Long way to go in green campaign

By GRAHAM REID

The continuing survival of Rolling Stone Keith Richards might be a notable exception, but there are things we hold to be true if we want to live a long life.

That we should drink plenty of water, observe a balanced diet, exercise regularly and be moderate in our alcohol intake.

These days many also add to those cornerstones a faith in organic food, widely believed to be better for us than the chemically enhanced stuff on supermarket shelves.

Organic food, we accept without much dissent, may look deformed when laid alongside manicured conventional produce, but it is good for us because it is grown naturally. It is also environment-friendly and tastes better. You pay through the nose for it - about 20 per cent more - but that is what you expect with things which improve the quality of your life.

Down here in this remote part of the Pacific there's a case being made that while the rest of the world goes to hell in a plastic carrier bag of steroid-injected, toxin-fed foodstuffs, we could create an organic paradise and sell our clean and green produce on world markets at premium prices.

While that may be true there's a Dickensian bah-humbug coming from some quarters, and it isn't always from the pro-GM camp.

David Curry, chairman of Britain's House of Commons agriculture committee, recently noted, "The argument that organic farming can deliver environmentally friendly farming is true but the argument for health has no scientific substance as things stand."

Britain's Food Standards Agency said there had been few studies of nutrient content in organically grown food and little substantive evidence to suggest or confirm it is nutritionally superior to conventional product.

Locally, Ian Ewen-Street, Green MP and spokesperson for agriculture, education and biosecurity, concedes that of itself organic food is not necessarily good for you. Eating organic fish'n'chips three nights a week isn't smart - it's about having a balanced diet.

"But with organic food you are getting away from chemical residues from agro-chemical use, and also usually getting away from the contamination of flavourings and colourings."

Any scientific study of the benefits of organic foods would also have to factor in that those who adopt that diet are going to be educated and more aware of that need for balance.

So while the jury may be out on the merits of whether organic food is good for you, if nothing else we can agree it tastes better. Although maybe we can't tell.

Aucklanders who shopped at Ross's Super Meat Store in Mt Eden under the impression they were buying organic certainly couldn't. Most of the chickens sold at Ross's weren't organic - they were Tegels repackaged under the Ross label - and the owners acknowledged after investigation that only about half the meat in the store was organic. The evangelists of organics failed the taste test.

Much about the organics issue seems not to be as clear-cut as we believed.

But if the personal benefits of organic foods are difficult to determine no one doubts the dollar value for them is growing rapidly.

Domestically, sales of organic food stood at $71 million in the year to March.

Last month University of Otago research suggested organic food sales here have doubled over the past two years with supermarkets' share rising from 27 per cent to 57 per cent of the market.

But it's the export potential of organic food which is enticing. In Japan, there has been a fourfold jump in the market share in the past five years.

In Britain - the fastest-growing organic market in Europe although still just one per cent of retail food and drink sales, and 3 per cent of agricultural land - the value rose 33 per cent in the year 2000-01. Seventy per cent of Britain's organic food is imported and up there under Europe's toxic skies is a potentially huge export market for this country.

"We are a profoundly agricultural country," says Ewen-Street. "We grow things - mainly food, although there is timber and wool - for discerning markets on the other side of the world. We've marketed ourselves as a clean, green country for many years and it's starting to pay back. This is our livelihood and it's something we do well and we get a reputation for high quality product then, bingo! Then you get the tourists onflow and so on."

In 1994, exports of organic products were $6 million, and last year they stood at around $70 million.

Both the Greens, who envision 50 per cent of New Zealand farms certified organic by 2020 and the rest becoming progressively chemical-free, and the Soil and Health Association (which hopes to see the country completely organic in the same period) regard us as an organic paradise in the Pacific with enormous export potential.

But is that economically viable?

In Britain Professor Michael Wilson, chief executive of the government-backed Horticultural Research Unit, said: "If you stick to the science, organic farms produce lower yields and more pests and there is no evidence to substantiate [the organic lobby's] claims."

In May the longest-running study comparing organic and conventional farming - a 20-year-project in Switzerland - confirmed organic farming was efficient, saved energy, maintained biodiversity and kept soil healthy for future generations. However, crop yields were 20 per cent lower than those on conventional plots and not all organic crops did equally well. Potato yields, for example, were 60 per cent lower.

