|
Back to Social/Economic/Political
The organic bubble
Editorial
(Filed 27 August 03)
www.land-care.org.uk
Gordon Davidson wrote an interesting
article entitled "Organics Hit" in the Scottish Farmer
16th August 2003 (1). In it he quotes the views
on organic sheep farming of David Younie, whom he described as an
organic sector guru.
David Younie can justifiably be described
as such in so far that he is deeply involved through his position
at Crabstaine SAC as senior organic farming specialist, with roles
as co-ordinator of SAC organic farming service, manager of advisory
activity in relation to organic farming aid scheme, co-ordinator
of departmental research in organic farming, lecturer and tutor
in higher diploma and MSc courses in organic farming including MSc
and PhD supervision, and a member of the core team for MSc/PGDDip
in organic farming (2). His current research projects
are listed as being funded by SOAEFD (now SEERAD), MAFF (now DEFRA)
and the European Union. He clearly has a major personal and funding
commitment to organic farming.
In the Scottish Farmer article David
Younie is quoted as saying that if support cash for organic production
dries up, Scottish sheep producers will be as quick to jump off
the bandwagon as they were to jump on it. The article states that,
tempted by public money offered to aid the conversion to organic
husbandry, Scots sheep farmers took the pledge in droves between
1995 - 2000. The number of sheep farmers going organic rocketed
from 16 to 434, almost entirely driven by the hill sheep sector.
Now what is happening is that many
of these conversion contracts are coming to the end of their five-year
term, and according to the rules of the scheme the money is drying
up. David Younie is quoted as saying:
"A lot of people who got into organic farming in 1998 and
1999 are coming to the end of conversion and, if they do not see
any advantage in being in organic farming, they will be tempted
to drop out - and who can blame them?"
Gordon Davidson describes how the
early enthusiasm of Scottish producers of store lambs (lambs for
others to finish for the retail market on more favourable ground)
had created an imbalance in the Scottish organic sector that persists
to this day, with far more store lambs on the market than organic
finishers to buy them. Apparently every effort to remove this bottleneck
by developing the marketing of Scottish organic lamb further up
the chain is not achieving this. Mr Younie's response to this situation
is quoted to be that an extension of organic support was needed
to keep primary producers on board. Indeed he is quoted as saying:
"The hope is that the substantial proposals that emerged
from the review of the organic aid scheme can go forward and be
incorporated in the new Scottish Rural Development Plan"
The Scottish Farmer article describes
how several EU member states already make continuing payments to
their organic producers after the initial conversion period, potentially
disadvantaging in areas, like Scotland, where subsidy ceases after
the conversion period. That however does not in itself justify that
the Scotland or the UK in general should follow suit, if in fact
there are no clear benefits from farming sheep "organically".
It is not surprising that stepping up the marketing by putting out
more spin may not work if there is no substantive evidence to support
it.
The Scottish Executive has reviewed
the organic aid scheme and states that it has recognised the case
for continuing support beyond the conversion period on the basis
that it will "secure significant environmental benefits which
might otherwise be lost".
The problem with all this is that
the supposed and much hyped benefits of organic farming have not
been established in terms of human health (3, 4)
or animal welfare (5, 6 &
7). The supposed benefits to the environment are
also questionable (8, 9). Indeed,
what precisely are the "significant environmental benefits
that might otherwise be lost"? In trying to get an answer to
this question it is necessary to be aware of the professional spin
put on such claims by the well-funded organic lobby and the environmentalists
on the one hand, and the desparate-for-funding academics some of
whom appear all too ready themselves to jump on bandwagons that
seem to be financially lucrative - only to jump off them again when
the wagon takes a turn.
The comments of John Elliot, a respected
beef producer in the Borders writing in the Scottish Farmer (10,
11), on the use of spin by DEFRA and the RSPB
could equally apply to the organic lobby and also - but particularly
sadly - to some academics. He wrote:
“DEFRA and the RSPB are experts at the manipulation of
the media for their own ends, and that their ability to tread
the fine line between distortion of the facts and falsehood is
masterly.
But there is nothing new in all this.
Billy Connelly in his recent TV presentation (25th August) covering
the land of his ancestors described in days gone by when Roman Catholics
were starving, opportunist Protestants came along and offered them
food and drink if they would convert. They duly did in order to
survive, but when things got better and the folk could get their
own food and drink, they converted back to be Roman Catholics. Like
the Scot hill sheep farmers, they were happy to take the money in
a time of great need, but did not see any other benefits in the
new creed and will go back to their previous ways as soon as they
can afford to do so.
What is disappointing about the SAC
is that, while it too is keen to take money from the organic farming
bandwagon, it fails to point out in an impartial manner whether
or not there are any real benefits and what the evidence is for
such benefits (12). Quite mistakenly I still keep
confusing the S in SAC as standing for Science, when in fact it
does no such thing. The is S is for Scottish, the A for Agriculture
and the C for College. Yet the name College should imply some ethical
scientific standards.
Is it not time that the organic bubble was
pricked?
© www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Davidson, Gordon
(2003). Organics hit. Scottish Farmer. August 16, p 3.
2. Younie, David
(2003). Curriculum Vitae.
www.sac.ac.uk/plantsci/External/working/RollBack/CVS/dyounie.htm
3. Editorial (2002).
Food Standards Agency does not Provide Support for Organic Farming.
(Filed 14 November 02, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
4. Irvine, James
(2003). Michael Meacher talks Organic Garbage.
(Filed 2 April 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click here to view)
5. Watkins, Ruth
(2002). Compassion for the health of farm animals in 2003.
(Filed 2002, 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 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click
here to view).
7. Irvine, James
(2003). Concern over Organic Livestock Animal Health.
(Filed 9 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
8. Editorial (2002).
Prof Trewavas and other speakers at LEAF Conference 26 September,
Battleby, Perthshire
(Filed December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
9. Arbuckle, Andrew
(2002). Scientists Deride Organic Claims. The Dundee Courier
(Filed 27 September 02, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
10. Elliot, John
(2003). All in a spin!. Scottish Farmer August 16: p 6.
11. Editorial (2003).
"Our spin is not rough or tough enough".
(Filed 26 August 03, www.lamd-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
12. Irvine, James
(2003). Agriculture: The Primary Health Service?
Soil Association and SAC Conference: Paisley, 28 May 2003
High in Hype but Poor in Credibility
(Filed 2 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
|
