Soil Association should be more conventional
The Soil Association‘s website informs me that they will be revealing a refreshed strategy in the coming weeks. The nub of it will be a desire for organic food to be accessible to everyone and to present organic husbandry as an “emerging technology”. I first read about this new strategy in The Daily Telegraph. The spin of their piece was very different from the Soil Association’s own website.
“Organic food is not just for people who wear sandals and drink champagne,”
said the Telegraph. Their headline preyed on what they referred to as the “elitist image” of the organic movement.
How ironic. High-profile endorsers of organic food, so often the media luvvies of stories about food and farming, were being used by the same journalists as the villains of the piece.
Image aside, why have sales of organics fallen by £0.5bn per annum since 2008?
Basic economics dictated that the stratospheric year-on-year increase of organic food sales had to plateau. It was just a case of when.
The global financial meltdown and endless articles that the cost of food is soaring have made consumers scrutinise every purchase. While the words “austerity” and “thrift” are associated with discount stores, anything labelled “organic” is perceived as a luxury good.
Of greater concern for the Soil Association is the push by retailers and media to promote local provenance – in many cases ahead of organic. Bundle all these factors together and it is easy to understand why organics have lost ground.
The amount of land being entered into organic conversion has also declined.
A narrowing of the organic premium in percentage terms has made organic conversion less attractive to farmers.
But this may not be a bad thing. Over-attractive conversion payments are unhealthy. They reflect under-performing conventional margins and can entice farmers who are not 100% committed to farming organically. First-hand experience has shown me that organic farming is not for the faint-hearted. It exposes mediocre husbandry very quickly. Besides, fluctuating supply does nothing to benefit the pricing of organic retail goods. Even though organic farming is not for everyone, its science should be shared. For example, conventional farming systems can learn a great deal about soil science and legume use from organic farming.
But I am confused by the new strategy. How can organic food “be accessible to everyone” if the farmer is to receive the necessary premium at the farm gate?
I believe that the Soil Association should consider the unthinkable and align itself much closer to conventional brands and conventional methods. If organic and non-organic products were displayed among one another on the supermarket shelves, more responsibility would be handed to the consumer to choose. This would help remove any stigma of elitism and place the onus on the brand to explain the product’s point of difference beyond the word “organic.”
It would also put an end to divisive propaganda that suggests if organic product “X” is good, ergo non-organic product “Y” is bad. It is unhelpful for all, consumers and producers alike.
And finally, beyond inviting non-organic farmers to join the Soil Association, giving them the opportunity to scrutinise field-scale organic techniques alongside conventional trials at large farming events such as Cereals would open many people’s eyes to the science of organic farming.
Critics say that the Soil Association has “sold out” to the supermarkets by becoming “too mainstream”. If organics is to shake its “Luddite” and “elitist” labels, perhaps it needs to be even more mainstream.
Ian Pigott farms 700ha in Hertfordshire. The farm is a LEAF demonstration unit, with 130ha of organic arable. Ian is also the founder of Open Farm Sunday.
What do you think about this subject? Do you agree with Ian? Have your say on our website forums.