Why is orgamic in quotes?

I meant organic, of course:-)

I am all for concentrating on high quality, high priced agriculture. It is exactly what farmers in rich countries should do. I just wish we could get rid of all the "organic" crap. The whole concept makes no logical or scientific sense, and the philopsophy behind it is an extremely nasty form of luddism.

Alisa: because I have always balked at the idea that other food is 'inorganic'... as in made of rocks, perhaps?

Perry de Havilland writes: "Alisa: because I have always balked at the idea that other food is 'inorganic'... as in made of rocks, perhaps?"

Well said! The 'organic' food scam is one of the more hilarious stunts pulled on the guilt-ridden chattering classes during the past 50 years.

When someone can show me a potato that can tell the difference between nitrogen produced from ammonium sulphate and nitrogen derived from the blood of dead animals, I'll be impressed.

Until then, I'll continue to shop for the quality of the produce, rather than the mystical passes made over it while it grows.

GCooper:

Plain ammonium sulphate might not be the best choice of nitrogen provision to discuss if you're going to talk with someone who's wavering, because some sources are from coal and coke-oven products and as a result are often contaminated with heavy metals and polyacromatic hydrocarbons ("PAH's"). I imagine most food producers are aware of this and do actually seek out good quality sources rather than this kind of material that is only suitable for mere lawns and the like, but I wouldn't count on it in a discussion of any importance. So, better yet, ask an organics advocate to state why one should consider the potato inferior if was given urea fertiliser produced in clean industrial processes with QA systems in place rather than having animals pee all over it.

You may also find valuable the history of urea synthesis, particularly its role in demolishing vitalism and subsequent ushering in of the field of organic chemistry.

JJM

If people have theories as to how they want their food grown, and those theories do not involve coercing others into other into eating or growing food farmed that way, hey, I am all for it.

You think 'organic' is a scam? Well a scam suggest fraud rather than just error and as the whole 'organic' thing is accepted by many as a better way, well who are we to stop them if they want to pay a premium for food created the way they like? Yes, we can pour derision on the notion if we think they are wasting their money but it is their money to waste.

I agree Perry.
I would , however, like to see a comparison of nutrient levels between produce fertilised with man made and natural chemicals before I would pooh pooh anything.
That would be the decider.

If customers want to pay extra for something which is produced in a certain way then we should have no concerns about it. Good luck to the farmers who meet their needs no matter how bizarre they may seem to some other people. This is what the free market is all about.

Finances allowing I will sometimes buy "organic" food. I have found that "organic" vegetables sometimes taste better. I think this is probably due not to the absence of chemicals but rather to the fact that in a heavily fertilized and pesticided crop all plants will do well and turn out the same shape, size and taste; a crop grown without chemical assistance will encompass a greater variety of taste.

Organic food is just another example of innovation in free markets.
The producers of this food type have managed to introduce a 100% price hike into a product (food) which had previously exhibited decades of sub-inflationary price rises.

The trick was some dubious R&D and some wonderful Marketing.

It is no different to Evian charging you £1/litre for a product that is free in unlimited quantities.

And even better than all this, the only people who suffer (ie the consumers) tend to be the bearded bleeding heart classes from Islingon.

Perry: you are right, of course:-)

Others: "philosophy"? "mystical passes"? I buy organic simply because I want as little poison as possible in my food, that's all. And, incidentaly, it does taste better.

Perry de Havilland writes:

"If people have theories as to how they want their food grown, and those theories do not involve coercing others into other into eating or growing food farmed that way, hey, I am all for it."

If that were all that was going on then, yes, I would agree.

On the other hand, it depends how one construes coercion. I would suggest that the relentless propaganda, moral and emotional blackmail used in favour of "organic" farming, often financed at public expense (thanks to our friends at the BBC, for example) is, if not coercion, then the next best thing.

Which is why I described it as a scam.

GCooper: it is true that shoved down one's throat, even one's favorite dish would make one puke. This is true regarding much of the "green"agenda. Many of the issues they advocate are actually positive ones (like minimizing water and air pollution etc.), but it is their tactics, and their unreasonable end goals that make them so obnoxious.

Alisa writes:

"I buy organic simply because I want as little poison as possible in my food, that's all."

Then you would be well advised to look into the real significance of what are considered "poisons" by protagonists of "organic" food.

I write as a sometime convert who delved into the subject, didn't like what I found, so researched it in some depth. In the end I came to conclusion that it was almost entirely (if you'll forgive the term) baloney.

I might add, by the way, that organic meat can be even more worrying.

"And, incidentaly, it does taste better. "

Better than what? Better than mass produced French apples, Spanish peaches or Tesco's "Value brand" meat I'll grant you. But also indistinguishable from, and sometimes markedly inferior to, well grown fruit and vegetables or the best breeds of animals, properly cared-for under a "conventional" system.

It isn't the "organic" bit that makes the difference, other than in the minds of Soil Association members.

Alisa writes:

"This is true regarding much of the "green"agenda. Many of the issues they advocate are actually positive ones (like minimizing water and air pollution etc.), but it is their tactics, and their unreasonable end goals that make them so obnoxious."

Ah well, we agree on that, if not on the virtues of 'organic' food!

On the other hand, it depends how one construes coercion.

I construe it as passing laws that force people to either eat or grow 'organic' food, anything else is just social pressure and/or marketing... however the aspect to this that may indeed be said to be coersive is if the state subsidises 'organic' produce because it is 'organic' as that means we end up paying for it even if we think it is bunk. However at the moment, ALL farming is subsidised so I do see that 'organic' food is really coersive anymore than regular farmed fare is.

