MENUAnimal
Health/ Economic/ Political
|
 |
2 June 2003Agriculture: The Primary Health Service?Soil Association and SAC Conference: Paisley, 28 May 2003High in Hype but Poor in CredibilityJames IrvineFRSE DSc FInstBiol FRCPEd FRCPath
|
|
First dubious sweeping statement
|
One wondered a little as to who might have been a prime mover in trying to undermine that public trust. Strange that the same Patrick Holden was on national TV the previous night decrying poultry producers for allegedly using illegal drugs and breaking agreements. Reading the Farmers Guardian of 30th May one gets a rather different story whereby the allegations are described as “utter nonsense” (3). Was Patrick Holden, the excellent PR man that he is, just teeing up the public, and particularly the delegates for the next day’s conference? Did it really matter to him whether the allegations he made were true or false? They had achieved their purpose. Then again curious coincidences can just happen.
A further sweeping statement soon followed on the heels of the first. According to the SAC press release, “a greater investment in quality food production in Scotland would be more than repaid by a fall in the costs to the nation of direct health care”. This was claimed to be the clear message coming out of the conference. Oh yes? And just who did the Soil Association (and supposedly the SAC) have in mind for providing what was supposed to be quality food, and on what evidence?
|
Second dubious sweeping statement
|
As far as I am aware from the perspective of a fairly typical livestock/cereal farmer, Scotland produces some of the best quality food in the world following conventional animal husbandry. In the aftermath of the BSE crisis public confidence in Scottish beef is back to previous levels and possibly higher. There is no statistic that I am aware of that shows that “organically” farmed herds were exempt from BSE, the cause of which has not been unequivocally established. Presently Scottish beef is recognised to be amongst the safest in the world.
Scottish lamb is likewise highly regarded by the nation’s consumers and is of undoubted quality as reared by conventional methods.
If Patrick Holden was trying to make capital for his organisation out of FMD then of course this disease does not affect man and it made no distinction between “organically” and conventionally farmed animals. BSE has never been shown to occur naturally in sheep.
Residues of veterinary medicines have not been shown to be a problem in UK livestock, which is hardly surprising in view of how closely they have been controlled for years (4, 5).
Animal welfare standards in some areas are undoubtedly higher for conventionally reared animals than for animals reared by “organic” protocols (6, 7) in view of the illogical prohibition on prophylaxis as pursued by those whose faith is dedicated to the “organic” movement (8).
|
Likewise, I am not aware that Scotland’s cereal or vegetable crops are in any way unhealthy. The Soil Association would have us believe that traces of multitudes of chemicals on conventionally farmed crops is damaging to the nation’s health, simply on a precautionary principle that probably can never be proved. Chemicals have been used on crops in Scotland for many years and there is no evidence that the health of the nation has been impaired thereby. Nowadays less and less chemicals are used on Scottish crops on account of improved technology (9, 10, 11, 12). Life expectancy continues to increase, much to the embarrassment of the pensions industry.
It is of course to the advantage of the Soil Association to make the nation believe that conventional farming is unsafe as far as the consumer is concerned. They do this by casting doubts whenever possible, using liberal doses of anecdotal evidence and highlighting any breeches of procedure to the full. Even if the allegations referred to above about intensive chicken farms were true there is little need to condemn the whole industry. In any event the possible adverse effect on humans from eating such chickens seems somewhat remote. However, it would be a good idea if chickens in the shops could be salmonella and campylobacter free - can “organically” farmed chickens guarantee that?
As Professor Hugh Pennington pointed out some time ago, the main risk in eating a hamburger is due to bugs in the salad rather than nasties in the meat (13).
So in my view both of Patrick Holden’s opening sweeping statements were not only flawed but mischievous, in that he was using them to decry a respected industry to his own advantage on false pretence.
|
The core message from such a conference should have been:
|
What the core message from the conference should have been is that greater investment in the quality food that is currently being produced in Scotland would be repaid by lower import costs, better rural employment and care of the rural environment. Whether this is achieved by conventional or by “organic” farming is irrelevant.
What happens to raw food materials after they have left the farm is a matter of concern to both conventional and “organic” producers.
Wendy Alexander MSP
Linking Public Health and Rural Development Policies
Certainly the message from Wendy Alexander MSP (previously “minister for everything” in the previous Scottish Parliament, but not in the executive of the present one) was correct that to improve the health of the Scottish People it is urgently necessary to change their dietary habits. She stressed the importance of more healthy food being available on the market. She lamented the marked reduction in the number of local shops that could supply such healthy food with as short a supply chain as possible. Few, other than the profit-oriented supermarket moguls and the intermediaries who supply them (14), would disagree with that in principle - but how to put it into practice on a substantial scale at reasonable cost and with a workable continuity of supply is another matter. Sustainability is a word much used by professional politicians (and by certain politically opportunistic scientists) that means anything to anybody but informs nobody: economic sustainability is much better defined (11, 12).
