Why going organic could cost the earth
Pastor Dale Morgan
Why going organic could cost the earth*
20.02.07
Associated Newspapers Limited
Organic food: Could be more environmentally damaging than mass-produced
crops
UK -- Organic food could actually be worse for the environment than
produce grown using pesticides and fertilisers, say scientists.
A government report claims that, despite its eco-friendly image, some
organic farming creates greater pollution and contributes more to global
warming.
According to the study, certain organic foodstuffs — such as milk,
chicken and tomatoes — produce more greenhouse gases, create more soil
and water pollutants and require more energy and land for their
production than those farmed by conventional methods.
As the first major report on the environmental impact of organic food
production, the document will reignite the debate over the £1.6billion
industry, which grew by almost a third last year alone and now accounts
for four per cent of farm produce.
The market is forecast to be worth £2.7billion by 2010.
"You cannot say that all organic food is better for the environment than
all food grown conventionally," said Ken Green, professor of
environmental management at Manchester Business School, who conducted
the research with the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs.
"If you look carefully at the amount of energy required to produce these
foods, you get a complicated picture.
"In some cases, the carbon footprint for organics is larger."
The report looked at Britain's 150 top-selling foodstuffs, as identified
by supermarkets, and assessed energy use, the effect of by-products from
farming, and the impact of processing and packaging of both methods.
It concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" to prove organically
farmed food was better for the environment.
"In particular, organic agriculture poses its own environmental problems
in the production of some foods, either in terms of nutrient release to
water or in terms of climate change burdens," the report said.
For example, because organic chickens were reared for longer than
battery hens, they had a larger environmental impact.
The study comes as organic farmers reel from last month's comments by
Environment
Secretary David Miliband, who suggested organic food was simply a
"lifestyle choice" and there was no evidence it was a healthier option
for consumers.
Even the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David
King, has previously expressed his reservations about its overall
benefits compared with chemically treated produce.
The findings of the report are, however, unlikely to sway advocates of
organic farming, who maintain that it is still better for "biodiversity"
than intensive farming.
The Soil Association, the country's main organic certification body,
conceded that organic farming was not always energy-efficient, citing as
examples poultry farming and growing vegetables out of season.
However, it claimed these disadvantages were vastly outweighed by other
factors not assessed in the Defra study, such as animal welfare and soil
conditions.
Around 350 pesticides are allowed in conventional farming, and an
estimated 4.5billion litres of chemicals are used on British farms each
year. Many consumers say organic food tastes better but it is, of
course, more expensive.
For example, an organic chicken costs about £8.50 in a supermarket,
almost three times the price of its non-organic counterpart.