Guardian blog
Actually, it's not. I wrote it yesterday as I was dying to relieve myself of this knot of ideological disgruntlement. I'd submitted it to the Guardian as a pitch on Wednesday, but because it's outside my usual Guardian-blog comfort zones of TV, Media, Music and Film, I didn't know who to send it to, and it had to go round the houses. Anyway, I've just heard back from them, and they don't want to publish it*, so I'm going to publish it here. Sorry it's not about TV, media, music and film.
SOLD OUT BY THE SOIL ASSOCIATION
Watching the latest animal welfare programme by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on TV this week, I felt a familiar swell of pride when he compared government and EU standards for chickens intensively raised as meat to those of organic watchdog the Soil Association. (The charity recommends a flock size of 500, while even organic chickens reared to EU specifications can come in flocks of almost 10,000.) Ah yes, I thought, three cheers for the Soil Association: out there fighting for truth and justice, pushing back the barriers of what constitutes sustainability and keeping all other organic certifiers on their toes. That's why I have been an evangelistic supporter of the Association's tireless work for over a decade.
As a member, I recall being consulted when the charity actually considered changing its name for fear that its association with soil might muddy the waters of its consumer-aimed message. I voted to keep the old name, and thankfully they did. The Soil Association's place in modern life - as a real stamp of quality and assurance whether spied on the side of a jar of organic coffee or a tube of face moisturiser - is now totally ingrained. Like so many aims of the organic movement previously viewed as crank extremism, the Soil Association has gone overground.
Unfortunately, it's gone a little too far overground. Into the air, in fact, and I for one feel betrayed. After two lengthy consultations, it seems for all the world to have caved in to pressure from big business to allow air-freighted produce to display the organic label. Although they deny that this is the reason, it remains a far more contentious issue than changing the name, and, for me, a deal-breaker.
The debate began in earnest last year, having been bubbling since 2007, when the Guardian asked the question: should we stop flying in organic food? The Soil Association proposed - rightly, in my opinion - to reclassify organic fruit and veg that arrived here by plane. Although less than 1% of imported food is air freighted, it contributes 11% of the carbon emissions from UK food distribution. I understand the counter argument - that many organic farmers in the developing world rely on export to faraway places like the UK for their livelihoods - but my view, which I believed I shared with the Soil Association, is that the future of the planet is local.
As I write, the Soil Association website makes little fanfare of its egregious and lily-livered decision to allow air-freighted food to continue to carry the organic label. You have to dig to find the information, but there it is, in the Standards section**, rehearsing the line about improving rural communities in Africa and offering this flimsy get-out: "Soil Association organic standards are constantly under development, reacting to new research, technical innovation and public expectation."
For "public expectation" read "expectation on behalf of the public." I am a member of the public; I expect organic standards to become more not less stringent. Most produce on our shelves is non-organic, it's not as if people don’t have a choice, especially in these belt-tightening times. But those who do choose to shop ethically surely do not wish their principles to be sold down the river for fear of upsetting Sainsbury's and Tesco. The supermarkets pay lip service to farmers in Africa, but all they really care about is the bottom line. (They don't even care about British farmers.) Why should we expect otherwise from shareholder-led multinational corporations?
What we do expect is the leading organic certification body to stick to its principles. Perhaps it should change its name now, to the Spoiled Association. Ha ha.
*Actually, it was passed to the Observer too, but they already have a piece about it, so it's been rejected twice!
** Ironically, I can't find it today, but it was there yesterday. Why isn't it on the front page? And why has it only been reported in the Times and Mail?
posted by Andrew Collins @ 3:33 PM
28 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
28 Comments:
so Andrew - & this is a genuine question - is it possible in your view to have, say, an organic banana?
I don't mind the Soil Association logo appearing on non-British goods if it is a product we cannot grow domestically. But the presence of a logo might mean more packaging. When I shop, I judge everything. Rarely there is a choice of organic oranges, but if Spanish and South African oranges are in front of me, I go for the Spanish - thinking transport miles. If the Spanish ones are wrapped in plastic, I'd chose the loose SA ones. Organic certainly matters to me closely followed by transport miles and the absence of packaging. I'd like to see more organic British produce across the board and if it needs to bear a specific logo, Soil Assoc or not, lets hope it's just a little sticker to help the checkout person!
It sounds right up The Independent's alley, or why not speak to Hugh, Jamie Oliver or George Monbiot and do it as an interviewy feature for a paper? Or a documentary pitch even? It sounds a bit Cutting Edge to me.