Where there was concern, however, was the manner in which she appeared to be promoting “organic” farming, and by inference denigrating conventional farming. Indeed she referred to the Scottish Parliament’s commitment to increase the proportion of sales of home grown “organic” food as compared to the amount imported. In so doing she seriously diluted her main message with a flawed subsidiary one that was given undue prominence. It is changing the dietary habit of the Scottish people that is important, not whether the food is from conventional farming methods or from farms that signed up to the “organic” faith (largely on account of favourable grants (15) and perceived better financial returns from what some of the public have been led to perceive as “added value”). Strangely there was not a single word about stopping the importation of meat products (for example) from countries that do not match the quality assurance standards of the UK, or indeed the animal welfare standards. Instead we were treated to a lengthy account of what her numerous relatives were up to while on holiday in Italy and their anecdotal experiences with food.
|
This conference made no attempt to assess in an objective way whether or not there was any increased nutritional value of “organic” food over that produced by conventional methods. To date there is none. One hoped that this conference was going to reveal further evidence one way or another. It didn’t. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) stands by its statement that there is no scientifically based data to indicate that there is (16, 17) . But of course they were not represented at the conference, which was a promotional exercise for the Soil Association. Instead there was an unreasonable attack on the FSA by Lord Peter Melchett, Soil Association chairman, saying that the FSA had lost consumer confidence just because the FSA had refused to accept any superiority of organic food. Perhaps Lord Melchett underestimates the intelligence of the consumers. Nevertheless, Lord Melchett can sleep easy at nights as no one will vandalise his crops even if they do not believe in how he or his colleagues farm, and even although they may be deeply concerned at the damage the “organic” movement may be perceived to be doing to the image of UK conventional farming in trying to justify their claimed superiority over everybody else (18).
As mentioned above, the message was loud and clear and uncontroversial that locally produced food was to be preferred and which has not accumulated massive “food miles” before it reached the consumer. However, the device to quote how some herbs travelled thousands of miles to Brazil to get wrapped round something else and come back again to be sold in some supermarket as an expensive concoction, hid the fact that “organic” food in Scotland generates substantially more food miles than does that produced by conventional farming. “Organically” produced grain, for example, often has to travel many hundreds of unnecessary miles in order to find a find a grain merchant who wants it and who has the appropriate facilities as dictated by the Soil Association or other “organic” group.
Reference was made again and again to the use of chemicals by conventional farmers, but the use of such highly toxic materials as copper by organic farmers never got a mention. Admittedly the Soil Association is trying to get away from using copper but has not as yet entirely succeeded. My understanding is that it is still extensively used to counter blight in “organic” potatoes (11) and to prevent disease in grapes used to make “organic” wine (19).
|
There was no reference to the problems the organic farming movement has regarding animal welfare in view of its policy over the use of medicines (6, 8), especially those used in prophylaxis such as vaccines.
No one mentioned that the rules for “organic” farmers varied according to what faction of the organic movement they belonged to; nor that certain continental members of the EU have significantly different organic rules. Indeed there appears to be a degree of chaos as to what is and what is not “organic”. Even the term “organic” is a con as all growth involved in food production is necessarily organic in the proper sense of the word.
Christopher Trotter, Celebrity Chef
Scottish Diet and Scottish Health
Christopher Trotter, who is chef at Castle Myers in Fife, served a useful purpose in showing how easily some fresh foods can be prepared in the kitchen, but in a conference purporting to have some scientific credibility was spoiled by generous helpings of “organic” unsubstantiated and frankly misleading hype. I refer here particularly to such meaningless comments as “the care of the soil”, inferring that conventional farmers don’t care for the soil. Anecdotal stories about soil erosion and other evils caused by conventional farmers overstocking was nonsense: if conventional farmers did that they would be out of business very rapidly. They are very aware of the value of the soil. It is fine to have a celebrity on the programme, but not if his function is to give celebrity credence to scientific tosh.
One began to wonder whether the SAC had had any say in the choice of speakers. Maybe the University of Paisley was just happy to let its name be attached to anything as long as they got the fee for the rent of the premises.
Gillian Kynock, Food and Health Co-ordinator,
Scottish Executive
Tackling Food and Health Issues in Scotland
Gillian Kynock, who is Food and Health Co-ordinator, Scottish Executive, described ambitious projects at length. Putting into practice ideas of insisting on quality specifications for food purchased by the public sector is long overdue. Not a cheep about getting the MOD to buy its meat from UK sources that comply with UK quality assurance standards. Not a cheep either about Scottish Quality Assurance standards, Specially Selected Scottish Beef and Lamb, and not a mention of Quality Meat Scotland - all of which are relevant to conventional farming in Scotland. And not a cheep about Scotland’s dire economy, including the basic funding of schools with regard to essentials. Improvement of the nutrition of children from the poorest backgrounds is important. Although she did not mention the subject, to even contemplate spending extra funds on the unproven notion that “organic” might be better would be absurd.
