Organic Food

It is a pleasure, Mrs. Humble, to speak under your chairmanship. I had not intended to speak but merely to support my good colleague, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), on this important issue. He spoke with typical expertise, and I am sorry that I shall not be able to stay to hear the responses to the debate. However, a couple of fresh points need to be made about the role of lobbyists. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on his contribution. He was absolutely right. I am delighted that he drew attention to the disaster that was the attack on using DDT as an anti-malarial, even for indoor spraying. It was never implicated in the allegations over the impact of wider spraying in agriculture, which were proved to be false. It is a tragedy that, even today, some developing countries are still arguing that they should have the tool of affordable and effective anti-malarial mosquito treatments such as DDT. There are still questions on whether the position of the Department for International Development in supporting those countries’ using DDT for indoor spraying is ethical and appropriate. I turn to the role of those lobbying for organic food. I put my position on record. I enjoy eating organic food as an option. The choice should be available. I know that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East is strongly in favour of consumer choice, and from our perspective no one is talking of restricting it. I recognise the efforts of organic farmers to make provision for animal welfare, which is important. I also recognise that organic farming is one form of less intensive agriculture, and that when the environment is under pressure or danger from over-intensive agriculture, it can be a solution to environmental blight. There is a question about whether—in practice and not in theory, because if we did things differently we would have enough food for the world—the world could afford to cope with the reduced yields that would be consequent upon a mass switch from intensive to less intensive farming, particularly those on the margins who might not get the food that they need. I recognise the environmental benefits that could flow from organic farming as an example of a less extensive form of farming. However, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East stated, it is a multi-billion pound industry. The same questions, the same scepticism and the same rigour must be applied to lobbyists and industry trade associations for that industry as we rightly apply to lobbyists and trade associations for other multi-billion pound industries. I think of the pharmaceutical industry, which is ““guilty”” of producing drugs that cure people of their illnesses, not merely providing dietary choice. I believe that we do not provide that degree of oversight and scepticism about the organisations that lobby in the direct financial interests of their members—in this case, for organic farmers. The Soil Association is very effective at doing so. That is its job. However, it is not independent, let alone a scientific advisory group, but an industry trade body with a vested financial interest. That is why we are right to ask why its view is given credence, unsubstantiated by recognition of what always happens in agriculture—for example, that there should be an impractical limit on the amount of coexistence of genetically modified products in low quantities in crops from organic farms. The European Union has a reasonable and practical limit and there has always been an adventitious co-mixing of different types of crop in agriculture, yet the Soil Association goes for a limit that is 10 times lower, which is almost impossible to meet and has never been applied in agriculture in other areas. It does so because it wants to do down competition from other forms of less intensive agriculture, such as the use of GM technology. The association has a right to its view, and it has no problems in expressing it, but the House and the media should apply due scepticism because of its vested financial interests. I shall not repeat the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley about the association’s approach to science, but I take the opportunity to defend the Food Standards Agency against the allegation that it has been non-scientific in its approach to organic food or food additives. Based on science, the FSA has taken exactly the right approach in response to recent research on food additives. Indeed, the detail shows that there simply is not enough information to argue for bans on specific products. Similarly, when Sir John Krebs, the chairman of the FSA and a constituent of mine, rightly pointed out that there was no good scientific evidence for a health benefit of organic food he was roundly criticised. Despite the fact that he is the independent, academic chairman of an independent agency that was rightly set up by the Government to give the public confidence, he was attacked for showing bias in pointing out what is now recognised—that there is no evidence base for health benefits from organic food. It has been alleged that the FSA had caved in to lobbying from non-scientific consumer organisations with various vested interests; I applaud the fact that the agency has taken that view. As for vested interests, it is important to mention Prince Charles, as far as is permitted by the rules of the House. He is the heir to the throne, and he therefore does not allow himself to be questioned by Members of Parliament or the media, as is expected of every other player. For instance, Ministers have to be interviewed on the ““Today”” programme.