Anna
Emily, you can absolutely have an organic banana. However, it will have to be transported here. In which case, as Quail sets out above, if you care about sustainability and food miles, you have to take it on its own merits. Some produce is shipped, which is less hard on the environment, but still means food miles. My beef, as it were, is with the Soil Association for relaxing the rules, when I truly think this is a time to tighten them up, so at least consumers know who to trust. I think that the Soil Association should be promoting local produce, which sadly doesn't include bananas. Bananas will of course still be imported from banana-growing countries and we can still eat them (better to eat an organic banana than a non-organic, if you can afford to pay the extra, but I fully accept that this is another factor). Nobody is calling for sainthood, but as a supporter of the SA, I don't want to see them bend, I want to see them sticking to the principles that the charity was built upon.
Two points, one relevant:
Organic things are getting more and more affordable. Sainsburys have had organic milk on offer for ages so it's cheaper than non organic. I find the price difference is insignificant now, and I do look to save money.
Irrelevant point: Five are showing a programme about Take That called "where did it all go right?"
The outrage.
If this hasn't already been mentioned. If it has, sorry, bin distracted.
Thanks for posting this Andrew. I agree that this is a disappointing decision from the Soil Association, particularly in light of Monty Don's address at the Lady Eve Balfour Memorial lecture last year where he explicitly said that the future was local, sustainable and 'in our back gardens'. I put a lot of faith in organisations like The Soil Association (and the Fairtrade Foundation too) to help me through the political minefield that is shopping these days. This is really shaking my faith and I can't afford to be even more cynical about our liberal capitalist world than I already am.
Apparently, Emily, even in the UK it seems you can grow your own, albeit with the space to do so and the right environment:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/hes-not-bananas-just-first-to-grow-them-in-a-uk-home-998217.html
But whether 'unpalatable' means 'inedible', uncooked, I don't know. Perhaps just a bit fiddly with all the seeds but it's a revelation all the same.
Andrew, do you think chemical ripening of bananas shipped by sea invalidates their organic credentials? They use ethylene.
(Read all about the banana business here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana)
I'm not an expert on the activities of the SA, but surely isn't the problem that there is confusion with between the organic and the environmental? If it's purely about being organic, then the SA is acting within it's remit to call stuff organic, regardless of how it's come to the final consumer? Conversely if your concern is primarily food miles, then really you should be eating local over and above whether it's organic or not? even then it's not that simple- if you go down the carbon footprint route then you need to look at the whole process- for example stuff that's produced in a warmer climate and shipped into the UK may well be better in this respect than coming from a greenhouse down the road... bottom line is though that organic food is a premium product however you look at it... chickens coming from a flock of 500 rather than 10,000 will always be more expensive, and every individual has a choice whether they want to spend their money that way or another.
if anyone wasn't convinced by that, this make it even harder to defend the SA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7862118.stm
Surely this just serves to confuse. What is organic all about? I had thought it was about the farming methods used to grow the food, but if that's the case then what is the SA doing by thinking it can use transport methods to determine what is and isn't organic?
To a certain extent I think that organic farming is a bit of a con, given the arbitrary nature of what is and isn't considered organic.
The environmental benefits of organic farming aren't as great as people make out anyway, especially since people generally don't compare like with like. When comparing intensive farming with organic then yes, organic does come out better, but if you compare non-till non-organic farming with organic (which is more of a like for like comparison), it actually turns our that the non-organic comes out on top.
There was a study done by an academic at Edinburgh compairing the two: http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/institutes/plant/PDF/2004/Trewavas-2004-757.pdf
Ah, Tristan, my old pal! The academic study you provide a link to was funded by BBSRC, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, who fund research "to advance knowledge and technology ... and provide trained scientists and engineers, which meet the needs of users and beneficiaries (including the agriculture, bioprocessing, chemical, food, healthcare, pharmaceutical and other biotechnological related industries), thereby contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life." In what way does organic farming benefit "biotechological related industries" with its namby-pamby focus on crops grown without pesticides and herbicides?
I notice an article in today's Observer which is about how we must grow our own and that GM is the answer. Once GM is commercially introduced into this country, the organic movement will be dead. Get your suit dry-cleaned now so that you may be the first to dance on its grave!
Andrew, that's Ad-hom (albeit towards an organisation rather than a person!). Why don't you address the substance of the research instead? Show how, or even if it's flawed, rather than making vague allusions to conspiracy.
