This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties

and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It

should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it

was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a

substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or

information is required.

This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available

online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the

content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.

Organic Farming and Food

Standard Note: SN/SC/1203

Last updated: 11 March 2011

Author: Christopher Barclay

Science and Environment Section

This note covers some topics related to organic farming. However, the issue of whether

organic food should be certified as such if imported by air freight is covered in the

standard note on food miles. A related note is Food Miles (SN/SC/4985).

Organic farming is supported under the Organic Entry Level Stewardship Scheme, which

is part of the Common Agricultural Policy. All farmers are paid Single Farm Payment,

based on the area of the farm. Increased payments are made to organic farmers.

The Food Standards Agency has rejected claims that organic food is healthier than other

food, but supporters of organic food remain unconvinced.

Sales of organic food have declined during the recession.

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Government support 2

3 EU Regulation on organic farming 2007 3

4 Challenges to benefits of organic food 5

5 Lords Debate on Organic Farming, January 2007 5

6 The 2007 Westminster Hall Debate on Organic Food 6

7 Problems for organic farmers, 2008 to 2009 7

2

1 Introduction

The main components of organic farming are avoiding the use of artificial fertilisers and

pesticides, and the use of crop husbandry to maintain soil fertility and control weeds, pests

and diseases.1

In January 2009, 619,268 hectares were farmed organically in the UK, along with 119,441

under conversion. Taken together, those two categories accounted for 4.2% of total

agricultural area.2

2009 was a difficult year for organic farmers, partly because of the recession:

Sales of organic produce fell almost 14% in 2009, according to data from TNS

Worldpanel, the consumer research group. There have been sharp falls in meat, with

chicken sales tumbling 28% and sales of beef dropping almost a quarter. While some

producers are having to scale down their operations or abandon organic farming,

others are clubbing together to fund an advertising campaign to win back consumers

by promoting organic as the west‟s answer to fairtrade.3

2 Government support

Until 2003, Government support only covered the conversion period. Support was then

extended to continuing organic farms under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS). That has

been superseded by the reformed Common Agricultural Policy, which contains an Organic

Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) Agreement.

OELS aims to encourage a large number of organic farmers across a wide area of farmland

to deliver simple yet effective environmental management. It is similar to ELS [Entry Level

Stewardship] but recognises the greater environmental benefit that organic farming systems

deliver. The land to be entered into the scheme must be farmed organically and registered

with an approved Organic Inspection Body before an application to OELS is made.

OELS is a voluntary, non-competitive scheme. The standard payment rate is £60 per

hectare per year. There are higher payments for Uplands OELS - up to £92 per ha. Farmers

need to meet a points target and agree to carry out “simple but effective” environmental

management on the land, in order to be accepted into OELS.

Aid for converting conventionally farmed improved land and established top-fruit orchards

(planted with pears, plums, cherries and apples, excluding cider apples) is also available as

a top-up to OELS payments. Payment rates are £175 per hectare per year for two years for

improved land and £600 per hectare per year for three years for established top fruit

orchards.

Farmers with a mix of organic and conventional land can apply for OELS on their OELS

eligible land and ELS on the remainder at the applicable ELS payment rates as part of one,

whole farm, OELS agreement.

Five-year agreements are available, with monthly start dates and automatic payments every six months.

1 Defra, Organic Systems,

2 Defra, Organic Statistics 2009 United Kingdom, July 2010

3 “Struggling organic farmers cultivate ethical link”, Financial Times, 17 January 2010

3

OELS is administered by Natural England from their North West regional office at Crewe.4

In March 2010 the National Audit office published a report, Defra‟s organic agri-environment

scheme, HC 513 2009-10. The Press Release gave an overview:

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England have

not optimised value for money for the almost £200 million scheme to encourage

farmers into organic farming and deliver environmental benefits, according to a

National Audit Office report published today.

The Organic Entry Level Stewardship scheme is overseen by the Department and run

by Natural England and the Rural Payments Agency using EU money and matched

funding from UK taxpayers. Defra‟s forecasts for expenditure of EU funds assumed a

constant rate of take-up each year, which the NAO considers over-optimistic, and

present a risk that EU funds will not all be utilised.

