“Organic production contributes to a high level of biodiversity and the preservation of species and natural habitats.”

A misleading statement, and part of the European Commission’s official organic campaign. Organic production can in fact lead to the destruction of natural habitats; and a loss of habitats will usually result in a loss of species.

The ‘preservation of natural habitats’ is a common claim made in favour of organic agriculture; it is an argument put forward by organic enthusiasts who misunderstand the relationship between agriculture* and the European ‘natural’ environment.

Let’s firstly consider the fact that Europe has little in the way of ‘natural habitat’; centuries of extensive land use (mainly farming) have created a patchwork of cultural landscapes – a rich and diverse collection of habitats and species that we call the ‘countryside’. Many of Europe’s natural habitats are the direct or indirect result of human intervention – most notably – agricultural practices. Europe is essentially a very large – in places intensively managed – garden. When we venture outside of our urban spaces into the ‘countryside’, we are not entering ‘wilderness’ or ‘virgin territory’, what we see is diverse, beautiful and ‘natural’, but very much of our design.

The most serious threat to nature (without exception) is land use change that results in the loss of natural areas and precious habitats.

Biodiversity needs space to survive, areas for habitats that support the wildlife upon which agriculture relies. Europe uses around 40% of its land for agriculture, so it is not surprising that demand for agricultural land is cited as the single biggest contributor to biodiversity loss in Europe.

If the biggest threat to biodiversity is the loss of habitats to agricultural land, then perhaps the key focus for biodiversity conservation should be to support the implementation of modern agricultural practices that maximise output on the existing agricultural land base – in other words, to adopt farming practices that reduce the need for expanding farmland in to natural areas.

Fact: inefficient farming practices require more land to produce the same yield.
Fact: crop protection products (pesticides) improve crop yield per land area.

Pesticides can be harmful to biodiversity if overused or misused; but, they also provide a means to save biodiversity by making better use of existing agricultural land and therefore avoiding continued loss of natural habitats.

As populations continue to grow, demand for food rises, and so too do concerns about food security. Pesticides and other agricultural technologies offer solutions for sustainable agriculture and provide means for us to ‘produce more, with less’. A trait of timely importance as today farmers are required to increase productivity and at the same time protect nature and biodiversity, all whilst making more efficient use of natural resources.

This is an incredible challenge, and whilst modern agricultural practices offer solutions, political and cultural barriers can inhibit progress. The tendency for certain political or interest group campaigns to uphold organic agriculture as the ‘green’ way, or the answer to our biodiversity conservation problems, is essentially counterproductive. Organic agriculture is an important facet of a necessarily diverse array of agricultural practices, but it is too hungry for land to be the only solution to halting the loss of biodiversity.

–
*This is the second in a series of posts we’ll be making, examining the misleading nature of parts of the EC’s organic campaign. We examine the campaign with crop production in mind – livestock and other agriculture is not considered.

There is a belief that in comparison to conventional agriculture organic is always better; that it’s friendlier to the environment, that the food that it produces is healthier and safer.

The problem with the argument that organic agriculture is better than conventional farming is that it very often is unsupported by sound scientific proof – it is also an unfounded generalisation. Perpetuating ‘organic myths’ with slogans and clichés designed to inspire confidence is not difficult and that’s why we need to cast a critical eye over some of these messages and enter the debate with data, sound scientific evidence and a bit of common sense.

The European Commission has joined the discussion on organic farming vs. conventional by sponsoring the “Good for nature, good for you campaign” and promoting it with several ‘key messages’. My absolute favourite -“Organic farming. Wickedly good” is too ambiguous to analyse – what does this even mean? Fortunately several of the organic campaign slogans can be understood – let’s take a look at a couple of them.

Green label – red light

The first EC slogan I would like to address is: ”organic products meet consumer demand for authentic, high quality and tasty food”.

Misleading! All food must meet the same inspection and fulfil the same food safety standards before being placed on the market, both conventionally produced as well as organically. You need to know that the organic label does not indicate whether the product is actually of a higher quality, it merely indicates the style of production. With adherence to European legislation all food that reaches supermarket shelves is safe and of high quality. Where taste is concerned, claims that organic produce tastes better are false. The benefits of organic consumption are controversial and there are simply not enough facts to confirm those claims.

