from toxic shock.(15)
3.5 The use of farmyard manure as a fertiliser gives rise to concerns
about the possible contamination of agricultural produce with pathogens (especially E.
coli 0157) and the possible contamination of ground and surface water. The UK Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 19th report on the Sustainable Use of Soil
(1996) reviewed the use of organic materials in agriculture, including their safety. It
concluded that there is a potential risk to human and animal health from pathogens in
animal wastes.(15)
3.6 ‘In October of 1992, public health officials investigated
several cases of bloody diarrhoea in a small town in Maine; one of the patients...died of
kidney failure. The cause? Escherichia coli 0157:H7, better known as plain E. Coli... the
source of the E. Coli was a fresh vegetable from an organic garden. 3 other separate cases
were traced to organic lettuces, probably contaminated by E. Coli infected cow manure. In
the US over 100 million tons of manure are produced per year and less than 7% is
composted.’ (19)
3.7 ‘Two outbreaks of E coli 0157 in the US were traced to organic
strawberries and lettuce. In Aberdeen, home-made organic goats’ cheese initiated an E
coli outbreak among children; in Germany an outbreak of Citrobacter that killed one child
and damaged nine others was traced to organic parsley treated with pig manure.’ (27)
3.8 ‘A study at the University of Illinois has shown that
consumers eating organic produce are eight times more likely to contract E. Coli’
than those who eat conventional produce. (26)(1)
3.9 ‘Organic farmers preferably apply cow or pig manure when this
is available. It can be infected with the dangerous bacterium E coli 0157 disease organism
that lives happily in the guts of cattle. Infection in human beings kills, or leaves
victims without functioning kidneys.’ (27)
3.10 ‘Organic farming often uses manure to grow fruit and
vegetables. Manure is a natural habitat for bacteria like Escherichia coli 0157 and
salmonella. Even if this food is cleaned properly, the bacteria can infect the tissue of
the plant, making the risk of contracting these diseases far higher.’ (3)
3.11 ‘Citrobacter freundii lives in pigs’ guts and is also
potentially lethal. If manure is pasteurised, or if you properly cook contaminated food,
then the organism is killed. The problem is to guarantee that this is done.’ (27)
3.12 ‘Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be
attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella
bacteria’(1)
3.13 ‘Without fungicides to prevent infection, plants respond by
producing toxins of their own’ (26)
3.14 ‘Organic and “natural” food consumers also face
increased risk of illness from toxins produced by fungi - and some of these toxins are
carcinogenic. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regularly tests samples of
various foods for such dangers, and it routinely finds high levels of these natural toxins
in organically grown produce. It found, for instance, that organic crops have higher rates
of infestation by aflatoxin, one of the most virulent carcinogens known to man.’ (1)
3.15 ‘The use of effective fungicides has reduced the risk from
mycotoxins in normal food, but not necessarily in organic food. Constant exposure to
mycotoxin carcinogens can be expected to have long-term effects, detectable only by
continual monitoring. However, there are no current plans to carry out this
monitoring’ (27)
3.16 ‘Organic farmers are allowed to spray crops with bacterial
spores to act as a general-purpose insecticide. But earlier this year [1999] these spores
were found to cause serious, often fatal, lung infections in mice, and to infect wounds
and damage human cells in culture.’ (27)
3.17 ‘Plants react vigorously when attacked by disease organisms
and synthesise many chemicals that are carcinogenic. Thus organic cider from apples has
much higher patulins levels, and celery has higher levels of psoralen which, without
careful harvesting, can cause serious skin burns.’ (27)
3.18 ‘The most enduring myth about food is probably that organic
food is devoid of carcinogenic compounds because it is grown without synthetic chemicals.
Plants have natural toxins to protect themselves. These natural pesticides, like those
produced synthetically, can cause tumours in experimental rats at very high doses.’
(3)
3.19 ‘Toxicologists such as Ames and Gold (1999) attest that
everyday foodstuffs like orange juice, nutmeg and coffee have far higher levels of natural
toxins than synthetic pesticides. The combination in both is insignificant in health
terms. Our bodies are adept at dealing with all toxins, regardless of origin. Nearly all
pesticides we ingest are natural. Hence, it is considered folly by many toxicologists to
worry about synthetic pesticides as a cause of cancer.’(3)
Concerns over the use of synthetic pesticides appear to be unfounded:
3.20 ‘Death caused by either natural or synthetic pesticide
residues in food has never been proven. Deaths from pesticides are tragically almost all
suicides, or are caused by high-dose occupational exposures. Even natural and essential
substances like Vitamin A can kill at high doses’ (3)
3.21 Director W. M. Fifield of the Florida Experiment Station has said:
“Not a single instance has been called to our attention where the use of chemicals in
production or protection of our state’s crops or livestock has resulted in harmful
effects on humans who have consumed them.”’ (25)
4. Are organic foods free of chemicals?
4.1 While in general fewer agrochemicals are used in organic farming
some forms of pesticide are used and although these tend to be based on
‘natural’ products this does not mean they are safer than the highly regulated
and tested synthetic pesticides.