A neighbour of mine is growing 'organic' vegetables. We have caught him more that once, pouring some fertilizers or pesticides into his field. You see, you have to make those veggies grow somehow.... I guess most of them do it.

"Which is why I described it as a scam."

It's a scam in many ways. But it's harmless, as far as I'm concerned.

Organic food is not an issue, as many have noted above, because it's perfectly simple to grow a plot of organic produce separately from a plot of conventional fruit and veges and sell them concurrently. The existence of one does not demand the destruction of the other. The authoritarian greenies have realised that organic food is a non-starter in the race to enforce their will over others. That's why they see such promise in GMO, because they can raise the spectre of cross pollination. Therefore, we can't have GM crops 'cos they might "contaminate" non-GM crops! Who cares that GM food may well solve a myriad of food supply and environmental problems in the future? Do they actually know any hard facts about the effects of GM food on us? Who cares about that, either? Campaigning about banning GMO makes them feel warm and fuzzy and caring - or at makes them feel justified about spreading the pretence of being so. It also makes them feel important. You just can't get that kind of buzz from demanding organic fruit and vegetables.

James, you are sooo cynical:-P

I vaguely remember from Economic history lessons that before the first world war, British agriculture was pretty much non existent.
There was so much cheap food flooding in from all over the world, that apart from dairy farming (milk doesn't travel well) we just didn't need it.
The rebirth of British agriculture was born of wartime fears of being blockaded and starved into submission
If we all believe in free trade then there is no reason why it souldn't happen again.
Course it won't cos the French won't let us!

I'm warming to the sentiments on this thread. Lets stop raping the environment just to get CAP subsidies.

Let's turn over our countryside to hunting, shooting, fishing and golf. We will then have more space for wider roads and could give land to Two Jags Prescott for his affordable housing. We could even provide more facilities for ramblers, after all the shooters will need something to shoot at.

Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net features a character who refuses to eat any food that has been produced by actual plants and animals (rather than made in a lab) because all the "natural toxins" in naturally grown food are bad for him. Sterling is in my mind a rather foolish global warming alarmist, but I will give him points for that one.

You don't think there could be negative consequences from relying on poor and likely unstable countries for all our food? We have enough problems being reliant on their oil.

By the way, we don't need HRH The Prince of Wales, to tell people what to do with their land after the CAP has been abolished (in a parallel univers). People will figure out something.

"Prince Charles' Lead"?

Can anyone find any mention in any of those articles (or anywhere else) that says that Prince Charles is in favour of scrapping the CAP or farming subsidies?

As far as I can tell, his direction is about encouraging more organic production, not libertarianism.

Have a read of the this to work out where he's coming from.

It often seems to me that he has no empathy with the needs and desires of the people of this country. Many people would have to make considerable personal sacrifices to afford organic or local quality food, and they make that choice.

If the EU abolished CAP and allowed a free market in agricultural products the immediate gains would probably be had by suppliers in Latin America and Australia. In the longer term African countries would start to benefit.

Many African countries are currently poor and unstable but free trade in agricultural products would make them substantially less poor and unstable.

There is the theoretical risk of extortion by a monopoly of hostile foreign food producers but that threat would last precisely one year before we could plough up parks and golf courses and start growing our own food again as in WWII. If we're suficiently worried we could just keep a stockpile of one year's supply of food.

You don't think there could be negative consequences from relying on poor and likely unstable countries for all our food? We have enough problems being reliant on their oil.

And which third world oil producing countries do you think we would be purchasing our food from? Or when you say "them", does that just mean "all non-First World countries regardless"?

There is in fact a vast over-production of food globally, the distribution just happens be be rather cockeyed... moreover, unless you forsee some vast global war that disrupts Europe's transportation networks on a scale comperable to World War I or II, what scenario do you envisage that would cause such widespread instability that if one food producing nation stopped selling spuds to us, we could not just buy spuds from somewhere else?

You don't think there could be negative consequences from relying on poor and likely unstable countries for all our food? We have enough problems being reliant on their oil.

Oh, if there's enough money it it, I expect a few of the larger agribusinesses will step in and quietly run things behind the scenes. So long as they're discreet about it and run the place reasonably well, the locals might not mind all that much- given a choice between living in a country run by ArcherDanielsMidland and one run by your typical African kleptocrat, which would you choose?

I like John East's comment:
Let's turn over our countryside to hunting, shooting, fishing and golf. We will then have more space for wider roads and could give land to Two Jags Prescott for his affordable housing.
The issue of the CAP is not about the merits of organic vs. conventional farming. Let consumer choice sort that one out. It is about whether or not landowners are allowed to pursue the most profitable use of their land. If it is growing organic potatoes, fine. If it is "growing" suburban housing then farmers are prohibited from doing so by Green Belt planning laws. If they were scrapped then builders would soon step in and solve the "affordable" housing problem for all but the very poorest. Of course that would mean all Prescott's initiatives and agencies set up to deal with the problem would not be needed. Well, we know Governments are not here to solve problems, only to provide "solutions" by doing something to prove they care.

So we have picturesque villages being ripped down to be replaced with endless blocks of flats packing people in at city style densities while farmers are being paid to keep the surrounding land in agriculture when it would be far better used for building family homes with gardens for children to play in. In the UK we have a fashion for free range chickens and battery people.

Does it really make sense to artificially keep so much of the First World under cultivation?

In some scenarios, yes it does.