In fact current scientific evidence shows that organic food isn’t any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced goods. Dr Alan Dangour in his recent study revealed that only some out of 162 studies that were included in his analysis didn’t show any distinction between organic and conventionally products. Most of those differences were marginal and as he explained it was mainly due to ripeness of harvest. This variable has little to do with the farming. These studies prove that ‘organics products being more real are not very realistic. The statement is misleading with its claims that only organic food is tastier and better, when evidence shows that conventionally produced goods are no different.

In label we trust

The second slogan is: “organic labeling offers consumers’ confidence that their goods are produced under controlled organic standards”.

Before labelling this label, let’s consider, in the first place, the main purpose of product labelling. EU legislation on food labelling has three main aims. The first is to protect the consumer from buying products which might not be good for his or health; the second is to enhance free movement of food products; the third is to inform and thereby enable well-versed choices.

Now the statement of the Commission does not in itself constitute a misleading claim. Organic labelling denotes adherence to organic standards. That is, at first glance, pretty straightforward. But to see the political baggage loaded onto that sentence one must concentrate on the key association which is being made here: that between organic labelling and consumer confidence. In essence the hidden message is that organic labelling elicits confidence. But surely all labelling – if done correctly – must elicit consumer confidence!

Generally speaking, it may have been better to say that: “labelling offers consumers confidence that their goods are produced under controlled standards.” The campaign statement emphasises the confidence generated by organic labelling, and in doing so shows us its hand.

Organic and conventional foods both have to meet the same legal food safety requirements and in both cases the label informs consumers on the product ingredients. Unfortunately the fact that the vast majority of consumers don’t understand what organic standards mean has created a loophole which can be exploited.

Studies show that when the average shopper is asked about his or her understanding of “organic” he or she immediately answers – “more expensive and chemical free“. The first part of the response is correct – organic is more expensive. But “chemical free”? Not quite. The truth is that organic food is produced with restricted use of fertilizers and pesticides. And even one of the strongest voices of the organic industry – the Soil Association – has admitted that “without pesticides” was amended to “minimal means with minimal dose”.

In conclusion, labels elicit trust. If that trust is abused what we get is manipulation; not information.

Don’t judge food by its label

On another note we trust labels and it often can mislead us. We assume that the professor with wavy grey hair is a serious scientist. We believe that the smartly dressed woman is a successful professional. We trust that the organic label is healthier than any other brand on supermarket shelves. The tendency to unconsciously link positive attributes to sexy stereotypes influences our every day choices.

It is on the basis of such human behaviour that Cornell University researcher Jenny Wan-Chen Lee tested the effects of labeling on consumer perceptions. This is the health halo effect speaking. Lee gave the experiments participants’ yoghurts, chocolate and potato chips fixing organic labels onto half of the products – the other half had regular labels. Yet what the participants were not aware of was the fact that all of the products were organic produce. At the end of the experiment participants were asked about their preferences.

The majority of participants preferred the products with the organic label. Explanations for their choices included claims that the food was lower in calories, higher in nutritional value and containing more fiber; of course this was neither true nor verifiable with only a taste-test. The experiment successfully exposed the power of ‘organic suggestion’.

Pesticides are used to kill the bugs and diseases that destroy agricultural crops. These bugs and diseases are part of ‘biodiversity’, the variety that exists between life forms. Paradoxically agriculture needs biodiversity – relies on it in fact. Biodiversity pollinates plants, it purifies water, prevents soil erosion, it even helps control the climate through the sequestration of carbon dioxide. Without biodiversity there would be no agriculture, but left to the mercy of biological diversity, and the hard knocks rule of survival of the fittest (Darwin’s ‘natural selection’) we would struggle to feed ourselves – pests and plant diseases taking food from our mouths.

Lost

By controlling the impacts of pests and diseases pesticides allow us to maximise agricultural productivity and ensure food supply meets the demand of a rapidly growing population. As much as 40-80% of crop yields can be lost to pests and disease – this is the reality of pesticide free agriculture. Organic farming might be considered proof that an alternative to pesticides exist, but in reality organic crops are also protected with pesticides – without them yield loss is too great.