Lizzie Vann
School Meals Initiatives: Case Studies from England and Italy
The programme then progressed to discuss school meals initiatives. Here the promotion of “organic” food seemed to get totally out of hand. Lizzie Vann’s presentation had a number of important messages about school meals, but my impression was that they were obscured by an over-riding advertising campaign for “organic” products, which was unacceptable. It might have been fine for on overtly commercial meeting promoting certain commercial products and held in a hotel or some such commercial venue. In food parlance, the content of this conference was not appropriately labelled.
Clearly the intention of the organisers of this conference was to get the idea of the supposed benefits of “organic” foods instilled into children and their teachers and thereby further the interests of the Soil Association. This could be fine if there was any convincing evidence, other than anecdote, that “organic” food was any better for children than food produced by conventional methods. The fact that “organic” food is substantially more expensive than conventional was seriously underplayed. Why pay more for a product, especially where the emphasis is on providing basic affordable nutrition for the less well-off? Likewise, if there is not going to be a significant premium to be paid to the farmer of “organic” food, there is little purpose in him doing it on account of the significant reduction in yields that goes with it (especially in relation to cereals).
What she did rightly emphasise was the absurdly limited budget that was available for children who genuinely needed better nutrition. She just spoilt the message by plugging “organic”. But then she was the founder and is director of a highly successful “organic” children’s food company called “Organix”. Indeed so successful has she been as a business woman that she has been shortlisted for the Veuve Cliquot Business Woman of the Year (20). I do not recall being told that at the conference. Indeed, it was only in retrospect that I realised that we had been treated to a very professional sales pitch. What that was doing in the middle of a conference with academic and supposedly independent credentials beats me. Billy Graham can pull in the crowds and extract the money from those he persuades to belief in what he says, but it does not mean that his version of religion is any better than others. Personally, when I attend supposedly academic conferences I like to be told whether the speaker has a blatantly commercial background - then I can look out for the hard sell should it occur. It did.
Anthony Lewis: Chair, Powys Healthcare Trust,
Wales
Catering for Health in the Health Service
Matters deteriorated further with the extraordinarily biased presentation by Anthony Lewis, who was described in the conference programme as Chair, Powys Healthcare Trust. The title of his talk was “Catering for Health in the Health Service”. I take this to be a government funded body, either directly or indirectly. His extraordinary biased views (and actions as he described them) in favour of “organic-produced” food (compared to conventional), were in my view unacceptable for a person in his position. It would appear that he had been chosen as a speaker in the hope that it would encourage government representatives at the conference to promote “organic” food in hospital budgets.
In my opinion what we had here was a blatant misuse of his position described as chair of a publicly funded body. Furthermore the organisers of the conference had clearly known of his views and were guilty of including such a paper in a conference presented by the SAC as jointed partners with the Soil Association. A further worry emerged when I discussed his bias towards “organic” products when he informed me the work of his trust had been facilitated (“made possible”) by the Soil Association. I understand that he is no longer chair of the Powys Healthcare Trust.
Yes, it is important that nutrition is improved in hospitals and in care homes. But again there is no evidence (other than the pathetically anecdotal used liberally by Anthony Lewis) that “organic” food has any nutritional benefit over “conventional” while being more expensive.
Somewhat naively he showed a picture of the countryside of the Powys region where he had hoped to source most of the food required within 20 miles. Unfortunately, although beautiful, the terrain would not be able to support food production over a sufficiently wide range or for long enough in terms of seasons, to be economically sustainable other than for a niche market. He simply did not appear to have an understanding of how farming has evolved in the UK (including Wales and Scotland) over many decades to the advantage of consumer and farmer alike. Excessive food miles need to be constrained, but not miles that are necessary.
“Organic” Lunch
We were then treated to an “organic” lunch - chicken legs that tasted like any other chicken leg - and a shortage of plates and no coffee. Perhaps the poor pickings was due to my being near the end of the queue: or was the yield of the food supply too limited because it was “organic”? What had happened in reality to the well presented fresh food that we had been sold in theory throughout the morning?
The prospect of listening to more blatant promotion of “organic” farming under the guise of academic approval did not appeal. It would be more than one could reasonably be expected to tolerate unless one was fired with the religious faith of a cleric in the benefits of the creed.
Professor David Atkinson, SAC’s Vice
Principal
Closing Remarks
Perhaps it was as well I left, if only for the sake of my blood pressure. The press release from SAC (2) that was duly e-mailed to Land-Care after the meeting states:
|
What a load of opportunistic tosh, but this time from someone no less than the vice principal of SAC.
