Debating Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association
This debate took place on BBC Radio Shropshire today.
The upshot of Holden's comments were:
- That fossil fuels will run out shortly and the whole of British agriculture will be forced to switch to organic. There's something almost survivalist about the way he describes it, off the back of the oil running out.
- We should get used to having less money because we'll need to spend more of it on food (and not on DVDs and holidays and all that stuff) - without answering what the poorest in society are going to do.
- That the public is ahead, not only of politicians on the social changes we should make, but also scientists on the truth about the nutritional value of organic food.
- We'll have less choice about what we eat, because chicken and pork in particular will become luxury items.
Here's my notes on the discussion:
Rob Lyons (RL) makes the point that a luxury organic sector is fairly harmless and can be sustained, but that switching entirely to organic would be a disaster. Presenter Jim Hawkins (JH) then brings in Patrick Holden (PH):
PH: I do hope that's he wrong about 100 per cent conversion to organic being a disaster because it seems me the way things are going it's very likely the whole of agriculture will have to switch to organic production methods, certified or otherwise, within the next 10 or 20 years. I say that because in a post-fossil fuel world, which will be brought about by our need to respond to climate change, and the reduction of oil and gas which are the main fuels used to produce pesticides and fertilisers that power agriculture at the moment, they're going to get much scarcer. We're going to need to switch back to a form of agriculture which relies on good husbandry and working with nature and building fertility through good old fashioned crop rotations. That's basically what organic farming is all about.
And that's a huge change. I think we're going to have to rely much more on local food, most of it will be organically produced, and I think this is something that is going to happen to us whether we like it or not. We'd better start preparing for it. And it seems to me that the public who are ahead of the politicians on this as well. I heard wonderful quote the other day, someone wrote a newspaper and said, 'I take my vegetables seriously but I take my politicians with a pinch of salt'. I think that sums what the public's attitude is to David Miliband's unfortunate comments. He's got it wrong about organic food being a lifestyle choice. In fact, it's a sensible intelligent decision that concerned citizens make, supporting a more sustainable form of agriculture in the market place.
JH: But surely the price premium means that it is a lifestyle choice, that some people don't have the opportunity to make that choice?
PH: I think that's true for a minority of the population, perhaps 20 per cent, the affordability of food is a big issue. But you should remember that in the 1970s, the typical family spent 30 per cent of its total income on food but today that's down to 9.9 per cent, and of course we spend the balance on DVDs and foreign holidays and travel and all the rest of it. And it seems to me again that society needs to change its priorities and realise that if we want to eat a healthy diet, live long and have a high quality of life, food should have a higher priority in our spending.
JH: Rob, what do you think about Patrick's predictions for the really quite near future?
RL: I think it's a classic thing to take climate change and use it a thing to beat us all around the head about. Remarkably, Patrick seems to have concluded ahead of all the experts that we're going to run out of fossil fuels in 10 or 20 years which is just nonsense.
PH: We've got a conference on One Planet Agriculture where we going to have the world's leading commentators on precisely this subject. We think, or rather they think, and I've become convinced that they're right that by 2025 or 2030, most of us will have to manage on an energy ration that's about 10 per cent of what we use today. And even if you don't believe in the imminent peaking of oil, we ought to do that anyway for climate change reasons.
RL: Well, it's not as if fossil fuels are are only source of energy, but now we're getting into a completely different subject. I disagree completely with your analysis in terms of where we're going in terms of climate change. What we do need to do as a society is have a discussion about what kind of future we want and that's got to do with more than food or climate change. I have to say that I don't think Patrick's vision of the future is an attractive one at all.
PH: It may not be attractive but I think it's one we've got to confront and start to prepare for. I hope that consuming food which is produced without high levels of pesticides and fertilisers that's grown locally, preferably by people we know, should add to our quality of life not detract from it. Back to your other points that organic isn't healthier, there is a huge range of evidence now suggesting, indicatively, there are higher levels of dry matter, trace elements, vitamins, antioxidants, in organic food, and very recently, there was evidence to show there are higher levels of omega-3 in milk and dairy products. And the Food Standards Agency, famously led by Sir John Krebs until recently, have been in denial about this. The public are ahead of the scientists on this. It's not that we don't need more research to absolutely prove the issue beyond doubt but there is a strong body of 'indicative' evidence for the health benefits and I think the public instinctively recognise that if you don't use pesticides and artificial fertilisers to force feed plants and animals, the equivalent in animals, you are likelier to have healthier food.
RL: Well, I'm more interested in peer-reviewed research, not stuff that's been produced by the Soil Association or by organic advocates. And if you look at that material, there is no consistent difference found between organic and conventionally grown foods.
[Then a caller, Jean, explains that she'll be buying food grown locally in her local market, preferring fresh and local over organic.]
PH: I think Jean's along the right lines but I don't think we should create an artificial polarisation between fresh and local and organic. Speaking personally, what I'd like to do ideally is buy fresh and local food that's had the minimum of transport and preferably from someone I know, but I'd also like to know that it's been grown in a sustainable way because I know that's better for the soil and better for the environment. It seems to me the answer to her question is 'all three, please', if possible. If you've got a choice, say an imported organic apple from the other side of the world versus a local apple which hasn't been certified, if it hasn't been heavily sprayed and virtually produced by organic methods, I'd probably buy the latter. But if it had been heavily sprayed, I think I'd rather have the imported apple.