Counter to this Valerie Freeman, editor of Organic NZ, wrote to this paper in January citing an Essex University report which found that Third World farmers using sustainable agricultural techniques had improved yields of 50 to 100 per cent.

As Brendan Hoare of the Soil and Health Association says, "Food production is more complex than comparative trials. Yields on some crops do seem to drop while on other production methods, yields over time become similar.

One of the most ardent critics of organic farming also unwittingly plays into the hands of those who would carry the banner for organics.

Anthony Trewavas, professor of plant biochemistry at the University of Edinburgh, said the Swiss study was limited in what it demonstrated: "Unfortunately, the data in the paper suggests that no extrapolation can be made to other soils, climates or countries."

Given the ecological basis of the subject, it will always be local conditions which dominate the debate.

It is also an issue fraught with contradiction and contrary evidence.

In the Swiss study, soils nourished with manure were more fertile and produced more crops for a given input of nitrogen and other fertiliser. However, manure as fertiliser presents problems.

As Ewen-Street says, the biggest export off any farm is water and the run-off of DDT, which in Canterbury sometimes exceeds international limits, is a serious problem. He acknowledges manure would be no less serious.

Just ask any Aucklander who has reservations about their water coming from the Waikato River.

Britain's FSA has noted, "There is no firm evidence at present to support the assertion that organic produce is more or less microbiologically safe than conventionally farmed produce. However, the FSA recognises that there is a potential risk to food safety from the use of organic wastes in agriculture."

Such concerns may be resolved by the practical and sensible application of scientific and organic methods, and this country's eco-diversity works to our advantage. Says Hoare: "The future of food production is in integrated systems. Diversifying the design of farms and their outputs is essential. New Zealand is well placed to be a leader in production because we have such a varied climate."

As much of an issue is the economic cost to those who convert.

Ewen-Street, whose dairy and sheep farm has been converted to certified organic, admits in the short-term gate returns were down. He culled sheep heavily, instituted a strong breeding programming, and brought in obscure breeds that hadn't been targeted by chemical companies so weren't dependent on chemicals to control internal parasites.

But as soon as his farm was certified - which usually takes around three years - prices for his product were at a premium. In addition the on-going costs are lower. He can walk past the rows of chemicals in agriculture stores.

"Per unit there's now a better return and costs [are] lower."

Such anecdotal experience is confirmed by international research. Jules Pretty, director of the Centre for Environment and Society at Essex University, and researcher Rachel Hine recently completed a global study of organic farming.

Among their conclusions was that "the evidence also indicates that productivity dividends can grow with increasing number of improvements, and that productivity increases steadily over time if natural, social and human capital are accumulated."

An immediate problem for the well-intentioned, organically inclined farmer in New Zealand is that we already have a significant number of contaminates in our environment anyway. "Organic" may be a relative term.

Three years ago Professor Caroline Saunders of Lincoln University noted we have one of the OECD's highest application rates of phosphate fertilisers at 2.56 tonnes per square kilometre compared to 2.36 in Europe and 0.9 in the OECD.

"And whilst application of nitrogen fertilisers is low nationally compared with other OECD countries it varies considerably regionally. In New Zealand application rates of both fertiliser types are growing, with a threefold increase in the use of nitrogen from 1990/1 to 1995/6. The use of chemicals is also significant at 0.43 tonnes per kilometre square of cropping land compared to 0.22 in the OECD and 0.42 in Europe."

That would mean local producers would have to significantly alter their production techniques to meet the demand for "green" products.

So if this country is to go organic there is considerable discussion to be engaged in, and work to be done.

Hoare of the Soil and Health Association: "The government only provides $2.6 million directly to organic research a year, while GE research receives some $150m ... if organics can return $70m in export earnings and an estimated $70m in domestic, a $140m return on a $2.6m investment is excellent. GE provides little to no return on its investment."

The Pretty/Hine report from Essex on global organics concluded, "Major current constraints centre on national politics. National agricultural policies that put sustainable agricultural policies centre stage, with appropriate support, incentives, and institutional reform, would begin to see nations throughout the world and their people reap substantial dividends."

The cliche in the organic world is that production is not the problem, politics is. That may well be true. And right now organics - just behind the high-profile GM debate - is on many people's political agenda.

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.