4.2 Over 30 additives are allowed in organic production, and the
washing of fruit and vegetables in sodium hyperchloride is permitted (15)
4.3 People who believe that chemicals used in farming are detrimental
to health may be interested to know that ‘every day, each of us eats a quarter of a
teaspoonful of carcinogens; 99.99 per cent of these are made naturally by all plants -
whether organic, GM or intensively farmed - to inhibit disease organisms and deter
consumption by animals and insects.’ (27)
4.4 ‘Pesticide residues are lower in organic food - but not
absent. Organic farmers are allowed to use pesticides, but apply them more sparingly and
tend not to use the broad-spectrum pesticides - although pyrethrum (a common fly-killer
spray) is permitted, because it is found naturally in some plants. Regulations vary from
country to country, but antibiotics such as streptomycin are acceptable if they are
derived from fermentation.’ (27)
4.5 ‘Organic farmers use sulphur as a weak pesticide. But sulphur
contains lead, a known danger. What is not known is how much of the lead is transferred to
the food we eat.’ (27)
5. Does organic food taste better?
5.1 Organic produce is often quoted as being tastier than
conventionally produced food. This can often be as a result of organic produce being
fresher as it has a much shorter shelf life and is therefore not stored for as long as
some conventionally produced food.
Direct comparisons between organic and conventionally produced foods
show neither type of produce as being better tasting.
5.2 ‘The results in the scientific literature show no consistent
pattern for sensory quality between organically and conventially grown produce.’ (9)
5.3 ‘In the early 1990’s Israeli researchers made 460
assessments of 9 different fruits and vegetables and found no significant difference in
quality between ‘organic’ and conventially grown samples. (2)
5.4 As part of a survey by the University of California on the
differences between organic and conventially grown tomatoes, ‘researchers picked 40
people to do a taste test. Ten people said that the organic tomatoes had better flavour
and texture, ten people said that the conventionally grown tomatoes were better and twenty
people could not tell the difference.’ cited in (17)
5.5 In the US the USDA has labelling requirements which prevent
producers making claims that organic foods are better or even different to conventional
foods. (2)
5.6 ‘Some reports on qualitative differences, such as flavour in
potatoes, can be attributed to differences in dry matter concentration and can be
associated with the growing conditions, principally the supplies of water and nitrogen.
There, the preferred conditions are as easily provided in conventional culture as in any
other’ (16)
6. The use of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms
(GMOs)
6.1 There is much variation between standards in each country, some
such as the Soil Association in the UK will not allow GM products in their certified
produce while other such as the EU permit GM products. (15) As the MORI survey in 1999
suggests, many people buy organic produce because they believe it to be GM free, however
this is only the case in some organic produce. Consumers need to be aware of these
variations.
6.2 For those concerned about the use of GM products, the findings of a
recent US report has concluded that there is no distinction between plants bred using
biotechnology and those produced through traditional crossbreeding (12)
6.3 It must also be remembered that modern crop varieties have been
adapted by the use of biotechnology. ‘Organic farmers can and do use modern crop
varieties, since they have disease resistance and good yields. However these varieties
acquired their genes from different species by difficult laboratory procedures; for
example, rice obtained genes from sorghum wheat. These are not natural plants and they
don’t survive in fields unless continually cultivated.’ (27)
6.4 ‘For over 70 years, plant breeding and selection for
resistance to diseases has been seen as an important means for agricultural progress. This
strategy has had some successes but in many cases, for example rice blast in rice and late
blight of potato, disease resistance in the crop has been relatively short-lived and the
disease organism has mutated or been selected to overcome that resistance. If durable
forms of resistance to any of the major diseases could be introduced into otherwise
acceptable varieties by genetic modification, the saving in use of agrochemicals would be
immense.’ (16)
7. Is organic farming better for the environment?
Claims that organic farming is better for the environment as it is more
‘natural’ are not necessarily true.
