Rational Agriculture

The Soil Association, beloved of Guardian readers, has been on a roll for the last few years, getting token quantities of organic produce in our supermarkets (a tip: if you're in a hurry, go to the organic section, there's never anyone there, unless you shop in Waitrose) and hyping up the growth figures for what remains a niche market. Sincere as they are, it's always nice to have a laugh at their expense, and a perfect opportunity was provided today.

As I ate my (conventionally-produced, but cheaper and equally healthy) breakfast, it brightened my day to hear that Patrick Holden had criticised the government for not being prepared to vaccinate chickens against bird flu. This, from an organisation which bans all "synthetic" inputs to organic farms and only allows farmers to treat sick animals with conventional medicines (that is, ones which work) if all else fails. What next, a Damascene conversion to weedkillers? Perhaps someone could make a radiation-induced mutation (not genetically modified, that's against the rules) in a plant so it produces its own Roundup(R)?

The motivation, of course, is financial. If bird flu becomes a real threat, free-range chicken flocks would have to be brought indoors, which means organic producers would lose their status and ability to charge premium prices.

Anyway, the irony of this brightened my day, as I hope it will yours. For more, see Bird flu preparations criticised.

Readers of this blog will have seen a previous posting on the report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution regarding the effect of pesticide spraying on bystanders (Crop spraying no problem for bystanders). The eminent members of the Commission, having been lobbied hard by activists (and, to be fair, a number of people who quite genuinely believe that pesticides are the root cause of their health problems) decided, in the complete absence of evidence of harm, to recommend a 5 metre buffer zone between spraying of fields and neighbouring properties.

The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides has now given its response: see today's BBC report Row over risk of farm chemicals. In particular:

'While agreeing with some of the recommendations made in the report, Professor David Coggon, chair of the ACP when the response was written, said the committee strongly disagreed with the recommendation of placing a five metre buffer zone alongside residential property to protect against possible adverse health effects.

"We agree that there is scientific uncertainty, but we think a buffer zone is arbitrary and a disproportionate response to the uncertainty," he told the BBC News website.

The ACP committee argues there are already wide margins of safety built into the current regulatory system, but says the RCEP failed to take these into account when writing its report.'

So, the government's official advisory committee on pesticides thinks the RCEP is talking out the back of its head. You might hope that would be the end of the story. Sadly, I don't think so.