I accept that funding of research councils may well affect WHAT get's researched, and often what will benefit the economy has a better chance of being funded than things that don't (a lot of it is tax payers money, after all). However, once research is funded and published, it's accessible for people like you or I to look at it, as well as other experts in the field. If there are errors, methodoligical flaws etc. then they get pointed out.
And if you want to talk about economic interests and motivations, then I'm sure UK organic farmers would be delighted to see SA certification taken away from imported produce. Nice bit of national protectionism going on there.
I'm not entirely against a bit of national protectionism at this point. Look where globalised trade got us. We export the same produce that we import. For what end?
The results of the research you pointed me at seemed to be about organic farming being less "efficient" than non-organic farming. Who would argue with that - if "efficiency" is about yields and profit margins. Industrial agriculture is bound to be more efficient, in terms of getting the most out of a patch of land in the short term. But what about the damage to the soil in the long-term?
I don't actually think the whole world should go magically organic overnight. It's not practical with such a swollen population. But I do believe that more help should be given to those who do wish to farm sustainably - government subsidy in this area has always been pretty stingy. However, when the oil runs out and the industrial production of pesticides and herbicides becomes less economically attractive, perhaps the world will have less choice in the matter. I suspect I'll be dead by then, but I can't help dreaming of a simpler world. It's in my nature, Tristan.
And I'm afraid I can only treat with suspicion research paid for by a body dedicated to supporting the beneficiaries of biotechnology. I accept that organic farming is a business too, but it doesn't benefit the manufacturers of pesticides and herbicides half as much as non-organic farming.
I always say: follow the money. Who benefits most from the debunking of the organic movement? (Sorry if that sounds like the raving of a paranoid madman to you, but it makes perfect sense to me!)
"The Soil Association's place in modern life - as a real stamp of quality and assurance whether spied on the side of a jar of organic coffee or a tube of face moisturiser - is now totally ingrained."
hmmm..not sure about that. I reckon a random survey on any high street might get recognition factor of one in ten.
This is because the bulk of the populace dont really care about living the condtions of their chickens or if their potatoes were sprayed with insecticide.
They care about affordability.
Middle class concerns such as these were very popular in the press a year or so ago but the public now have bigger fish to fry since the financial rug has been pulled from beneath them.
Andrew, I think you've misread the article. It compared 3 types of farming, organic, current intensive farming, and non-organic no-till farming, which is based on a more sustainable approach.
The conclusion stated:
"If it is thought desirable that a variety of farming should take place in any country then there may be a case for organic just as there is for conventional with good practice and for integrated and for integrated notill. But the health benefits from low prices of fruit and vegetables are crucial. If the environment is the issue then present data suggests that no-till is better"
So, yes organic is better than current intensive farming, but it seems there are alternatives, that are not organic, that out-perform both in terms of efficiency (cheaper food on the shelves?) AND environmental effects.
And with regards to the funding, BBSRC, along with the other research councils EPSRC (Eng & Phys Sciences), PPARC (Particle Physics and Astronomy), MRC (Medical) and AHRC (Arts & Humanities) is about as independent as it gets in terms of research funding. You'd have more of a case if this research were funded by the likes of Monsanto etc, but even then you'd have to identify the flaws.
I am merely taking my information from the BBSRC's website, which proudly states its mission "to advance knowledge and technology ... and provide trained scientists and engineers, which meet the needs of users and beneficiaries including the agriculture, bioprocessing, chemical, food, healthcare, pharmaceutical and other biotechnological related industries ..." They are effectively working for the interests of Monsanto. You know as well as I do that you can slice a cake in many different ways. I'm not saying the research is flawed - I'm not clever enough to know if it is or not, nor have I read every single word of the report, it being a day of rest, but I'm afraid I don't trust it. That may be my failing, but it's a fact nonetheless.
I don't think organic agriculture can sustain the planet, and it isn't going to happen anyway when the biotech industry still has such a loud voice. I can easily see GM being introduced into this country and then our argument will be hypothetical: the biotech industry will have won and there will be no organic food worth the name.
I don't have an opinion about tilled or non-tilled agriculture because I don't know anything about that. However, I can add something about the BBSRC and the research councils in general. These are the arm's length organisations that distribute government research money. The money that funded the research discussed here comes from our tax dollars and nowhere else, not from Monsanto or Glaxo-Smith-Kline or BP (except indirectly from the tax that they pay). In this country, there isn't any funding that is more independent than Research Council funding. The council decides what kind of research gets funded, and who gets the money. The people who decide who gets the money (i.e. what research gets funded) are groups of university professors. Now the research councils are not perfect, not by any means, but decisions are about as arm's length as it is possible to be.