Plant more

If we want to farm pesticide free, but still produce the required quantities of food, we simply have to plant more crops to compensate for expected losses. If we want ten potatoes, we will have to plant 20 because we anticipate pests and disease will claim up to half of them. This approach could theoretically rid us of the need to use pesticides, but at what cost?
 

Space, the final frontier – not least for biodiversity

Biodiversity needs space to survive, areas for habitats that support the wildlife upon which agriculture relies. Europe uses around 40% of its land for agriculture, so it is not surprising that demand for agricultural land is cited as the single biggest contributor to biodiversity loss in Europe.

If the biggest threat to biodiversity is the loss of habitats to agricultural land, then perhaps the key focus for biodiversity conservation should be to support the implementation of modern agricultural practices that maximise output on the existing agricultural land base. Fact: inefficient farming practices require more land to produce the same yield.

Save biodiversity

So we return to the paradox of pesticide use. Pesticides can be harmful to biodiversity, but they also provide a means to save biodiversity by making best use of existing agricultural land and avoiding continued loss of natural habitats.

As populations continue to grow, demand for food rises, and so do concerns about food security. Today, farmers are required to increase productivity and at the same time protect nature and biodiversity to ensure we have continued means to feed ourselves.

Pesticides are frequently cited by environmental groups as something nature and biodiversity could do without – but is the opposite true – could modern agricultural practices be the savior of biodiversity?

–

One last thing…

It is important to note that the presence of agriculture does not always result in less biodiversity – in many cases the opposite is true, for example, land abandonment of extensive farmland in Central and Eastern Europe has resulted in a regional loss of biodiversity.

In ‘Food for Thought: Organic Grub Worth Buying?’ we hear that as US organic sales increase, so do consumer questions about what ‘organic‘ actually means. Answers to this same question in the UK met with surprise early this year, as a report explained that organic does not mean ‘pesticide free’ – perhaps as shocking to some as an earlier report published by the UK Food Standards Agency, claiming that organic food ‘has no health benefits‘ over conventionally grown produce. Essentially this is good news for the consumer – you can receive the same health benefits from conventionally grown (and mostly cheaper) fruits and vegetables.

 

Organic pesticides

It is true that organic farmers, faced with the loss of their crops, often use ‘conventional’ pesticides, but there are more tools in the organic farmers toolbox, so called ‘organic’ pesticides (sometimes referred to as ‘green’ or ‘ecological’ pesticides). Organic pesticides are claimed to be naturally derived rather than synthetically produced, but this does not tell us anything about their relative safety or impact on the environment. We must also remind ourselves that the most toxic substances known are found in nature: in other words, natural does not always equal safe. Steve Savage, who keeps a blog at eatdrinkbetter.com last week posted ‘The “Pesticide From Hell” (oh, by the the way, its “Organic”)‘, an interesting article on one the oldest and still most used ‘organic’ pesticides – Sulphur (sulfur). Steve points out that sulphur compounds must be used in considerably higher quantities than effective and highly targeted ‘manufactured’ crop protection products; in addition to being one of the most common causes of pesticide user health complaints, there is also an association with bird mortality. Copper sulphate, another commonly use organic pesticide, combines copper and sulphur in a form that is permanently destructive of soil if overused. In terms of the regulation of use of crop protection measures, in the European Union organic pesticides are subject to the same strict regulations as conventional products.
 

Overlooked

The fact that organic farming often makes use of pesticides (of the organic and conventional varieties) is largely overlooked or poorly communicated – reinforcing misconceptions about crop production and crop protection. Recent media coverage of organic agriculture does suggest that the public is beginning to question their understanding of the term ‘organic’. The current economic crisis will have no doubt contributed; with less disposable income it is perhaps no surprise that consumers pass on some of the more expensive items on their shopping list. Rightly or wrongly, organic is often considered something of a ‘niche market’ – with products being more expensive than their conventionally grown alternatives they are unlikely to feature in a ‘recession diet‘.
 