The scheme pays organic farmers for managing their land in ways that will protect or

enhance the natural environment or historic landscape. The scheme is likely to have

achieved environmental benefits by supporting organic farming, and the money paid to

farmers for adopting environmental land management measures has had some impact,

but this could be increased.

Farmers can choose which environmental measures to implement and, according to

the NAO survey, 57 per cent chose some measures that involve managing features

already in place on their farm. Many of the more challenging options are rarely

implemented. Defra is now taking steps to improve the environmental impact of the

scheme by promoting better targeted measures.

Take-up of the scheme broadly reflects take-up of organic farming methods in the

farming industry as a whole. The scheme benefits larger farms, especially in the beef

and dairy sectors, more than smaller farms.

Farmers are happy with the quality of service provided by Natural England in

administering the scheme. It has considerably reduced the time it takes to process

scheme applications and the time taken to process payments since the start of the

scheme, but IT costs do still remain high. 5

Mr Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said today:

"Defra should learn from this scheme and get a lot better at putting credible

measurement arrangements in place to demonstrate whether public funds are being

used properly. It appears likely that Defra‟s scheme helped to deliver environmental

benefits by encouraging organic farming, but we can‟t draw a similar conclusion on the

land management measures and I would have expected a greater environmental

benefit for the taxpayer‟s funding contribution."

3 EU Regulation on organic farming 2007

The Soil Association expressed strong objections in February 2006 to a proposal for a new

EU Regulation, arguing that it would not take enough account of local and regional

4 Natural England, Organic Entry Level Stewardship

5 National Audit Office, Defra’s organic agri-environment scheme, 31 March 2010

4

distinctiveness.6 The EU Regulation was agreed in June 2007.7 Some revisions have been

made, including allowing producers to indicate national origin as well as using the EU logo.

A European Commission Press Notice explained:

The new regulation will:

lay down more explicitly the objectives, principles and production rules for organic

farming while providing flexibility to account for local conditions and stages of

development,

assure that the objectives and principles apply equally to all stages of organic

livestock, aquaculture, plant and feed production as well as the production of

organic foods,

clarify the GMO rules, notably that GMO products continue to be strictly banned for

use in organic production and that the general threshold of 0.9 percent accidental

presence of approved GMOs applies also to organic food,

close the loophole under which the unintended presence of GMOs above the 0.9

percent threshold does not currently preclude the sale of products as organic,

render compulsory the EU logo for domestic organic products, but allow it to be

accompanied by national or private logos in order to promote the “common

concept” of organic production,

not prohibit stricter private standards,

ensure that only foods containing at least 95 percent organic ingredients can be

labelled as organic,

allow non-organic products to indicate organic ingredients on the ingredients list

only,

not include the restaurant and canteen sector, but allow Member States to regulate

this sector if they wish, pending a review at EU level in 2011,

reinforce the risk-based control approach and improve the control system by

aligning it to the official EU food and feed control system applying to all foods and

feeds, but maintaining specific controls used in organic production,

set out a new, permanent import regime, allowing third countries to export to the

EU market under the same or equivalent conditions as EU producers,

require the indication of where the products were farmed, including for imported

products carrying the EU-logo,

create the basis for adding rules on organic aquaculture, wine, seaweed and

yeasts,

make no changes to the list of permitted substances in organic production, and

require publication of demands for authorisation of new substances and a

centralised system for deciding on exceptions,

be the basis for the detailed rules to be transferred from the old to the new

Regulation, containing among others the lists of substances, control rules and

other detailed rules.8

The regulation came into force on 1 January 2009.

6 Soil Association Press Release, EU Review of Organic Regulation: straight bananas, Euro sausages and now

dilute organics? 16 February 2006 7 Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products

and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_189/l_18920070720en00010023.pdf 8 EC press Release, Organic Food: New Regulation to foster the further development of Europe's organic food

sector, 12 June 2007

5

4 Challenges to benefits of organic food

Many supporters of organic farming have been disappointed that the Food Standards

Agency (FSA) has not shown more enthusiasm for organic food. However, the FSA bases

its views upon its analysis of the available evidence. July 2009 saw the publication of an

independent study that the FAS had commissioned:

An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows

that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health

benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus

of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs. (...)

Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM‟s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit,

and the principal author of the paper, said: „A small number of differences in nutrient

content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops

and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review

indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over

conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.‟9

However, supporters of organic food were unconvinced:

Organic food campaigners criticised the study for failing to consider fertiliser and

pesticide residues in food. They expressed disappointment at its "limited" nature,

saying that without long-term studies it did not provide a clear answer on whether

eating organic food has health benefits. A leading food academic went further, saying

he found the conclusions "selective in the extreme".

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said: "We are disappointed in the

conclusions the researchers have reached. It doesn't say organic food is not healthier,

just that, according to the criteria they have adopted, there's no proof that it is."

He criticised the methodology used by the team, which he said meant they rejected as

"not important" some nutritional benefits they found in organic food, and led them to

different conclusions from those reached by previous studies. Melchett said: "The

review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and

non-organic nutritional differences."10

5 Lords Debate on Organic Farming, January 2007

This debate was opened by Lord Taverne from a viewpoint hostile to organic farming. The

Ministerial reply by Lord Rooker gave the Defra view:

Organic cannot be one-size-fits-all. Some claims made on both sides of the argument

are quite ridiculous and are not based on any science. Nor do I subscribe to the anti-

science view around the country, particularly of those who do not want trials to take

place because they are worried about the information that might be gathered from

experiments. To that extent, I oppose and criticise the people who rip up crop trials.

How do we get information if we do not do trials? Not wanting the information to be out

there because it destroys one‟s original concepts or prejudices is not on.

I also want to make it clear that there is no unsafe food on sale in this country. I repeat:

no unsafe food is on sale. No one can make a claim that their food is safer than

anyone else‟s. Any unsafe food would be illegal if it was on sale. It is as simple as that. 9 FSA Press Release, Organic Review Published, 29 July 2009

10 “Organic food is no healthier, says official study: No evidence of significant nutritional benefits found Experts

question 'highly selective' conclusions”, Guardian, 30 July 2009

6

However food—whether it is crops or meat—is farmed or produced and wherever it is

produced in the world, there are checks and surveillances of residues and other

matters that are beyond the imagination of the public in terms of the numbers and the

quantity in the policing of the system to protect the whole food chain. We publish the

results, so there are no secrets, including where we buy produce from.

To that extent, John Krebs [former Chair of the Food Standards Agency] was right. No

one can say that because a food is organic it is healthier. It can be claimed that

because a food is organic there may be less chemical residue. But if the residues are

within the limits, they are perfectly safe. The two things are not incompatible. No one

can claim that commercially produced, ordinarily produced, intensively produced food

is any less safe than organic food. That cannot be the case. Going with the science is

important...

But that does not mean that the ordinary, intensively produced food, whether it is

grown or whether it is livestock, is second best. Nobody is saying that. In fact, we could

not feed ourselves if we went organic. I know that people will dispute this, but if we

went all organic we would be importing huge amounts of food, whatever people might

claim, because the yields would be so much less. I appreciate that one has to look at

the totality of the energy that is used. There would be fewer pesticides and other things

that are used to produce the crops if we went organic, but we want to encourage

choice…

The fact is that since we increased the level of support for organic farming, the amount

of land given over to it has gone up 13-fold. It helps our sustainability objectives and

provides environmental benefits—I know there can be arguments about this—by

encouraging biodiversity, and it gives farmers a choice. A lot of young farmers are

involved in the organic movement. They are often much more entrepreneurial than the

older generations. I have met some of them, as has the Secretary of State. These

farmers are willing to use different systems and techniques and to enter into new

marketing arrangements for their products...

