OF&G :: The Blog

A few of us have been chuckling our way around the office having seen this:

“Beware of misleading labels implying “freedom”; only the Soil Association accreditation offers any real guarantee of a decent standard of animal care.”
George Miller and Katharine Reeve,authors of the new Rough Guide to Food, The Times, 3 March 2009

Where on earth does a statement like that come from?

Let’s start with the fact that according to our own close analysis, the difference between Organic Farmers & Growers standards and the Soil Assocation Certification Ltd standards boils down to a very few variations in requirements, particularly with regard to livestock. Of those variations none of them could be called substantial and in an argument over whether our version or the SACL version is “better” for welfare, you might as well be debating whether the chicken or the egg came first, because your chances of reaching a consensus are about as good!

Secondly, quite what do the authors mean by “decent”? In organics, and with the OF&G standard, we shoot for “excellent”. Who wants “decent”?

Are they implying the SACL standard is only “decent” and not excellent???

We certainly have no desire to denigrate Soil Association Certification’s standards, but if the authors wanted to give such a piece of advice to their readership, perhaps it would have shown them to be better informed if they had substituted the words “Soil Assocation accreditation” for “organic accreditation”.

The SA, however, seem to be very pleased with the recommendation – we found that snippet in their daily news digest.

We’ve been a bit peeved with The Times newspaper around here lately. It was this particular newspaper that, at Christmas, published a dubious and un-checked story claiming that organic farmers had asked for a “holiday” from the organic standards, or to “bend the rules”.

We shouted loudly at the time that this was not the case and explained the truth of the matter. It’s fair to say the smoke was caused by fire in this case, but the signals were badly distorted.

Now (admittedly a bit belatedly and in a circuitous way via Twitter) we’ve stumbled across this blog post by Rachel Johnson, also in The Times.

Beginning reading it gives you the sense that it’s just going to be another commentator expressing their disappointment, based on not knowing all the facts. However, if you keep reading you realise that Ms Johnson is injecting a dose of the kind of realistic common sense that we sometimes think we must have the monopoly on here at OF&G towers (trust me, we know we don’t have that monopoly, but occasionally it feels like it!).

For instance, she says:

“Look at it this way: a new row over organic certification should actually help suspicious consumers better to understand the difference between those who slave year-round to produce good food without damaging the environment and the wily producers who hijack the word (as they did “green”) to try to sell us some pretty borderline or questionable tat.”

So, yes. Education of consumers. Something we’re always desperate to achieve, because when people really understand what organic means and stands for they will know why they should support it.

Also:

“The current debate is a sign of how well regulated and passionate the sector has become. Of course, everyone understands that in a recession people are going to want cheaper food: that’s why the organic lobby has acknowledged that conventional methods have their place.”

While that’s an excellent point, and we’re thrilled to see the recognition that this is a very well policed system, we’re not convinced that all of the ‘organic lobby’ has acknowledged the place of non-organic farming. We have, and we know others who have. But no, not everyone.

All-in-all a very well-balanced, thoughtful and, above all, realistic piece. Thank you, Ms Johnson.

With reference to the last posting, here’s what appears to be link to the new regulation (beware, it’s a 10MB+ Adobe PDF document).

When I say ‘appears to be’, it’s the best I can find on the bizarre and misleading cludge that passes as the EU’s online offering. My more knowledgeable colleagues are at a conference today and will put me straight when they get back, if necessary. But this is a starter for ten.

If you can be bothered to wade through it (don’t worry if you can’t, that’s our job) the key advice would be DON’T PANIC if you find anything that concerns you. Just pick up the phone to your Certification Officer, whoever your cert body is, and ask for the correct details.

Well, it’s 2009 and we have a new organic regulation in force. Oddly though, you would be hard pressed to state with any certainty what this will actually mean, in practical terms.

Those in the know tell me that there are still areas to be (how shall we say?)… clarified. We think the OF&G team, principally Certification Manager, Steve Clarkson, have done a stirling job in identifying any key changes so that we could keep licensees informed, but the whole process has felt a bit slapdash/unmanaged/typically bureaucratic (take your pick).

