The organic and conventional sectors of the fresh produce industry appeared no closer to working together, following heated debate at last week’s Re:fresh conference.
Séan Rickard, a senior lecturer in business economics at Cranfield University, threw down the gauntlet with his claims regarding integration of organics into the fresh produce aisles. “The reason why organics have had to integrate at the major retailers is because they have not achieved the increase in sales they were tipped to a few years ago,” said Rickard. “If organics really were a success story, then they would not have to hide them in the conventional aisles.”
But Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, countered that the rate of growth has continued since organic products were integrated. “The fact is people don’t just buy organic or not, so it is much more convenient for the consumer, and that is why retailers have integrated,” he insisted.
Lettuce grower David Piccaver told the panel he had not been able to make organic production profitable six years ago. “I am interested in feeding the nation, but also in making a profit,” he said. “I do wish the Soil Association would take a more pragmatic view of the costs involved in organic growing.”
Panellist Adam Wakeley, managing director of Organic Farm Foods, echoed these comments. “It is about yields, but it is also about the selling price,” he said. “If product is being undersold, then no one is making a profit.”
The Soil Association also came in for some flak from the floor about its proposals surrounding airfreight of organic produce, and the application of additional ethical standards to ensure organic produce airfreighted to the UK “delivers real benefits to the poorest growers in developing countries”, said Melchett.
But Wakeley warned against any additional auditing standards. “It would be just another layer of cost,” he said. And Rickard slammed the notion as protectionist. “The end result of protectionism is higher prices and lower quality,” he said.
Patrick Mitton, food industry stewardship manager at Bayer CropScience, told delegates that the company recognises consumer demands for residue-free foods. “There is no doubt that residues are getting lower,” he said. “But any aspiration of 0 per cent residues will always be challenged by ever-advancing methods of detection.”
Melchett said fertility was key. “There is a reliance on fossil fuels to manufacture fertilisers, and in the long term I believe this will drive pesticide use out,” he said.
But Rickard said he put his faith in technology. “There is no doubt we have to get more production from our land,” he said. “There are three big costs associated with production - labour, fuel and fertilisers - and we have got to find ways of using less. Ultimately, we depend on technology to protect our lifestyles.”
Wakeley called for independent research. “Pesticide-free is already part of the organic brand, but there is a question mark over the long-term cocktail effect of pesticide residues,” he said. “We have got to get the facts out to people. An independent piece of research needs to be carried out.”
Rickard was highly critical. “What I really resent is that organics has sold itself by misrepresenting the conventional sector,” he said.
Melchett said the picture looked very different to him, but that there were huge opportunities for both sectors. “We should be driving a new agenda about seasonal and local produce,” he said.
No comments yet