The planet's salvation or an expensive waste of resources - Peter Melchett and Anthony Trewavas argue the case for and against organic farming and food.
Dear Lord Melchett, I do not support organic food and farming because:
Organic is (deliberately) inefficient in crop production and wastes land. If there is spare UK land, return it to its natural state, deciduous woodland. Worldwide, efficient farming spares wilderness, inefficient farming destroys it.
Around 200 medical investigations show that a diet high in conventionally farmed fruit and veg (with pesticide residues) halves cancer rates. The more you eat, the healthier you become; pesticide residues are irrelevant.
Price determines consumption. Scaremongering about conventional food will frighten people into eating pricier organic food. For those on moderate or low incomes, consumption will reduce, increasing cancer risks.
According to the Food Standards Agency and the British Nutrition Foundation, no health benefit will follow replacement of conventional fruit and vegetables by organic equivalents. Why waste money?
Responsible use of pesticides controls pests and keeps prices low. UK fruit and vegetable consumption has doubled since the war; health has benefited accordingly. Life expectancy continues to increase, as it has since 1840.
Advocates for organic systems claim they don't use chemicals. But manure contains thousands of chemicals, including all the mineral 'fertilisers' conventional farmers use. Yours sincerely, Anthony Trewavas FRS
Dear Professor Trewavas, Farming is in a mess, and non-organic farming has made a mess of our countryside. In the past 30 years, we've lost half a million dormice, one-and-a-half million tree sparrows and six million skylarks. Independent scientists, conservation groups and the government all blame industrial farming. Also, foot-and-mouth and BSE aren't "scaremongering" - they're all too real to those affected.
Many consumers believe that organic food is good for the environment. Now organics have received government endorsement from an organic action plan. This says that organic farming is better for wildlife, causes lower pollution from sprays, produces less carbon dioxide, has high animal welfare standards and increases rural employment. Organic food is subject to tight, legally enforceable standards and controls. The Soil Association allows farmers restricted use of just four chemicals, compared to 430 in non-organic farming. All this justifies the faith that consumers have in organic food, and explains why demand for it continues to grow. Yours sincerely, Peter Melchett
Dear Lord Melchett, Winter cereals, planted by organic farmers too, cause some bird species to decline, but others take their place. British cats kill roughly 300 million birds and small mammals (such as dormice) a year. Foot-and-mouth was no respecter of organic farms or methods.
Scientific comparisons of farming methods, using the same farm and farmer for 17 years, concluded in favour of integrated farm management (ifm), and government policy will soon reflect that. In terms of landscape, ecology and animal welfare, ifm equals that of any organic farm but keeps prices low. Ploughing is the most damaging soil treatment, but is needed by organic farmers to destroy weeds. Compared with organic, no-plough (or 'conservation') ifm raises soil carbon, slashes soil erosion, uses a third of the fossil fuel, and promotes soil biodiversity and bird territories. Nitrate pollution from organic farms is double that of conservation ifm. The organic action plan simply aimed to reduce the 70 per cent of foreign organic food flown in on petrol-guzzling aircraft. And do tell me, why did the Soil Association suppress a report on organic food and supermarkets? Yours, Anthony Trewavas FRS
Dear Professor Trewavas, It was an article, not a report, and it's published on our website. The Soil Association works with supermarkets such as Waitrose, which sources 85 per cent of its organic food from the UK, and aims for 100 per cent where possible. As you say, the action plan aims to get others to do so, and to urge schools and hospitals to buy organic food as well. A 21-year comparison of organic and non-organic farming in Europe showed organics produced more food using less energy and created richer soils. Organic farming often gives higher yields in developing countries, too, where sprays and fertilisers are scarce and expensive.
No animal born and reared organically in the UK ever got BSE, and we opposed the foot-and-mouth slaughter and called for vaccination - a stance now shown to be right. I am fond of our family cat, and I don't think he, or anyone else's pet, is to blame for a decline in wildlife. The idea is a bit silly. People have kept cats as pets for thousands of years, and it is only in the past 50 years, since the start of chemical farming, that wildlife has begun to disappear. We can repair the damage - on my own farm in Norfolk we have three times the number of hares, four times the skylarks and five times the partridges that we had before we started to go organic. Yours, Peter Melchett
What do you think? Let us know at the usual address or via email. More information on this issue can be found on the websites of the Soil Association (www.soilassociation.org) and leaf (www.leaf.org).