Cleaner Farming
Sorting the wheat from the chaff

A report from the Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology (CEST) on water pollution and agriculture, focusing on pesticides and nitrates, concludes that Cleaner Farming could be an answer.  CEST, an industry think tank, was set up in 1986 by Lady Thatcher, to improve the exploitation of science and technology by UK industry, taking a market driven approach. It is supported by 35 multinational corporations, and numbers ICI as a major funder, with small grants from the Cabinet Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
    The first part of its report reviews pollution sources and the position of agriculture as an industry. The preface wisely cautions that food and farming are emotive issues, and that too often this motivates the debate. However, the report as a whole does not live up to this standard. Citations are often presented without criticism, and conclusions often arrive unpresaged by evidence.
    There are a number of instances. To say that “applications of active ingredient in all pesticides except herbicides have since declined to a level below the equivalent of one paracetamol over ten square metres” says little about the issues but a lot about the way the report was put together. To say that “There is little evidence that the current system of farming is not sustainable” flies in the face of much evidence from world agriculture, trade and development—leaving aside overriding concerns about pest resistance to pesticides. Evidence presented to demonstrate the general safety of residues in food cites pesticides in general no longer used on food crops or which have been the subject of regulatory concern because of residues. The Ames view of cancer causation—that there are many more naturally toxic substances in our food than pesticides—is repeated without qualification. This ignores substantial criticisms by US regulators of the Ames position, and also occupational exposure. The answer to food shortages is presented simplistically as increased production, ignoring the experience of the major international agencies working in the field struggling with the politics and economics of distribution.

    The eponymous Cleaner Farming refers to 'low leakage' and inherently more efficient farming. Whilst the idea of reducing inputs is criticised, most of the argument is indeed about reducing inputs. Pesticide reduction policies are generally understood to include reducing use, reducing risk, and reducing the dependence of agriculture on chemical solutions.
    The cursory presentation of the report detracts from the more interesting areas, which could have been expanded. These include the lack of animal or other organic wastes or legume or grass/clover leys to increase soil fertility in integrated farming systems. The role of Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and its competition with other agencies for research funding is highlighted, together with the need to find new ways to transfer knowledge to farmers. An interesting analysis of research expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Research Councils, and levy funded bodies is also given. These aspects of the report might have been given more attention at the expense of the generalisations that tend to dominate the first part of the work.

Cleaner Farming, Dr. Neil Johnston, CEST, 5 Berners Road, London N1 0PW, £70, 119pp.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 22, December 1993, page 21]