Rational Agriculture

Organic food proponents would often have us believe that sales of organic produce are growing strongly and that soon most of Europe's countryside will be taken over by "sustainable" farms, havens for biodiversity and producing over-priced food for the masses. Indeed, by some measures, organic sales are increasing, as processed food manufacturers jump on the bandwagon. However, packaged, industrially produced food is not really in keeping with the original intentions of the organic movement, and organic fruit and vegetable sales certainly don't seem to be booming: visit your local supermarket and see how easy it is to get to the small organic section compared to "conventional" produce.

And now we have some recent statistics which tell us more about what European farmers are doing in practice. See, for example, a Euractiv report on a recent Eurostat study - Despite measures, organic farming remains tiny in EU. According to this, 3.8% of farmland was used for organic production in 2002, up from 1.8% in 1998. Given the incentives available and the dire state of farmers' finances, such growth is hardly surprising, but the more extreme plans for 10, 20 or even 30% conversion to organic now seem to have been quietly forgotten.

However, this rapid growth from a low baseline has not been continued. More recent statistics from DEFRA in the UK bring us up to January 2005. The figures show just over 690,000 hectares (4.1% of total farmland) either organic or in conversion. Interestingly, this is down 1% from the figure one year earlier. The fully organic land had increased by 1%, that in conversion on the other hand had decreased by 17%. The message seems to be that most of those farmers who want to turn organic have already done so.

And the organic sector is suffering from the same problems as the rest of the market, including unscrupulous suppliers just out to make a quick buck. This is particularly easy, because there is no analytical way to distinguish "organic" from "conventional". Organic standards are purely process-based, and the designation depends entirely on having the correct paper trail. So, the report in last Sunday's Observer (If you buy "organic produce" can you trust what you get) is hardly surprising. This centres on two particular recent prosecutions, but reports also that a number of other cases are pending. Such cases are hardly likely to contribute to further growth of the market: organic is a sector where trust is everything.

Finally, a couple of quotes from the Observer article:

Demand for meat and vegetables produced in healthy, humane conditions, which are free of pesticides, additives and other chemical nasties, is soaring, with the result that the organic food industry is a multi-million-pound business. Latest figures show it is worth £1.12 billion a year in the UK, a tenfold increase on eight years ago. Sales are currently growing by £2 million a week.

Well, actually, ignoring the hype, and resisting the urge to question most of the assumptions, £1.12 billion annually is still only the sales value for a single reasonably-sized food company. To put it into context, Tesco alone had sales of £27 billion and profits of £2 billion in the last financial year.

Some may be tempted to see organic food fraud as a victimless crime, the equivalent of Del Boy selling bottled tap water labelled 'Peckham Spring' to wealthy yuppies in the Eighties. But, Eade said, such a view was misplaced.

'People from all walks of life buy organic food and for all sorts of different reasons. Not just because they don't like pesticides; it might be for animal welfare reasons - organic regulations ensure a very high standard of animal welfare,' he explained.

What the Soil Association and others have managed to do is to convince many people that organic food is "better", but the reality seems to be that it will remain a niche market for both suppliers and consumers.