So while this particular research might be crap, and the individual scientists might be mistaken, and perhaps even the scientists might not be very good (just as some Arts Council funding presumably goes to arts organisations that are not very good), the fact that the BBSRC funded the research can't be used, on its own, to doubt the quality of the research.
The funding source gives no incentive at all for scientists to publish dodgy results. In fact, if the results are dodgy, then other scientists will point it out to them, rather quickly and probably rather smugly.
There just isn't any more independent source of research money. If we believe that research council funded work is tainted (just because it is research council money) then absolutely all research in this country is tainted. I don't believe that. You can believe that if you like, Andrew - good luck to you. But it isn't true.
Thanks for taking so much time to explain all that, Mark. You clearly know what you're talking about, and have no axe to grind. Unfortunately I am pathologically unable to take any position other than distrust. It's like a disease with me. I'm afraid, for a happy-go-lucky sort of chap, I have a default setting of suspicion whenever it comes from big business or government. I actually envy anyone who trusts either - and I don't mean that in a facetious way. Life would be a lot simpler if I just accepted stuff as it was handed down to me.
The fact remains, independent and transparent they may well be - and the quality of their research may well be tip-top - the BBSRC is self-avowedly dedicated to the needs of "users and beneficiaries" of the biotechnology industry. Their logo says, "BBRSC: Bioscience For The Future," which strikes fear into my soul. That may well be my problem, and not theirs - but I made that clear from the start.
I am on a train. This sure makes for an interesting ride.
Of course the BBSRC are dedicated to the needs of "users and beneficiaries" of the biotechnology industry. By it's very definition, any work that BBSRC is related to biotech and agriculture! They're hardly going to fund research into 18th Century classical piano, are they?
Even organic farmers make use of things that are related to BBSRC funded research. Biotech isn't just the likes of Monsanto and GSK.
If an innocuous orginisation like BBSRC scares you then fuck knows how you get to sleep at night. On the other hand the Soil Asociation gave the poo lady Mckeith an award which instantly makes them evil in my opinion.
On an unrelated note I just got Grass on dvd. Ace. Probably the most underrated comedey of the last 10 years.
Tristan, I love your optimism and I look forward to buying you a drink next time I see you, but you won't turn my head with reason! I'm too far gone.
Sinister Science Man, seriously, don't get me started. Glad you like Grass, though. Ah, happy days.
I fear you are too far gone Andrew. Still, I'm not one to turn down a free pint... besides, I got them in last time we met!
And you were very good to do so, especially as I was pacing up and down in a nervous manner at the time - it was much appreciated, which is why I offered to buy you one back, Tristan. (By the way, brand new science-based blog entry above to get your teeth into!)
So I see. Jurassic Park here we come! Yay!
Would love to comment on it but despite being snowed in I still have two tenders to write today.
I have my own blog now: http://cargo-cult-science.blogspot.com
Just three posts so far, one of which is a link to Tim Minchin's Storm. The name of the blog comes from something Richard Feynman once said.
Do you realise that this has been a sane discussion on a science topic! No fundamentalist scientists, foaming at the mouth.
Are you ready to try it again in a Word column?
Check out the Riverford Organic Box Scheme - there's quite a bit about food miles and 'banana guilt'.
http://www.riverfordenvironment.co.uk/Farmtodoor.aspx
green lung
bristol
I'm obviously late to the party on this one (took a long weekend away from work and any electrical gadgetry), but I still can't help chucking my tuppence in.
I have the same distrust of all things 'organic' as you have of potentially anti-organic research. In my opinion, the vast majority of organic produce isn't that good, and likewise the liberal knee-jerk response to all-things GM is shortsighted.
The worldwide ratio of people:food, coupled with our Western tendency to over-eat, makes it highly likely that if GM isn't adopted more readily, people will starve. For me, that outweighs other ethical dilemmas.
I'm all for banning the unenvironmental and unhealthy pesticides that coat non-organic foods, and I think homegrown produce is a necessity if we want to do our bit, but rejecting GM wholesale is a dangerous overreaction, and demanding more stringent shipping rules for the 'organic' SA label seems a misuse of the word.
Having said all that, what do I know? It was certainly a provocative article/blog.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home