Food Standards Agency does not Provide Support for Organic Farming

Editorial

As reported by Geoffrey Lean, Environmental Editor of the Independent (www.independent.co.uk) on 3rd Nov 2002 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has defied ministers for months by refusing to back a government drive to promote organic food and farming. According to this article Michael Meacher, Minister of State (Environment), has written to Sir John Krebs (chairman of the FSA) asking him to explain why the FSA has failed to make a statement endorsing the environmental benefits of organic food. Mr Meacher is reported as saying “I am very surprised that Sir John finds it difficult to come forward with a view on organic farming that so many prestigious and authoritative voices have endorsed so warmly and forcefully”.

Quite rightly, however, the FSA should not be supporting something for which it can find no evidence to do so. The FSA has previously stated that there is no evidence that organic foods have any nutritional benefit over foods produced by conventional farming. Moreover, the FSA has also previously pointed out that manure causes more damage with regard to air and water pollution than do chemical fertilisers. That being the case, it is indeed the job of the FSA to undermine claims that organic farming is more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture. The purpose of the FSA is to assess matters in relation to food and its production in an independent and scientific manner. If it finds that it cannot support claims, then the FSA is obliged to say so. Indeed, if it finds that certain claims are in fact contrary to the facts, then the FSA is also obliged to point out the discrepancy and to clamp down on promotional activities that are based on false evidence.

This situation highlights a matter that has been of much concern to the editor of this website. It suggests again that the science behind the proclamations of environmental and wildlife bodies is not what it should be. It also suggests that the Government Department of Environment is more interested in listening to pressure groups than looking objectively at the science. Apparently the reaction by the Soil Association (as stated in the Independent article) was to break off talks with the FSA until “it is able to look at organic food and farming with a more open mind”. Such a reaction is of course childish - like a bad tempered brat not getting its way. They would have been much better producing convincing and sound scientific evidence to support their case. To my knowledge I have not seen it, and apparently neither has the FSA. The pages of this website would be open to anyone who has it.

The place of organic farming and food production is an important one as the UK Government has plans to double the amount of organic food grown in Britain. In Scotland a private member’s Bill is being put forward by Robin Harper, the single green MSP, which aims to expand organic farming, but the evidence that this MSP puts forward for the benefits of organic food and farming is purely emotive and image making, with no detectable substance. This was also the view expressed at the recent LEAF conference and documented on this website (1).

The FSA is quite correct in insisting that its role is to be independent of any pressure groups, and that it is not in the business of promoting either organic or conventional food. There can be little doubt from its track record that it will be keen to establish what evidence base there might be as to the benefits claimed for organic food. The trouble is that they are having a hard time finding it.

References

1. Professor Trewavas and other speakers at LEAF Conference 26 September, Battleby, Perthshire. (View on Land-Care).

MENU

14 November 2002

Food Standards Agency does not Provide Support for Organic Farming

Editorial

References