You can catch up with our current take on the new rules here, on our main website and we’ll be staying on top of any developments as they happen.

It’s all been eerily quiet with regard to what should be such a key development. We’ll see how it all pans out…

There’s a big change due in the New Year – a new EU organic regulation. It’s been a long time coming and there are some important alterations to the existing rules in it. We’re somewhat concerned that many people are going to be caught out by this because of a severe scarcity of publicity surrounding it. Hopefully though that’s not true of our licensees as we have been publishing updates regularly. Have you been reading them, folks?

Everyone should update themselves, but if you’re responsible for warehousing, storage and wholesaling, you really should take a read now!

Check out our comments in full in this news item…

There’s no doubt that the US consumer has been held up as the leading adopter of GM products. We’re told by our own leaders in Europe that it’s widely accepted in the States and we are simply acting like Luddites if we oppose its spread ‘over here’.

Well, a study released by the Soil Association charity is suggesting otherwise – that the US consumer has simply had little choice but to accept GMOs in their food because of the success of the biochem lobby to avoid any requirements to add information to packaging.

Surveys apparently tell a different story about shoppers’ perceptions and preferences, as does the formation of organisations pledging to keep GM at bay. Organic-market.info has done a helpful round-up of the Soil Association briefing, but you can download the whole thing for yourself from the SA website.

It has never been OF&Gs’ aim to bash non-organic farmers – only to back those who opt to see things our way! But we’ve always drawn the line at GM and in this we’re in agreement with SA. Both OF&G and Soil Association Certification opted to stick with a ban on GM at the lowest detectable level (0.1%) even when the EU decided that food with up to 0.9% GM contamination could be sold as organic.

Let’s hope the tide is turning against this unnecessary technology. The report is well worth a read.

Here he goes again! Sometimes OF&Gs’ Development Officer, Steven Jacobs, gets a bee in his bonnet. You could say he gets quite exercised about issues. Generally we consider this ‘a good thing’ . It tends to result in rather interesting articles that get written as part of a process that seems to be cathartic for him. As I key these words and look across the desk, he appears calm, for now. That too is ‘a good thing’!

Over to Steven:

Does organic make sense?

I have recently read a number of articles expressing the viewpoint that any increase in organic production will spell the end of civilisation as we know it.

One supposition is that we will not be able to feed people in sufficient numbers. This does rather fly in the face of reports on the increase in obesity and the millions of tons of food put into the waste stream.

Another assumption is that everyone involved in organic food production must be related to a member of the British aristocracy. Yeah right. Excuse me a moment while I instruct my valet to clean my bike.

Seriously though I believe that organic practices are sustainable, environmentally and commercially, especially in the long term.

The word sustainable, to my mind, means that something can be done with some measurable amount of conservancy and preservation. Couple this with development and you have a process that allows a species to grow with, rather than in spite of, its environment.

So I have two questions;
1. Is sustainable development a necessary step?
2. Can a commercial farming operation develop both economically and sustainably?

First then; the sustainable development angle. Otherwise known as the “Why bother?” principle. Soil is not an infinite commodity. It is a resource that must be managed very carefully or we face a rather bleak future. The International Food Policy Research Institute believes that soil in agricultural areas of the developing world has for sometime been seriously degraded;

“Estimates of land loss due to degradation vary widely, from 5 to 12 million hectares every year.”
And they state that;
“In systems with extensive agriculture on marginal lands, policies should aim to limit the environmental damage of farming practices at a minimal cost to farmers.”
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/BRIEFS/NUMBER58.HTM

The UK Government came out with the following statement on soil protection;
“Soil is a vital resource. Damage to soil structure and loss of soil through erosion reduces farm profitability and damages the environment. Run-off and soil erosion leads to the removal of topsoil with the possible loss of productivity of the soil. It can also damage crops, block drainage channels, have an adverse impact on water quality and aquatic life and lead to localised flooding. On-farm costs of soil erosion in England and Wales have been estimated at £8 million a year.”
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/oels/handbook/chapter3-j.htm

The RSPB put the case for organic cultivation;
“Research has shown that a wide range of plants and animals, including butterflies, birds and bats, benefit from organic management.”
“The RSPB supports organic farming and wants to see more of it.”