Unsustainable

The reality of agriculture is that pests must be managed to avoid devastating loss to crops, something independent of the ideology of farmer or consumer. Whilst some loss is indeed expected, without crop protection measures a loss of over 40% yield is possible – this is unsustainable.
 

An ecological way

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a good practice approach to crop protection. IPM is an integrated strategy for crop management, designed to solve ecological problems when applied in agriculture. Performed in three main stages: prevention, observation, and intervention IPM combines pesticide use with biological and sophisticated management techniques to manage pest populations in an ecological way. IPM can be used by both conventional and organic agriculture.

In the video below, Professor Sir Gordon Conway of the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, explains Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and how it helps farmers. He goes on to tell us how pesticides can be used in conjunction with natural enemy controls, such as parasites and other predators, to help protect farmers’ crops from losses.

French activists MDRGF (Movement for Rights and Respect for Future Generations) are preparing for their annual ‘Week without pesticides’ (20th-30th March). Since its debut in 2006, this event has seen some growth in popularity across France and a handful of other European countries.

The ‘Week without pesticides’ aims to educate the public on health and environmental risks of pesticide use, and prove that viable alternatives to chemical treatments exist. You can follow the activities of the ‘Week without pesticides’ at their campaign website.

Providing information to the general public on the realities of modern agriculture is an important and challenging task (there are indications that the general public has limited knowledge of modern agriculture). Without all of the information, how are we expected to make informed decisions – the right decisions?

One reality is that most weeks are ‘without pesticides’. Pesticides are used only when they are needed to fight pests and diseases – they are not applied on a daily basis or without good cause. The impact of reducing pesticide use to zero would be dramatic – Europe would suffer an approximate loss of 50% of food crop from pests and diseases without the intervention of pesticides. CropLife America state that up to 40% of the world’s potential crop production is already lost annually because of the effects of weeds, pests and disease – these crop losses would be doubled if existing pesticide use was abandoned. Pesticides are even used in organic agriculture, so the bio sector would also suffer considerably.

CropLife America estimate that crop protection products preserve upwards of $45 billion of produce worldwide each year. Failure to protect our crops would have enormous implications on the global economy, and would seriously impact on food security. Earth will be home to an estimated 9 billion people (around 2 billion more than today) by the year 2050. We are already struggling to feed 7 billion – can we feed 9 billion without effective crop protection measures? The FAO estimates that, even with improved food distribution, food production will need to increase 70% by 2050 to cope with a 40% increase in world population.

European agriculture must find a sustainable way to feed a growing population, adapt to climate change, limit greenhouse gas emissions, minimise impact on the natural environment, continue to operate within strict European guidelines, and produce food which is affordable.

Faced with the challenge of improving agricultural production, modern agriculture looks to technology for sustainable solutions. One solution is maximising food production on the existing agricultural land-base – this is considered beneficial as it limits expansion of the agricultural footprint, reducing the need for deforestation and the destruction of natural habitats. It is pesticides that allow us to maximise yield and avoid the geographic expansion of agricultural land.

If we want to produce more food on the existing agricultural land-base and ensure food remains affordable, it seems pesticides will have an important role to play – if this is indeed the case, focus should continue to be on ensuring their safe and sustainable use.

Food production, food cost, food security, health and the environment (to name a few) are all influenced by crop protection – they are themes which concern all of us. The ‘Week without pesticides’ is an opportunity to join the debate on these important issues – issues plural, because it’s not just about crop protection, it’s not that easy.

MDRGF and WWF France have recruited singing garden gnomes (’Les Pestes Acides‘) as part of their ‘Week without pesticides’ information campaign. Innovation may have overtaken information in this video, but I do see good Eurovision Song Contest potential - enjoy!

It’s St. Valentines Day, and countless millions bouquets of flowers and single red roses are being given to wives, partners and lovers the world around. I don’t know a chrysanthemum from a cactus, so the choice is never easy, and it just got harder.

Spotting a gap in the market, flower growers have been pushing organic roses as the ‘green’ choice for this year’s St. V. So now I’ve not only to decide how many roses, but also how they were grown.

