Eliminating pesticides through organic farming

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association argues for an integrated approach that moves beyond assessing individual pesticides or pest control strategies, to evaluating different agricultural systems. 

Consumer surveys conducted by numerous bodies, including Market & Opinion Research International (MORI), the UK government’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the National Consumers’ Council, indicate that consumers do not want pesticide residues in their food. The FSA was created to address consumer concerns over food safety. It acknowledges that the public wants pesticide residue free food, and says that people have a right to such food. However, it refuses to say that organic food is produced using almost no pesticides, is free of pesticide residues. and is the only agricultural system that fulfils these wishes. 

Preventing the need
Organic farming systems rely on prevention rather than cure, and the main form of pest control is through cultural methods: good soil health for natural plant resistance, less intensive production for physically stronger plants, rotation and appropriate sowing times, the maintenance of the habitats of natural predator species, resistant crop varieties, composting for disease control, and substances which prevent pest attack through physical means such as grease bands around tree trunks. 
    Microbial activity in the soil is vital to provide the range and quantity of nutrients required by the crop, enabling the plant to maximise its ability to combat pest and pathogen attack. A number of studies have shown pest densities to be higher on crops fed with inorganic nitrogen fertiliser compared to those fed with compost and manure. The role of compost in suppressing disease is also becoming more apparent. 

Pesticides in organic farming
Organic farmers are regularly accused of also ‘using pesticides’, suggesting that the organic system does not, and may be could not, survive without using chemicals in much the same way as non-organic farming (possibly simply using fewer and more ‘old-fashioned’ chemicals). This is a misunderstanding of organic farming. Almost all organic arable farming in the UK has no need, and no possibility, of using pesticides. The very small number of pesticides that are available are restricted mainly to glasshouse production. No herbicides are permitted.
    The table sets out products allowed for organic production in the UK. Because of the different environmental conditions in different EU countries, other products are needed for specific pest problems in other countries and so at a European level the European Commission’s standards allow several other pesticide products to be used. Each country has its list of products for national use. Imported organic products may therefore have been produced with the use of products not listed in this table.
    About 350 different pesticides (active ingredients) are currently permitted for use in non-organic farming in the UK, where they are the main form of pest control. The long term, cumulative and cocktail effects of these products on the environment and health have not been established.
    In the UK only four pesticide products are allowed under the Soil Association standards for organic production, and seven are allowed under the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS), the basic UK standards. This excludes substances only used in traps or dispensers, where there is minimal risk to the environment and no possibility of residues in food, and excludes micro-organisms used for biological control. Of the chemicals allowed, use of copper is limited to 8 kg per hectare per year; and there is a maximum limit on the total level of copper in the soil of 50 mg/kg or 110 kg/ha.

Comparing agricultural systems
There are three possible ways of making decisions about how society regulates chemical use.
    First, simply test the different compounds and then compare them with each other: the basis of comparative risk assessment. This enables the approval of the least risky product. However, it is a reductionist approach and fails to take into account the wider implications of the use of pesticides and the manner in which they interact with different geographical locations.
    Second, pest control systems can be compared. For example, comparing integrated pest management with conventional intensive systems. Pest control is still only one aspect of agriculture that impacts on public interests, and imposes costs on the public. This approach is still reductionist, and ignores other costs and benefits of different agricultural systems.
    Third, different agricultural systems can be compared. This is a far more integrated approach that although more difficult to realise, takes into account more than residues and productivity. It encompasses: environmental impact, biodiversity, emissions, energy use, animal welfare and socio-economic aspects.
    This third approach facilitates an understanding of the wider implications of the use of synthetic pesticides and alternative production systems. It is a movement away from the reductionist, some would say myopic view of agriculture, to a fully integrated approach, appraising different agricultural systems. Such an approach actually attempts to answer public concerns about intensive agriculture, which are not restricted to pesticide use. 
    To look at the use of pesticides (or any other agricultural practice) in isolation reduces the value of any re-appraisal. To be of value to consumers, producers, the environment and society as a whole, any re-appraisal must adopt an integrated approach.
    Once the entire agricultural system is taken into consideration, the costs of continuing to rely on an agricultural policy based on the use of synthetic pesticides becomes apparent. First there are subsidies. Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) farms are paid for a number of reasons but primarily, as laid out in the Treaty of Rome, to increase production. There are direct payments, price support, intervention, and more recently, agri-environment schemes, which have been conceived to reduce production and protect the environment. In all, the EU spends 40 billion Euros a year on the CAP.
    Second, there are increased levels of illness linked to chemically intensive agricultural practice. The consumer pays for both of these areas through general taxation. Third, there is the cost of cleaning pesticides, nitrates and other agrochemicals from water before it is supplied as drinking water. Between 1992 and 1997 water companies were spending £124.9 million per annum removing pesticide residues from water. The consumer again pays for this through their water rates. It has been calculated that the total ‘external environmental and health costs’ of conventional agriculture in the UK in 1996 was £2,343 million. 

Conclusion
Ultimately, consumer desire for residue free food will not be met by agricultural systems relying on the input of synthetic pesticides. While a move towards comparative risk assessment to identify the least risky substance is welcome as far as it goes, it does not go far. It certainly does not go far enough to address the concerns of the public about the wider implications of continuing dependence on agro-chemicals. An integrated approach that compares agricultural systems is the way forward. This approach highlights not only issues relating to residues and productivity, but also the wide range of public goods and disbenefits that agriculture can deliver, and the ‘external costs’ that would otherwise be ignored.

Edited presentation to the Pesticide Challenge conference, November 2003, Peter Melchett, Policy Director, The Soil Association, pmelchett@soilassociation.org

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 58, December 2002, pages 6-7]