Four legs good, two legs bad

A leading scientist is the latest person to warn that the bickering over whether conventional or organic farming is environmentally superior is getting no one anywhere in mitigating climate change. In an interview with Farmers Weekly Ian Crute, shortly to become chief scientist at the Agricultural and Horticultural development board, said it was vital to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all types of agriculture. The former director of Rothamsted Research commented, 'The notion that this is a case of organic farming, conventional farming bad, doesn't get us anywhere.'

More investment in scientific research was needed to uncover beter ways that agriculture could help in the mitigation of climate change. 'There is no good data which would say that the emissions of nitrous oxide from organic systems compared to systems which are using synthetic fertiliser are necessary any worse or any better. I could argue very strongly that efficient pest, disease and weed control using pestcides was a far greener system in terms of the efficiency with which nitrogen us used than an inefficient system using far more land and inputs inefficiently.'

NFU policy director Martin Haworth endorsed Professor Crute's comments. More money needed to be spent on research and development to address 'market failure' issues. He commented, 'We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all systems and science is key.'

The comments came after a study by the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) found that four out of five shoppers are turning their backs on organic produce in favour of cheaper, conventionally-produced food. They found that 10 per cent of shoppers have found alternative products offering the same perceived benefits as organic food at a lower price.

A further 8 per cent are focusing their organic spend on fewer products where they think it really makes a difference, while another 8 per cent say they are not sure what organic stands for anymore. More than 40 per cent of shoppers say they have never been interested in organic.

The hard core of dedicated organic shoppers make up nearly one in five of the UK population. They tend to be younger and more affluent. However, some of them are looking for their ethical values in products that meet high animal welfare standards, local foods and Fairtrade. Nine per cent of shoppers will buy more organic food when they have more money.

Soil Association director Patrick Holden admitted that many people saw organic as a lifestyle choice rather than a sustainable farming system. 'We need to work at changing these perceptions,' he said.

Organics: it all kicks off

We haven't yet looked at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) report earlier this month that stated that 50 years of evidence on nutrition and health effects found that there was little difference in the nutritional value of orgainic produce. The small nutritional differences which did occur were not large enough to be of any public health relevance.

This is not a message organic farmers and growers wanted to hear at a time when sales have been slumping in the recession. According to research by the Institute of Grocery Distribution earlier this year, the number of people buying organic produce dropped from almost a quarter to 19 per cent. Prince Charles' organic food range, Duchy Originals, has seen a dramatic slump in sales. Profits fell from £1.53m in 2007 to £57,400 last year.

Organic goods were coming to be seen as a luxury in the recession as consumers search for value. Admittedly, there have been some signs of a recent recovery. Last month Tesco said that the sector was seeing 'green shoots of recovery'. Organic milk buyer OMSCo reported earlier this month that sales of organic milk had increased by 10.5 per cent in four weeks.

In any case the FSA report misses the point about why consumers buy organic. It was evident from vox pops after the report came out that the main concern for many of them was pesticide residues rather than nutrition. There is little point in telling them that pesticide residues are minimal or that they are strictly monitored both by the regulator and by supermarkets who don't want any damage to their brands.

Unfortunately the debate has become pivoted around an artificial divide between organic and conventional methods of farming when more attention should be paid to how conventional farming can be made less intensive and environmentally damaging through integrated crop and pest management. It is evident, however, that the position of many organic proponents is deeply ideological in the sense that they hold entrenched positions that dismiss any contrary arguments or evidence.

There is a sense in which 'organic' has become a diluted brand that is confusing to customers. In many ways it is 'local' that is the acclerating brand, particularly through the farmers' market movement. In supermarkets 'local' is sometimes really 'regional'. The big boom in the last year, as many garden centres could attest, has been in the 'grow your own' movement in allotments and gardens.

As was pointed out at the ESRS conference in Vaasa last week the notion of locality is linked to a narrative of producers' pride but also links into the willingness of consumers to pay more as part of a search for excellence. Wealthy and concerned consumers provide a basis for the protection of European agriculture not through traditional market barriers but by reinventing old forms of quality and developing new ones.

For retailers there is an imperative to strengthen consumer loyalty through an appeal to ethical and moral values as well as competition on price. This, of course, brings us into the debate about 'choice editing' as a means of dealing with problems such as obesity. But that is another story.