A recent statement from international organic body, IFOAM, seeking to establish organic as the only true form of regenerative agriculture, exemplifies the organic sector’s brazen sense of entitlement, which assumes that it can play by a different set of rules. Nowhere is this brazenness more evident than in the raft of exemptions and loopholes built into organic standards which are designed to make life easier for organic producers, but which are totally at odds with the consumer-facing narrative that organic farming is founded on holistic, natural principles which prohibit the use of artificial inputs. In Britain, the most glaring example of this is the so-called ‘emergency’ use of non-organic seed, which not only reached an all-time high in 2024, but also helped organic producers qualify for eye-wateringly high subsidy options under the now-closed Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme. That organic producers have been able to qualify for premium rate organic SFI options using non-organic seed is, quite frankly, beyond the pale. How can Defra Ministers justify such a situation to the many conventional farmers who lost out on SFI payments when the scheme ran out of money? It is seriously time for Ministers to clamp down on the worsening non-organic seed scam, argue SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall and science communicator Dr Julian Little.  

 

The global organic sector is evidently ruffled by the rising tide of commercial food chain interest in so-called ‘regenerative agriculture’, which it sees as encroaching on its own territory, threatening to erode its buoyant market share and inflated brand equity.  

 

The organic industry’s international body, IFOAM, recently issued a statement entitled ‘Elevating truly regenerative agriculture’, which seeks to draw a distinction between what it terms ‘serious’ regenerative actors, and merely ‘aspirational’ regenerative actors with ‘strong corporate interests.’ 

 

The IFOAM statement lays claim to the term ‘regenerative’, dating back to 1943 when it was first used by organic pioneer Sir Albert Howard. It expresses alarm that widespread ‘misuse’ of the term is now diverting focus away from more transformative solutions.

 

The statement also pledges to “combat a misleading “beyond organic” narrative based on unhelpful comparisons between aspirational (regenerative) principles and minimum (organic) standards...”

 

In other words, we don’t want the outcomes of organic farming to be measured against these alternative systems.

     

But nowhere does the IFOAM statement provide any justification or evidence to support the claim that only ‘serious’ regenerative practices can deliver ‘truly transformative food and farming systems.’ 

 

It is simply brazen assertion, with transformation apparently an end in itself, regardless of the outcomes.

 

Indeed, it is reminiscent of Sir Albert Howard’s own teachings that “we should come to regard pests, parasites and diseases as nature’s professors of good husbandry, because they reveal to us the deficiencies in our management”.

 

But they may also reveal to us decimated harvests and empty larders! A touching faith in nature is not what keeps our supermarket shelves stocked with healthy, safe and affordable food, nor how we have ensured that life expectancy today is longer than it has ever been.  

 

Indeed, as has been noted before, the rhetoric of the organic lobby embodies a brazen sense of entitlement which assumes that it can play by a different set of rules, which often simply swerve or ignore the facts. 

 

Nowhere is this brazenness more evident than in the raft of exemptions and loopholes built into organic standards which are designed to make life easier for organic producers, but which are totally at odds with the consumer-facing narrative that organic farming is founded on holistic, natural principles which prohibit the use of artificial inputs.

 

Consumers paying a hefty premium for organically reared meat or dairy, for example, might be surprised to learn that it could have been produced from livestock treated with antibiotics up to three times in any 12-month period.

 

They probably don’t expect organic eggs to have come from conventionally reared pullets. Or that organic producers can import manure from non-organic farms. 

 

But the most glaring example of organic double standards, as has been pointed out in a previous SSA commentary, lies in the routine use of so-called ‘emergency’ authorisations for organic growers to use non-organic seed which has been  produced using the same synthetic pesticides and fertilisers banned under organic rules (and actively campaigned against by the organic lobby).

 

This practice not only misleads unwitting consumers paying extra for the supposed ‘integrity’ of organic food, but also disadvantages conventional growers. Back in 2021, former Yorkshire MP Julian Sturdy, also an arable farmer and a former chair of the APPG on Science & Technology in Agriculture, described the practice of 100% non-organic hybrid seed use by organic growers commanding a substantial premium for their harvest as ‘a kick in the teeth for conventional oilseed rape growers struggling with pest-ravaged crops following the loss of neonic seed treatments.”

 

At the time he called for an urgent investigation into the practice of non-organic seed use by organic growers.

 

With the latest data on non-organic seed use indicating not only that the use of non-organic seed has surpassed previous records, but also that these emergency exemptions have helped organic producers qualify for eye-wateringly high subsidy options under the now-closed Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme, the case for such an investigation by government seems ever greater.

 

This situation is not only indefensible, but getting worse. The most recent Annual Report of Non-Organic Seed Authorisations for Great Britain for 2024 states that 20,445 authorisations were granted for use of non-organic seed, 21% more than in 2023, and more than 18% higher than the previous record of 17,259, set in 2022.

 

The report points to an increase in the number of authorisations granted for vegetables, top fruits, grasses, fodder, forage, and cover crops, noting that “in particular, the increase in number of authorisations for top fruits, fodder, forage and cover crops reflects greater uptake of agri-environment schemes such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), where the supply of organic seeds has not been able to keep pace with demand.”

 

The sense of irony and double standards here is clearly lost on the report’s author.

 

We have previously pointed out that no fewer than 14 out of the Defra’s 102 SFI options were explicitly designed to support and/or increase organic production in England, and asked why, with such pressures on the public finances, British taxpayers were subsidising the production of food most ordinary people cannot afford.

 

Indeed, the general public has not only been subsidising organic farmers simply for being organic, but doing so at payment rates much higher than for conventional farmers, eg:

 

OFM4 – Organic land management – rotational land - £132 per hectare

OFM5 – Organic land management – horticultural - £707 per hectare

OFM6 – Organic land management – top fruit - £1,920 per hectare

 

That organic producers have been able to qualify for these premium rate organic SFI options using non-organic seed is, quite frankly, beyond the pale.

 

How can Defra Ministers justify such a situation to the many conventional farmers who lost out on SFI payments when the scheme ran out of money?

 

A widely shared LinkedIn blog by Geoff Sansome, Natural England’s former Head of Agriculture, highlights concerns that Defra officials ignored warnings that the SFI would lead to farmers and agents “gaming the system“ by targeting high payment options.

 

In this case, “cheating the system” might be more appropriate….

 

Daniel Pearsall is an independent consultant specialising in communication and policy development in the farming, food chain and agri-science sectors. He runs a small livestock farm in Scotland. He co-ordinates the Science for Sustainable Agriculture initiative.  

 

A Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology, Dr Julian Little has worked in plant science and food production for over thirty years. He holds a first degree in biochemistry and a PhD in molecular plant pathology. After a successful career in a number of crop protection and seed companies, he now helps a range of individuals and organisations improve their communications and public affairs activities in relation to scientific research and innovation in agriculture. He is a member of the Science for Sustainable Agriculture advisory group.