In general responses to the proposals by
Prof James for the creation of a Food Standards Agency (FSA) have been
favourable (see PN p14). You have some reservations however?
Virtually all responses welcome the FSA, and the momentum now seems largely
unstoppable. The proposals within the James report to increase public
representation and scrutiny on post farm gate policing of food and the
maintenance of high standards in the food industry are long overdue. But the
problem for the most eminent nutritionist in the country was that his task was
to restructure MAFF when his expertise is restricted to food quality.
The recommended structure does not make the connection
between food quality and method of production. It is what the proposals leave
out that concerns me, not what they include. In their present form they do not
deal with the recent food scares which necessitated the creation of the FSA:
bacterial contamination of food which includes BSE; problems with pesticides;
genetic engineering; and declines in food quality.
These problems all result from intensification of
agriculture. None of them is post farm gate. The very best the Agency will do in
its present form is clean up the damage which is inherent in the breakdown,
whether it is the bacterial contamination or improving the post-slaughter
process. I fear the proposed structure will throw out the baby with the bath
water. To put these things right, you need a ministry with the expertise to do
it.
The National Food Alliance (NFA) has
described the proposals as a "modern, rational and progressive food policy"
and consumer groups have welcomed the minority role of
'industry' on the food safety committees. Whatare your views?
The degree of emphasis given to the pre-farm gate issues should exceed
the post-farm gate issues. This point has been missed by virtually every NGO
responding to this document. I find this really worrying. A lesser role for
industry is a healthy development in principle. But it depends what you mean by
industry. For instance farmers are 'industry'!
How will the change affect organic farming?
In responding for the UK Register of Organic Farming Standards (UKROFS)
Prof. Sir Colin Spedding pointed out that UKROFS is the only part of MAFF that
has been addressing the problem of food safety for the last decade. UKROFS has
also recommended ways to overcome these problems but was not consulted about the
FSA. In rebuilding MAFF, components of the UKROFS committee could be usefully
absorbed.
In the organic movement the progress made during the last
10-20 years was brought about by people who were primary producers, and who
often became involved in distribution. These are people whose knowledge was
absolutely vital in developing organic standards.
There is a balance to be struck between people who know the
problems and people who are not technically expert but represent independent and
consumer interests. As somebody who has farmed for 14 years, I know very well
that without technical expertise it is quite impossible to write a prescription
for an agricultural system which does not create food safety problems.
There has been an increase in organic farming in recent
years, is there now an element of the food industry that reflects this
commitment to environmental concerns?
Yes there is. In the organic farm industry, there are a small number of
companies whose products are trusted by consumers, which become role models for
'processing with principles'. Food processors who are trusted by
consumer/environmentalists share certain characteristics. They are virtually all
exclusively organic. Most of the initiators were first involved with primary
production, and then realised they needed to develop a market, and the only way
to do that would be to set up companies.
Suppose everybody agrees that intensive agriculture was wrong
and something must be done to put British agriculture on a better track. Who
will reconstruct our agricultural practices to ensure high quality, high safety
standards, sustainable soil fertility, minimal damage to the environment? Where
is that expertise going to come from under the new FSA? In Prof. James' model
for the FSA, there are no 'lines of communication' that connect the old MAFF
with the dominant FSA. Where are the architects of sustainable agriculture in
the great James mission?
So the FSA has a missing link which does
not allow it to couple with sustainable agriculture?
Yes. The prime minister, Tony Blair, was correct to appoint Prof.
James, but he should have gone to someone else who understood the agricultural
side of the equation and said "between the two of you come up with proposals
that not only look after consumers interests but also sort out the production
problems."
I think the FSA is radical enough, but it has a structural
flaw, we all see MAFF as so irretrievably bad, that we cannot see a way in which
it can be re-built.
So you think shifting pesticides safety
from MAFF to the Department of Health is a good idea?
