Farmers are encouraged to convert to organic agriculture,
not only by the possibility of creating a safer, more diverse environment, but also by the promise of a financial ‘premium’ which
may increase the price that consumers have to pay for their produce, by up to 16%. The organic premium is said to
compensate farmers for the cost of the less intensive production systems that
they use, as well as the costs of certification.
This means that essential, nutritious, pesticide-free foodstuffs
– fruit, vegetables, grain and meat - that is produced organically, is marketed
primarily to the affluent middle classes. This is
a policy that blatantly discriminates against poorer families, despite the fact
that children and the elderly are more susceptible to the damaging effects of
pesticide residues that are found in some common non-organic foods (PAN UK).
Can this organic premium continue to be justified?
Surely high input-using, conventional farmers are now at a disadvantage, compared to organic farmers, considering that the costs of oil or methane gas-based inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides, also the cost of imported animal feed, have increased dramatically over the past few years.
Meanwhile, the sales of organic produce are said to have
slumped by 23% from an all-time high of almost £2bn in 2008. If organic
certification organisations, such as Ecocert and the Soil Association want to
help farmers both in Europe as well as in lesser developed countries, increase
demand for their produce, they should abolish this premium and adopt a more
equitable pricing and marketing policy which ensures fair access by even the poorest
of consumers.
No comments:
Post a Comment