I could choose conventionally grown roses – a bouquet grown to perfection with a little help from some pesticide. They’re roses, it’s Valentines Day… they’ll not be cheap,

Or I could opt for the organic roses – a bouquet grown to organic perfection with a little less help from pesticide. They’re roses, it’s Valentines Day, they’re organic… they’ll not be cheap.

I can’t decide.

Maybe I’ll go for the organic, there’s a better chance I’ll surprise her twice…

The international news channel France 24 recently features two insightful debates in its program ‘Face-off’.

The first one, entitled ‘Organic Food: not so wholesome?’, picks up on an ongoing furore around the now famous Food Standards Agency (FSA) report on organic (see our last two posts). The debate includes some interesting comments by Olivier Andrault from the Consumer Association UFC-Que Choisir and Diego Garcia from L’Agence Bio.

The second debate - ‘Toxic algae: the new silent killer?’ – features a conversation with Antoine Foucher, Campaign Director at Greenpeace International, and Jean-Charles Bocquet, General Manager at the French Crop Protection Association, on toxic algae and beach pollution.

Highly recommended!

An independent review published by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) concludes that there are no differences in nutrition content or other health benefits between food produced using organic methods and that grown using scientific agriculture (read the FSA’s new release here). It will come as no surprise to anyone that the report has sparked a heated debate in the press and the blogosphere! Please find below a small selection of press articles and blog posts from across the divide discussing the report. Do feel free to comment or to recommend further articles by clicking on the tab above.

Press
Organic food is not healthier, says FSA (The Guardian)
Don’t write off organic food (The Daily Telegraph)
Organic food ‘no healthier than conventional’ (The Independent)
Organic has no health benefits (BBC)
Les bénéfices du «bio» en question (Le Figaro)
Il biologico? Fa bene solo a chi lo produce (La Stampa)

Blogs
Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed (Huffington Post)
News Report: Organic food no healthier, but is that all that matters… (Daily Cup of Yoga)
Organic Isn’t Healthier, But People Will Keep Buying (Humblement)
Organic Food Trash? Or Just Trashing Organic Food? (Unbossed)
Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed (Civil Eats)
Will you still shop organic after the publication of the FSA findings? (Ooffoo)
Joanna Blythman: Please Read the Data Appendices About Organic Food Before Conjuring ‘Cancerous Conspiracies’: Part 1 (Holford Watch)
Organic no better says FSA (Grow organic food)

Please find below some recent articles on pesticides and related topics. Do feel free to recommend more articles by selecting “Recommend a page or site” above or access a more comprehensive list of articles by using the Delicious cloud in the right-hand colmumn.

• The Three A’s of Food Security (Sciencebase blog)
• Differing patterns in food price falls (BBC)
• French village goes organic one day a week (3News)
• EU survey reveals poor state of biodiversity (Euractiv)
• EU farm subsidies ‘inconsistent’ with global food security (Euractiv)
• Sweden introduces climate labelling for food (Euractiv)
• World food prices: Whatever happened to the food crisis? (The Economist)
• Agriculture Demand Outpacing Honeybee Increase, Researchers Say (Bloomberg)
• EFSA publishes report on pesticide residues in food (Food Production Daily)
• Forum on the Future of Agriculture goes on the road… (Blogactiv)

Last week the European Commission announced the completion of its review of pesticides that were on the market before 1993. The review looked at about 1000 substances used in conventional and organic agriculture. In their press statement, the Commission said that the pesticides “have undergone a detailed risk evaluation with respect to their effects on humans and on the environment”.

In the press statement the EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said: “Today represents a milestone in our effort to ensure improved protection of human health and the environment. The review of existing pesticides has lead to the removal from the market of more than two thirds of these substances. I can now say with confidence that our food has become greener.”

Of those 1000 pesticides removed from the market, the vast majority of pesticides (67%) didn’t qualify because their dossiers were either not submitted, incomplete or withdrawn by industry. 7% of dossiers submitted failed the review. 26% of substances were approved.

To promote the end of this review programme, the Commission has produced a factsheet “ EU action on pesticides”

Yesterday the Commission launched a new pesticide database listing active substances. The database is available to the general public. To access it click here.

Download a copy of their factsheet.