7.1 CWS Farms Group has been experimenting with organic farming since
1989, with much success. However, their Project Manager made the point “The
perception that organic farming is per se better for the environment because it relies on
natural processes does not always hold true. Natural processes are variable and outside
the grower’s control. This can cause problems. The natural breakdown of mineral
nitrogen, for example, can occur at the wrong time for the plants, increasing the chances
of nitrate leaching. Wildlife likes the ‘unkempt’ bits and organic farms are not
necessarily likely to have more untidy areas than conventional farms.”(15)
7.2 There is some concern that the use of farmyard manure may be
getting into ground and surface water (15)
7.3 ‘The use of farmyard manure adds humus to the soil, which aids
structure, and encourages earthworms and other minor invertebrates. It may also add an
excess of phosphates which, although essential plant nutrients, can also cause pollution
of water courses. By contrast, some concern was expressed that phosphorus might be being
removed at a greater rate than it is replaced in organic systems.’ (11)
7.4 (In Korea and Japan) ‘The overuse of organic fertiliser by
some organic farmers has caused some severe problems since they apply too much organic
fertilizer compared to the need of crops.’ This could lead to a ‘potential risk
for NO3 leaching’ (23)
7.5 ‘Water leached from organic farms has been reported to contain
less nitrate than the EC nitrate limit of 50mg/litre although, in MAFF projects NT1313 and
OF01410, the limit was sometimes exceeded. Nitrate leaching in the two systems [organic
and conventional] was said to be highly variable’ (16)
7.6 The BTO (British Trust for Ornithology) amongst their evidence
given to the House of Lords, noted that “some aspects of organic farming may not be
beneficial to bird populations, for example disturbance caused by mechanical weeding, and
the early cutting of clover-based leys.” (11)
7.7 ‘Organic farming is claimed to be better for the countryside.
For example, birds and other wildlife are a valued part of organic farming. It is a matter
of record that less intensive application of conventional methods achieves the same
results. Conventional farms can be, and often are, managed in ways that provide the
benefits to wildlife claimed by the organic movement’ (16)
7.8 ‘If very large organic farms were to become common, it would
remain to be seen whether they brought the same benefits for biodiversity as smaller
organic units.’ (11)
7.9 The Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR) at Rothamsted said
that “any farming system, whether it be conventional, integrated or organic, can
achieve the environmental benefits that organic farming aims to achieve.” (11)
7.10 ‘To institute organic farming countrywide would mean
ploughing up wilderness, hedges and woodland to make up the shortfall compared to
intensive farming’ (27)
8. Medicines and animal welfare
8.1 ‘Evidence for increased disease resistance, productivity, or
fertility of animals feeding on organically grown fodder is largely anecdotal.’ (9)
Veterinary treatment in organic systems raises some serious animal
welfare concerns:
8.2 EU regulations state ‘when animals become sick or injured,
they should be treated immediately by giving preference to phytotherapeutic (herbal) or
homeopathic medicinal products and by limiting to a strict minimum the use of
chemically-synthesised allopathic medicinal products in order to guarantee the integrity
of organic production for consumers it should be possible to take restrictive measures
such as doubling the withdrawal period after use of chemically synthesised allopathic
medicinal products’ (8)
8.3 SSPCA has raised concerns over - New guidelines advising farmers to
use homeopathic remedies rather than conventional (18)
8.4 ‘Some of the standards set down for the management of animal
health, while the motives may be well intended, could in fact jeopardise the health and
welfare of animals or put human health at risk.’ (20)
8.5 Firstly the use of unregulated homeopathic remedies as opposed to
strictly regulated conventional animal medicines, raises questions over the safety and
efficacy of the product and its likely effects on the animal and the consumer of the
animal treated. Unlike regulated animal medicines, homeopathic remedies do not have
withdrawal periods.
8.6 The requirement to automatically double withdrawal periods is
illogical, unscientific and a potential threat to animal welfare. MRLs and withdrawal
periods for licensed medicines are based on rigorous, independent, international
scientific standards incorporating massive safety factors. There is no logic to a
‘blanket’ doubling which takes no account of the properties of the individual
product. Such additional delay could prompt a farmer to withhold treatment of an animal
near to market (or to cheat).
8.7 The organic method of using medicines therapeutically as opposed to
preventative treatments, means that the animal has to get sick and suffer before it is
treated, whereas preventative medicines would have prevented the suffering from happening
at all. While symptoms develop there is also an increased risk of the sick animal passing
infection to its fellows, further increasing suffering and increasing the total volume of
medicine used.