At present, certain organic foods cannot use an organic label if the whole product is not

organic. Some of the ingredients may have been produced organically, but it is difficult

to get an organic label for them. The European Union is producing more flexible rules

to assist in that, which is good for organics, consumer choice and improvements in

labelling. The proposed regulation before the EU Agriculture Council would require

origin labelling for some organic produce where the EU organic logo is used. On the

organic conversion scheme, we are working on a new one which is to be launched

later this year…11

6 The 2007 Westminster Hall Debate on Organic Food

This debate was almost all devoted to criticisms of organic farming. Dr Brian Iddon opened

the attack:

Yields of organic crops are considerably lower than in conventional farming and more

land is taken up by organic crops…

In August 2007, the Crop Protection Association welcomed the Soil Association‟s

acknowledgement at Hay-on-Wye that organic farmers use pesticides, which it had

denied for most of its existence. Indeed, copper sulphate, pyrethrum—a nerve toxin

and potential carcinogen—and other chemicals used by organic farmers are probably

more dangerous to the environment than the pesticides used in modern farming.

11

HL Deb 25 January 2007 cc1315-18

7

Organic farmers would like us to believe that organic foods are uncontaminated by

chemicals when they are not. The organic pesticide rotenone, which is sold as Derris

powder, is highly toxic to humans, yet organic farmers are allowed to apply it right up to

harvest. It persists for a particularly long period on olives and is concentrated in olive

oil. Farm workers who spray solutions of bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacterium that

produces a protein that is toxic to caterpillars, have reported respiratory problems, and

it causes fatal lung infections in mice, yet organic farmers insist that what is natural is

safe and that synthetic chemicals are extremely toxic. That is nonsense.

Biocontrol of pests has been effective in some circumstances, especially for protecting

high-value crops grown in greenhouses, but biocontrol often involves the importation of

non-native species, with all the dangers that that might entail. (…)

Nor are organic foods safer than conventional foods. Organic foods grown in soil

fertilised with manure are at greater risk of being contaminated by mycotoxins, or fungi.

Fungal toxins are a particular problem in organic foods because all effective fungicides

are synthetic in origin and prohibited for use by the Soil Association. Copper sulphate

and sulphur, which are used, are far less effective. (…) Eggs without the Lion mark

are more likely to be contaminated with salmonella. A study in Denmark in 2001

showed that organic chicken is three times more likely to be contaminated with

campylobacter than conventional chicken …12

Phil Woolas, Minister for the Environment, was more sympathetic to organic food:

There is evidence that organic production is beneficial, on the whole, to biodiversity.

The mixed farming practised under organic systems also contributes to the quality of

the landscape and the beauty of rural areas.

The more general environmental picture, for example on the production of

greenhouses gases, is less clear-cut, with claims and counter-claims. However, there

is evidence that organic farming systems generally incur less energy use than

conventional systems. I shall explain that point. As has been said, it is important to

consider the production of fertilisers when calculating carbon footprints. One has to

consider lifestyle. The question that has to be asked—the debate has brought it up—is:

what is the balance between the environmental benefits of producing organic food and

the benefit of the farming methods used, many of which could also be used in

conventional, inorganic farming? That relates to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton,

South-East‟s central point.

Organic farming has its proponents, of whom the Government are one because of the

environmental benefits that we see from the evidence that is produced. I refer to the

scientific studies that have been carried out, on which our policy is partly based: the

DEFRA-commissioned study by Shepherd and others in 2002 and the English Nature-

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds study of 2003 by Hole and others. (…)13

7 Problems for organic farmers, 2008 to 2009

In December 2008, the Times reported that organic farmers were being hit by the credit

crunch and were requesting a relaxation of standards:

Sales of organic food slumped 10% in the 12 weeks up to the end of November (2008),

according to the latest figures from the consumer researchers TNS. Overall food sales

over the same period were up 6%. Organic certification bodies, including the soil 12

HC Deb 16 October 2007 cc187-8WH 13

HC Deb 16 October 2007 cc201-2WH

8

Association…asked Hilary Benn…last week for approval to relax the rules for an

indefinite period. They want their members to be able to use conventional animal feed

instead of organic food concentrate, which costs double. (…)

The move has been condemned by the Organic Research Centre, which fears that

organic “holidays” will confuse shoppers and lead to a further sales slump.14

14

“Let us bend the rules, say organic farmers”, Times, 22 December 2008