RL: She does make an interesting point. Seventy per cent of the organic food that we find in our shops at the moment is imported, so that kind of undermines some of the environmental arguments. The idea that we're going to transform British agriculture over the next 10 or 20 years into an organic system I find hard to believe. I'd be interested to know, by the way, how much land Patrick Holden thinks, how much extra land is going to have to be brought into agricultural production in order to allow for this local, organic style of agriculture he's talking about.
JH: How much more land are you going to need for that?
PH: Well, I would say that is one of the most important issues because the food footprint of our 60 million people in the UK is clearly very large and basically the question is: how productive can organic systems be? Certainly speaking from my own experience - I've been farming organically for thirty years - I've found it quite remarkable the productive capacity of grassland, clover overgrass lays and, indeed, crops grown organically. I think we will have to alter our diets and eat less meat but I believe there's every reason to believe that organic farming systems could feed the nation.
RL: Patrick's first of all transformed the agricultural system, now he's telling us we'll have to transform our diets as well and eat what we're capable of growing rather than what we'd choose to eat, that all seems to be a very bad thing. The other point that Jean makes is about freshness and localness and that brings us back to the point about nutrition. Whether something is organically or conventionally grown is far less important to whether it's nutritious or not than whether it is fresh, seasonal, most importantly the variety of apple or potato that you're eating, how you cook it, what foods you eat with it when you eat it. All these things are much more important factors in terms of the nutritional value than whether pesticides or fertilisers were used in its production.
[Malcolm calls in. He's an organic consumer. He prefers to pick up his food from an organic farm.]
RL: If Malcolm chooses to buy organic food, that's entirely up to him but when it comes down to questions of taste, you'll probably find there is just as good and just as tasty stuff that's not produced organically. A lot of it is down to the variety used and the love and care that the farmer puts into it. Those farmers who want to spend a lot of time, who are very selective about how they grow their crops, will probably produce a premium product. You'll pay more for it, but it will probably taste better. And we can choose when we just eat for eating's sake, and when we want to sit down and really savour something and spend a bit more on getting a nicer product. That's the same with any kind of product whether it's your potatoes or wine or cheese.
[Malcolm agrees with the point about variety being important, before describing some organic beef he'd eaten recently - and how he'd enjoyed having the dripping the following morning.
JH: Wouldn't going back to earlier methods of food production lead to a more satisfying customer experience?
[RL makes the point that supermarkets seem obsessed with removing the fat from everything these days, when it's often the thing that gives food flavour.]
PH: I'd like to apologise to Rob if I'm sounding a bit preachy. I just think I've become very aware that we're on the threshold of some very big changes in food and farming.... when you produce livestock in a traditional way, it does effect the quality and the flavour. And the science may not be out there yet but our palates tell us that. In relation to all this discussion, Miliband's unfortunate comments have woken up us all to have this debate. By the way, David Miliband wrote to me yesterday, very much with a tone that he feels he's committed a bit of a bloomer, he realises he's put his foot in it a little bit and he's on the defensive now, which I think is excellent because I think the government ought to take this huge consumer revolution very seriously, this is an excellent thing.
[Bruce, an arable farmer from just outside Telford, thinks the question of food supply is being ducked by the Soil Association.]
PH: We want less white meat and more red meat. When you convert a farm typically 50 per cent of the land will have to go into fertility-building crops.
[Bruce notes that grain production would fall dramatically under an organic system.]
Bruce: The Soil Association will not tell the public what they're not going to receive... How are you going to feed the world? My answer is to go into GM. You can eradicate an awful lot of pesticides and still maintain yield.
PH: I'm not disputing the fact that if we switch to organic production systems, there would be a significant reduction in grain production, there definitely would. But if you look what happens to all the arable crops, a lot of them are fed to livestock in intensive livestock production systems such as pigs and poultry. In our future scenario, we would eat a lot less white meat, which has become the staple in place of red meat, and we'd eat more red meat which would not be fed on grain but it would be finished on clover and grass. Forage based meat, not grain based meat. Chicken and pork would become a luxury again as it was in my boyhood and back in the fifties. That's why, without wanting to sound preachy, this change that is in front of us would mean major changes not only in the sourcing of our food but in the make-up of our diet. And I'm not trying to thrust this upon anyone, including the arable farmers, I realise that all farmers have been farming according the systems and the incentives that we have at present, but I am suggesting that these incentives are going to change and that's going to touch us all.
JH: Are people just going to choose to do that? It's the opposite of what's happening now.
PH: I know, it's extraordinary, everyone thinks that white meat is the healthy meat, and that's become the meat of choice, and it's become very cheap. I'm saying these changes will make white meat very much more expensive, partly for the reasons that your caller's just said, there will be less grain about, and it will become more expensive and that will influence people's choices. And I hope there will be debate about all that, much more debate about all the issues that we're talking about this morning that I think are terribly important.
[It turns out that Bruce has been trialling GM crops and has come under criticism from Friends of the Earth. He complains that the kind of changes suggested by the Soil Association are very rarely explained in this debate.]
PH: One of the things we're intending to do is do a modelling exercise with a university partner where we look at the whole of Britain to look at what would happen in terms of output if we did make this big change I've been discussing because we need to know that and I fully accept that, so we can talk with authority about the figures that have just been laid out.