It would appear then that soil maintenance can be a massive factor in agricultural performance over a period of time.

This neatly leads on to the next question; economic viability of organic cultivation. Back in the early nineties when legislation on the term ‘organic’ came in many of us in the food and farming industries had severe reservations.  Our reasoning was that this could be the thin end of the wedge, before long we would all be legislated into an ever-tightening corner with costs spiralling as a result.

But then we saw the explosion of organic food sales. This was fuelled both by dissatisfaction from the consumer with food that looked good but lacked flavour and several issues over food safety. The legal status of organic has provided security, to the consumer and so to the producer/supplier.

The livelihood of those who grow, manufacture, pack, distribute and retail organic products relies on soil protection, animal welfare and the ability to clearly present the history of the product. The end user (you and I, when we go shopping) must feel confident that this organic item, although more money than its non-organic counterpart, has a fully traceable story, one that is enshrined in law.

That story is not just about animal health but also recounts the cost of food now reflecting the ability of the planet to sustain our populations tomorrow.

The US online journal Market Watch (www.marketwatch.com) predicts:

“Surge in Natural and Organic Food Sales Means Billion Dollar Boom

Consumers have become a whole lot savvier about what they eat and through increased educational efforts by both manufacturers and retailers they are increasingly buying more organic and natural food and beverage products. Not even the current economic upheaval due to the rising prices of fuel and grain is enough to impede the market’s steady development, which Packaged Facts projects will experience strong single-digit growth through 2013.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/surge-natural-organic-food-sales/story.aspx?guid={5479439E-CC6D-47D9-A9CA-1AEE0692F567}&dist=hppr

Of course these arguments fall on deaf ears in a world where companies such as those promoting GM do so under the guise of being helpful when the reality is that they will further remove the ability of the local farmers to control their own operation. GM seed, we are told, will be sterile and so rather than harvesting seed from their crop for planting in successive years they must each year return to the company and negotiate the purchase of more. This is to my mind not at all sustainable economically or otherwise.

There are occasions when some actors within the environment lobby baffle us here at OF&G. For instance when those who speak on behalf of organisations who develop conflicting standards whilst promulgating a line on purity tell us to be more appealing to the majority by lowering our standards we have to consider the fact that perhaps some of the most prominent players in the organic arena are somewhat confused.

The RSPB and an increasing number of successful companies, large, medium and small, have acknowledged something that our detractors still have not. Although people will always need food, and that food means business, business can grow well whilst maintaining the environment that it depends upon.

Those businesses in farming or food processing, large or small that have committed to adhere to this legal definition of organic have not done so lightly.

I am not alone when I say that it is not a question of whether organic farming makes economic sense. Its just that with an eye on the next five to 25 years, or so, perhaps it is very important to ask yourself whether it is wholly sensible on a commercial scale to do anything else.

Now then, Hudson, fetch me my bicycle clips would you please, there’s a good chap.

The Food Standards Agency has announced emergency measures to deal with the threat of GM rice, known as ‘Bt63′, from China creeping into the UK.

A long list of rice and rice products coming into the country will have to be certified free of Bt63 GM contamination because it is an unauthorised GMO in the EU.

The FSA has notified local authorities who will be responsible for liaising with businesses in their respective areas that might be importing or selling contaminated products.

It’s good to see positive and decisive(ish) steps being taken, but from OF&Gs’ point of view, we fear this is just the tip of a pretty worrying iceberg. As more GM products are shipped around the world (and there are many of them now) it gets harder to avoid contamination of organic and non-GM products, no matter whether it’s accidental (or adventitious) contamination.

If this happens supplies of organic and non-GM products are going to be even thinner on the ground than they are now – putting even greater pressure on prices for animal feeds and milling grade cereals. Perhaps the Bt63 scenario will re-open the public’s eyes to the Frankenstein Foods debate…