8.8 There has been some criticism of the organic restrictions on
medicine usage by farmers. A Scottish farmer recently was denied organic certification for
his sheep because he was using an 8:1 anti-clostridial vaccine instead of a 4:1. The 8:1
vaccine was recommended by his vet as being the best for his sheep to protect unborn lambs
against lamb dysentry. Had he followed the organic rules and changed to the 4:1 vaccine
his animals might have been subjected to suffering and death. (6)
9. Imported Organic Food
9.1 It is important to remember that whilst organic farming in the UK
is increasing with the help of government funding, it is not increasing at a rate high
enough to meet consumer demand for organic produce.
9.2 This means that about 70% of organic food is imported from
continental Europe and US sources. (16)
9.3 With such a variety of sources regulating standards becomes
difficult. MAFF’s role in regulating the quality of imports depends on trust and
imports are not Soil Association Accredited. Therefore, there could be great variations in
standards. (15)
9.4 The importing of such a large percentage of organic food also
presents environmental concerns. As Rosemary Stanton, an Australian Nutritionist speaking
about organic food in Australia says, “It's ridiculous to buy organic food that is
flown out here in planes using massive amounts of fossil fuels”(7) The imports into
the UK must also have environmental costs in their methods of transport into the country.
References:
(1) Avery, D.T. (1998) The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food [Online]
(2) Barrett, M.D. (Date unknown) Organic Foods: Will Certification
Protect Consumers? [Online]
(3) Bate, R (2000) Organic Myths: The Retreat From Science,
Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 1 March. [Online]
(4) Bear, F. E. (1948) Variations in mineral compositions of
vegetables, Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 13, 380-384
(5) Bevan, S (1999) Warning: organic food can seriously damage your
health, 12 September, Sunday Times
(6) Christie, J (2000) Letter to Farming News - Red tape makes mockery
of hard-fought ‘organic’ status, Farming News, May 11.
(7) Dixon, A (1999) Wealth Warning on Health Foods, The Sun Herald, 5
September [Online]
(8) EC (1999) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999
supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products
and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include
livestock production.
(9) Finesilver, T, Johns, T and Hill S.B. (date unknown) Comparison of
Food Quality of Organically Versus Conventionally Grown Plant Foods, Ecological
Agriculture Projects [Online]
(10) Holman, J.R. (Date unknown) Phys. Trick or Treat? What Organic
Really Means, [Online]
(11) House of Lords European Communities Sixteenth Report 20 July 1999
(12) House Subcommittee on Basic Research, (2000) Seeds of Opportunity:
An Assessment of the Benefits, Safety, and Oversight of Plant Genomics and Agricultural
Biotechnology.
(13) IGD Organic Food Conference, 2 November 1999
(14) J Sainsbury web site http://www.sainsburys.co.uk
(15) Kidd M, & Lewis E, (1999) Organic Foods - Consumer Concerns,
The Consumer Panel Secretariat, JFSSG.
(16) MacKerron, D.K.L, Duncan, J.M, Hillman, J.R, Mackay, G.R,
Robinson, D.J, Trudgill, D.L, Wheatley, R.J (2000) Organic Farming: Science and Belief,
Excerpted from the 1998-99 Annual Report, Scottish Crop Research Institute, 1 February
[Online]
(17) Mael, S (1997) Agroecology Group Project, Organic Farming [Online]
(18) McLaren, C (2000) Organic Guidelines Raise Welfare Worry, Farming
News, 4 May.
(19) Nelson, H. ( Date unknown) The contamination of Organic Produce by
Human Pathogens in Animal Manures, Ecological Agriculture Projects [Online]
(20) NOAH (1990) Position Paper on Organic Farming
(21) Organic Trade Association (Date unknown) Frequently Asked
Questions: Is Organic Food Better for You? [Online]
(22) Penbryn Organic Farmhouse Cheese web site
http://www.webaware.co.uk/bestofwales/penbryn
(23) Sohn, S.M. (1996) Nitrate and Overuse of Organic Fertiliser S1,
IFOAM Book of Abstracts
(24) Soil Association web site http://soilassociation.org
(25) Throckmorton, R.I. (Date unknown) The Organic Farming Myth, Kansas
State College, [Online]
(26) Trewavas, A. (1999) Organic Safety Scare, BAA Grapevine
(27) Trewavas, A (1999) Is Organic Food Really Safe? Institute of Cell
and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh, 30 July. [Online] |
