I am happy to serve again under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate and on dealing with an important subject in such a reasoned way. I confess that when I was asked to come and speak on behalf of the Opposition on organics, I had a horrible feeling that I was going to listen to a series of eulogies on the benefits of organic farming and that I would feel that it was all very difficult. I think that most people know that I am personally slightly sceptical about the benefits of organic food, but I want to represent a balanced position and some of my colleagues take a different view on the subject.
The debate reminds me that a long while ago, there used to be car stickers that said, ““Don’t criticise farmers with your mouth full””. Much of the debate reflects the fact that we are well fed and looked after, that we have got used to having plenty of food ever since the war and that we can give ourselves the sort of benefits and luxuries that organic food in some ways provides. I feel that the reasoning is slightly the same as that behind why people go out and buy branded trainers and T-shirts and so on. They might be twice the price, and there might be no evidence that they are any better, but it somehow makes people feel better that they have something with one of the famous brands on it.
We cannot get away from the fact that organic food is the fastest growing sector of the food market, which is basically, for obvious reasons, a stable market. It saw a 22 per cent. increase last year and passed the £2 billion mark. It is still a very tiny sector of the market, but, nevertheless, it is the only bit that is growing and it is very important. What has changed is that many of the farmers who are producing organic food and farming organically are not doing it out of some personal absolute conviction of the benefits, but because it is a market opportunity. A large vegetable and salad producer in my constituency already has 1,500 acres converted and more land in conversion. That is all going to lettuce, celery and such salad crops. That demonstrates the scale of the business.
Of course, the vast majority of our organic food is imported. The points that several hon. Members have made about the different standards around the world are extremely important. There are 11 different certification bodies in this country—I hope that that is right, but the Minister will correct me if it is not. In any case, it is a lot. That in itself worries me because, as we have already heard, they do not all have the same standards. We know that other countries in Europe operate on the minimal European standard and my understanding is that outside Europe, exporting countries simply need to be recognised as applying equivalent standards and inspection regimes. However, they seem to be a variable feast.
Ultimately, what worries me is the consumer. I passionately believe in choice, which has been mentioned several times, but that choice has to be based on accurate information. I seriously wonder whether, if we were to challenge a range of consumers who buy organic food, they would be aware that one packet of organic something or other might not be produced to the same standards as something else that was labelled organic. I strongly suspect that for most consumers, organic is organic, and the different standards are of meaningless consequence. I have a great concern about whether the consumer is being misled by the range of different organic standards not only in this country but in those countries from which we import a huge quantity of product.
I do not intend to waste the Chamber’s time by going into the rights and wrongs of organic food; other hon. Members have done a much more successful job of analysing those points than I would. However, we need to consider what comes next. Those who advocate organic food—many people have referred to the Soil Association, as it is the largest body in this country—would obviously like to see far more land converted to organic production and to put pressure on the Government, and the Opposition parties, to have policies that encourage organic farming. However, I cannot help recalling a few years ago, when there was a lot of support for organic farming and a lot of dairy farmers converted to organic milk production. The result was that the price collapsed as there was not the demand for organic milk at that stage, and the farmers found themselves having to sell highly expensive-to-produce organic milk on to the ordinary milk market. They lost a great deal of money, and to me the lesson of that is that if production is artificially stimulated ahead of demand, that invites trouble. I have a big question mark in my mind about whether there is a role for Government artificially to stimulate organic production any more than the market already does. Obviously, as I have said, it is a great market opportunity and if producers want to fulfil it, it is only right and proper that farmers, who are ever more increasingly encouraged to consider what the consumer demands, should be able to do so.
Hon. Members have gone through some of the contradictions about chemicals, pesticides and other things, and I will not repeat them. I strongly suspect that the consumer does not understand that and that the consumer believes that what organic means is that a product has not been treated with chemicals. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. However, the biggest issue is the confusion to which several hon. Members have referred between local food, fresh food and organics. There is a huge amount of confusion. I like to eat fresh food, and I like to eat local food. Personally, I am not worried whether it is organic or not because I think that freshness and the fact that it is local, which often goes with that, are far more important in terms of taste, quality and so on. Again, however, there is an issue here: some people have, perhaps, confused others unintentionally.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to energy, which is very important to think about in today’s world. There seems little doubt that, overall, organics are friendlier to the environment in terms of energy consumption—estimates reckon they emit about 26 per cent. less carbon. However, that ignores the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) about deep ploughing and other issues about the environmental impact beyond the direct issue of carbon emissions.
Organic Food
Proceeding contribution from
James Paice
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 October 2007.
It occurred during Adjournment debate on Organic Food.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c197-9WH 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:01:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417544
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417544
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417544