The idea of making a link between the effects of intensive farming on
human health is good. The connection is there in the same way that agriculture
has an effect on the environment.
With the old order, consumers said "we want cheap food,"
and farmers saw consumers as an irritant standing in the way of the cosy
relationship they had with MAFF. This was the era when MAFF prevailed and
farmers got it all their own way. Ironically producers are now cast as evil by
Prof. James and the consumer this time has the upper hand. The producers had
their way and now the consumer does-it is like going to war.
I do not want to see the antagonism continue. I would rather
see consumers understanding agriculture, recognising the linkages and
integrating these interests in the new agency.
Therefore in addition to the FSA
proposals, MAFF needs serious reform?
Absolutely. There should be a White Paper that recognises the many
strengths of Prof. James' proposals. It should also develop a blueprint for
sustainable agriculture in Britain to support the FSA. I would like to see an
integrated Ministry of Sustainable Agriculture and Food Standards that builds
the bridge between the FSA and the old MAFF.
At one of his recent 'meet the people' sessions I asked
Tony Blair if the government takes organic farming seriously. He said "the
government is spending £4 billion on the consequences of BSE, and any form of
agriculture that avoids further problems has got to be taken seriously."
The cost of unsustainable farming is such that it is worth
spending large amounts avoiding those problems in the future. You will not
achieve this simply through independent food scientists, as glorified food
police.
What do you understand 'food safety'
and 'food quality' to mean in relation to sustainable farming?
In the long run the health of the population will be directly affected
by the quality of the way we husband and nurture the soil. This can only come
from sustainable management practices recognising the principles of avoiding
pests and diseases through, for example, rotational practices. Sustainable
agriculture is based on the principle of healthy plants. Plants remain healthy
if you feed and husband them in the right way. So the idea that we can create a
healthy population simply by tuning the fat and sugar intake does not recognise
that the issues are much more subtle than that.
Who could do the same as Prof. James in
relation to sustainable agriculture?
I would like to suggest a university in the UK that specialises in
sustainable agriculture and has a department sufficiently developed to offer
relevant advice. The nearest thing we have is Nick Lampkin at the University of
Aberystwyth. There are a number of professorships in Germany universities now
that specialise in sustainable agriculture, but we do not have one yet.
Could you suggest factors that
incorporate the sustainable agriculture scenario in the FSA.
Current methods of agriculture are unsustainable because we have
developed input-dependent agriculture. We have abandoned rotational practices
and husbandry and have substituted them with chemical fertilisers and
pesticides, resulting in a breakdown in health. We grow crops
continuously-relying on monocultures-that is the basis of all modern
agriculture. As a result, plants develop thin cell walls and have an
increased proneness to fungal and pest attack. Also, intensive fertiliser use
allows a few arable weeds to thrive, leading to greater herbicide use.
Intensive livestock production leads to the increasing use of
antibiotics. Intensive sheep production leads to the use of anthelmintics
(veterinary drugs) leading to the worms becoming resistant.
We have to move away from unsustainable practices and
re-introduce rotational farming which builds fertility through the use of
legumes, rather than through imported nitrogen fertilisers.
We have to re-introduce cultural and husbandry techniques for
the control of weeds. For example, you do not get blackgrass in cereals when you
rotate crops. This is what I call a sustainable alternative-I try to avoid the
word 'organic', which brings out prejudice and creates a polarity that
I want to move away from. We want to discuss the issues not the terms.
Is there a role for genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in sustainable agriculture?
Sustainable agriculture does not need genetic engineering because there
are too many risks. We support the labelling of 'GMO food', but it is only a
staging point to rid sustainable agriculture of GMOs. Soya is a perfect
example. You cannot stop genetically engineered soya from mixing with
non-affected soya (despite the efforts of the organic movement).
The genetic engineering approach is hostile to biodiversity
and to the kind of sustainable techniques that we need to promote.
Will the measures you are proposing be
cost effective?
