The long-term security of a safe and plentiful food supply has never been more topical, but industry experts are divided over how best to achieve it. Two of the prominent speakers at this week’s heated debate on organics held by the Guild of Food Writers agreed to explain their viewpoints. |
1) Is organic more sustainable than conventional agriculture? |
Craig Sams response: Professor Anthony Trewavas response: The Rothamsted experiments have used minerals continuously for 157 years with no loss of yield compared to fields using manure. On a yield basis, organic farms using farmyard manure or green manure pollute more nitrate into waterways than conventional and IFM. Organic farms use both minerals when needed and so-called natural pesticides, some of which have established human health problems. Organic farms use far more fossil fuels than conventional farms to mechanically weed. Even if energy requirements for nitrogen (N) fertiliser are accounted for, an organic farm produces more carbon dioxide. With organic farming there is a greater risk of crop failure; yields are generally 50-70% lower and organic food is more expensive. If the UK went organic more wilderness and pasture would have to be ploughed under to maintain yields. Coupling chemical nitrogen fixation to a solar power station is completely sustainable for N fertiliser. There is sufficient phosphate for fertiliser for 1000 years. |
2) Is the planet threatened by current methods of food production? |
Craig Sams response: Professor Anthony Trewavas response: Problems with salination, soil degradation and erosion are reported in various parts of the world but have been occurring for at least 4000 years. Grain production continues to increase in the developing world at an unimpaired rate (FAO). IFM zero tillage using herbicides (denied to organic farmers) greatly reduces erosion. How well do you really know your competitors?Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Company Profile – free
sample
Thank you!Your download email will arrive shortly Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sampleWe are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form By GlobalDataIf the world went organic, feeding the worlds 8.3 billion population by 2025 on lower yields would require ploughing up a further 3000 million hectares of virgin forest with disastrous consequences for global warming. Cropland would occupy 25-30% of the earth’s surface. The methane produced by the enormous increase in decaying organic material and manure would be precipitous on global warming. Forest cover has remained steady at 33% earth’s surface for 50 years. Efficient agriculture saves both wilderness and biodiversity. Inefficient organic agriculture does not. Efficient farming enables excess land in the developed world to be put to coppiced willow plantations and the wood used for power station fuel, saving enormously on carbon dioxide and energy requirements. On both counts this is superior to organic. |
3) Is the nutritional content of organic foods better? |
Craig Sams response: Professor Anthony Trewavas response: |
4) Is organic food the answer to achieving the Food Standards Agency target of reducing food poisoning levels in the UK? Or does it in fact present a greater risk, for example due to the use of organic waste in organic agriculture? |
Craig Sams response: The Public Health Laboratory Service recently completed a survey of over 3000 samples of organic fruit and vegetables and found no E.coli, salmonella, listeria or campylobacter. This speaks volumes about the wholesomeness of organic practices. There has never been a case of BSE on cattle born and bred on an organic farm in Britain and there has never been a case of E.coli 0157:H7 poisoning from organic beef. Professor Anthony Trewavas response: A survey of chickens and salmonella in the US indicated that free range had higher levels of salmonella than battery grown. |
5) So is organic a luxury or is it necessary? |
Craig Sams response: Professor Anthony Trewavas response: Pesticides help to make food cheaper because they improve yields but both the World Cancer Research Foundation and the International Cancer Research Institute find no indication that pesticide residues at current levels cause any cancer. Denmark established a national committee to investigate the costs of going totally organic which concluded that much more countryside would have to be ploughed under and the increase in cancer rates from reduced fruit and vegetable consumption made this an unacceptable proposal. Life expectancy continues to increase in the UK and when smoking is removed from the statistics it can be seen that cancer rates have shown steady declines over the period of pesticide use. Organic is not a luxury; it is a distinct danger to the health of all of us if price levels are maintained. |
About the participants: Craig Sams is president of Whole Earth Ltd, and a keen advocate of organic food production. Professor Anthony Trewavas is a plant biologist of 40 years standing and a member of LEAF, the primary Integrated Farm Management group in the UK. just-food.com would like to thank both participants for the time and effort they devoted to this debate. |
To view related research reports, please follow the links below:- The International Market for Organic Food |