Research organics intensively, say MPs

Eurofood, Feb 1, 2001

The UK's House of Commons agriculture committee, in a report on the organics industry published on Wednesday, stated its reservations about claims made for organic food. It believes far more work needs to done to establish a scientific basis for the claimed benefits. The members of parliament were conscious that the consumer may attribute benefits to organic products which cannot be sustained in the present state of scientific knowledge - and which cannot legally be claimed by producers. "We have reservations about the claims made for organics and we believe far more work needs to be done to establish a scientific basis for their claims. This would then sustain a rationale for the standards applied and, together with research into technical issues, could lead to great advances by organic farmers. It is vital that consumers get what they believe they are paying for, which is why we attach such importance to clear standards. It is also vital the taxpayer gets what he or she is paying for, which is why we support an organic stewardship scheme in which government grants would reward proven environmental benefits," stated the report.

Farm sector revitalised by organics

The high demand for organic products has revitalised the UK agricultural sector at a time of great trouble for the rest of the industry, the parliamentary committee stated. However the report cautioned that the organics industry should market its products effectively so that they appeal not to public sentiments but to proven benefits. "The industry may need to be less messianic and more marketing-orientated in its public presentations," it said. The report stated, "We applaud the efforts of the organic movement in responding to public demand so quickly. However, the sudden increase has led to problems in the over-subscription of organic services, from government grants to certification of farms and imported products."

The committee questioned whether there was any need for the government to provide support for a market that was obviously strong. They believed there was a case for exercising caution when it came to regulating the industry. "There is an argument over whether the government should invest now to meet more of the current level of demand from domestic supplies or whether in the longer term this would do more harm than good by creating a sudden glut on the organic market, an agricultural equivalent of a boom and bust, economic cycle." It also said there were fears that the growth in organic demand was leading to a loss of control by the industry over its traditional values, as larger and more commercially orientated farmers and supermarkets became more dominant in the market. "These difficulties can be resolved by the industry acknowledging the fears and working towards better supplier relationships and stronger producer-controlled co-operatives," said the committee.

Interdependence

The report ended by stressing the need to see organic and conventional agriculture as interdependent. The organic sector was unlikely ever to be able to supply all the country's food needs, which made it important that organic and conventional farming systems worked in tandem and learnt from each other.

"We wish to see the best techniques of both systems used to ensure the greatest benefits for farmers, consumers and the wider community," the committee concluded.