In the long run without question! The Danes are currently discussing
banning the use of pesticides (see page 9). If you did this you could abandon
the Pesticides Safety Directorate-you would not need them any more. That
element of cost associated with the PSD goes.
Should the factors you have outlined have
specific reduction targets?
Yes, absolutely. We are not going to reconstruct agriculture
overnight-it is going take years if not decades to achieve it. In some cases
we have changed the structure so much, especially in the all arable area-we
have taken all the hedges out, and there are no stock buildings left.
We should set targets and have a carrot and stick approach.
The 'stick' includes the regulatory floor which outlaws
the worst practices, including the use of some pesticides and other inputs.
We should apply the polluter pays principle to ensure those
who are damaging the water environment pay at source, rather than relying on the
water companies to clean up afterwards.
The 'carrots' should include capital grants for
re-construction work and support payments for farmers who adopt management
prescriptions that deliver the outcomes recommended by the FSA proposals.
In the US they have a target for IPM, do
you think that is a good idea?
I think IPM is a staging post on the route to the elimination of
pesticides in agriculture. As long as you are using artificial fertilisers you
will need to use pesticides. If you are going to use pesticides you should
have the responsibility to use them sensibly. In my view that is the bottom
line. I do not think there is anything remotely radical about IPM-it is more
or less the status quo. If you 'boil down' all the elements of IPM, what
they really say is "if you do use them then use them safely and don't use
more than you really need to."
How do you get farmers to change their
practices, won't they see the FSA as highly critical, will groups like LEAF
help?
I think the IPM schemes whether they be LEAF or the NFU protocols are
just 'good practice', a safety floor through which no farmers should go. The
problem is you start to glorify them and say they can be used to achieve food
safety environmental protection which is going to deliver everything all at
once. I do not believe you can have a twin track approach with a food factory on
the one hand, and the nature reserve on the other-it will not address the
problems. The LEAF/IPM type approaches cannot solve those problems just by
'turning the volume control down.' It is very good that farmers are working
together looking at how they can improve, but let's not delude ourselves
about how far they are moving.
So how do you ensure farmers make the
required fundamental changes?
At present MAFF policy is not clear in terms of the direction it wants
farmers to go. There are agri-environment signals which are merely 'greening
the fringes'. MAFF still provides intensive subsidies such as, arable area
payments and set aside.
The government, like other EU member states, has had the
opportunity to do more, particularly through the organic aid scheme, but the UK
spends the lowest amount on this in the EU. Also consumer and environmental NGOs
have not given clear signals to government, and as a result it has not given
clear policy directions.
Do you think people in MAFF will be able
to deliver sustainable agriculture policies?
Agriculture policy since the war has been mis-directed. Some of those
responsible will have to retire, but there are many in MAFF who are
reconcilable. Dare I say it, there is a growing number of civil servants some
who are in line with the spirit of what we at the Soil Association are
discussing.
With strong leadership from the ministers there is every
chance that farming will become more sustainable.
Most of the Agri-Environment Schemes have been funded by the
UK treasury, not the EU. Gordon Brown (the finance minister) is busy spending £4
billion cleaning up after BSE, and will find it difficult to fund more Agri-Environment
Schemes, one of which is the organic aid scheme.
Will the CAP reforms be an obstacle to
sustainable agriculture?
The problem is the UK is negotiating for more environmentally friendly
agriculture, whereas Europe is more interested in keeping people on the land.
What France and Germany are asking for is modulation (targeting the aid on the
smaller holdings) MAFF does not like that because our average holding size is so
large.
CAP has been so bad, that any change will be an improvement.
The question is how radical will the reforms be.
Patrick Holden is Director of the Soil Association, Bristol House, 40 - 56 Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6BY, UK, Tel, 0117 929 0661, Fax 0117 925 2504, Email info@soilassociation.org, http://www.soilassociation.org
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 37,
September 1997, pages 10-11]