Tosh - because the health service is very much interested in the prevention of disease and does a great deal with regard to encouraging people to eat in a healthy way. It does the vice principle of the SAC no credit to try and deride that effort.
Opportunistic - because SAC funding by government has been cut by some 25% and they have been encouraged to concentrate more on areas that will improve human health as perceived by government. It is sad indeed if the SAC’s top brass think the way to do it is to start by knocking the health service and promoting an expensive food fad that has no proven scientific advantage in terms of health giving qualities.
Conclusion
For all of Wendy Alexander’s rhetoric and plausible aims about locally produced quality food (be it conventional or “organically” produced) one has to reflect on what the Scottish Executive did when she was a minister (although admittedly not for Environment and Rural Affairs). As just mentioned, funding for research into agriculture was severely cut and redirected. The consequences of such an unfortunate policy were apparent at this conference - signs of an unproductive rivalry between NHS and SAC, and SAC uncritically supporting an organisation in the form of the Soil Association that makes extravagant claims for food quality without scientific backup.
The SAC must surely think more seriously about what type of conferences it should associate itself with. As a saving gesture Professor Bill McKelvey, Chief Executive of SAC, was the first to comment from the floor of the conference after Wendy Alexander’s presentation, that there was no established benefit of “organic” over conventionally produced food, that “organic” food is more expensive and that conventional farming would continue to provide most of the food. He also said that he wanted to see “organic” food production develop alongside conventional farming (21). In my view this is fine so long as a careful eye is kept on the real advantages and disadvantages of each type of farming, and indeed other types of farming such a LEAF (22).
Emotive hype should be allocated to the trash bin where it belongs. Sadly that would involve much of this conference.
References
1. Conference Programme (2003). Agriculture: The Primary Health Service? First National Scottish Conference on Organic Food and Farming. The Soil Association and the Scottish Agricultural College. (Download PDF).
2. SAC Press Release (2003). SAC
and Soil Association Conference Links Food to Health, 29 May 2003.
http://www.sac.ac.uk/info/External/About/publicns/PRESS/Press2003/May/03N25.asp
3. Editorial (2003). Allegations of illegal drug use are “utter nonsense”. Farmers Guardian, 30th May 2003.
4. Editorial (2003). Antibiotic
Resistance in Humans not the Result of Excessive or Inappropriate
use in Animals.
(Filed 4 April, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
5. Editorial (2003). Animal medicine
residues are not a problem for humans.
(Filed 3 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
6. Editorial (2002). “Organic
farmers will have to get real” says Professor McKellar.
(Filed 23 December 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
7. Watkins, Ruth (2003). Compassion
for Health of Farm Animals 2003.
(Filed 31 December 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
8. United Kingdom Register of
Organic Food Standards (UKROFS). February 2001 (Amended November
2001). Chapter 5: Disease Prevention and Veterinary Treatment
(Filed 23 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here
to view).
9. Trewavas, Anthony (2002). Which
Way for Sustainable Development. Presentation given at LEAF Conference,
26 September 2003, Battleby, Perthshire (see ref 22).
(Filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
10. Lomborg, Bjorn (2001). The
Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World.
Cambridge University Press.
(Reviewed on Land-Care, click
here to view).
11. MacKerron, D. K. L, Hillman,
R. J. and Duncan, J. M. (2003). Sustainabiliy in Agriculture.
http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/Document/AnnReps/02Indiv/06Sustai.pdf
12. Irvine, James (2003). Sustainability
in Agriculture
(Filed 7 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
13. MacDonald, Victoria, (1998). Killer food poisoning bug found in salad vegetables. The Sunday Telegraph, 12 April 1998.
14. Northern Foods plc and Lord
Haskins - Is Lord Haskins a suitable person to be the senior advisor
to Government on agriculture?
(Filed 23 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
15. Irvine, James (2003). SEERAD
Announces Awards for Organic Aid Scheme - but why do they do it?
(Filed 14 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
16. Editorial (2002). Food Standards
Agency does not Provide Support for Organic Farming.
(Filed 14 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here to view).
17. Irvine, James (2003). Meacher
talks organic garbage.
(Filed 2 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
18. BBC News (1999). No regrets
over GM protest - Melchett. BBC News Online, 29 July 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/406191.stm
19. Soil Association. Visit an Organic Farm - Sedlescombe Vineyard. Click to view.
20. Baby Organix. Lizzie Vann
Shortlisted for Veuve Clicquot Business Woman of the Year Award.
http://www.babyorganix.co.uk/media/business.asp
21. Arbuckle, Andrew (2003). “Tainted image” complaint in clash over farm systems. Dundee Courier 29 May 2003, p. 13.
22. Prof Trewavas and other speakers
at LEAF Conference 26 September, Battleby, Perthshire.
(Filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here
to view).