A group of European researchers argued in a recent journal article that permitting the use of gene edited crops in EU organic farming would not only improve the bloc’s prospects for sustainable food production, it would also reduce costs to consumers by removing non-safety related co-existence, segregation, traceability and auditing processes from the supply chain. Given the organic sector’s rejection of these advanced breeding tools is essentially a marketing position, not backed by scientific evidence, and is at odds with policy objectives to promote these technologies to safeguard future food security, this raises fundamental questions about who really pays for organic? Of course, CONSUMERS pay extra for organic food, on average 75% more. But TAXPAYERS are also footing the bill for organic food through higher organic farming subsidies, even though most ordinary taxpayers cannot afford, or choose not to buy, organic food. Globally, BIODIVERSITY and the CLIMATE are paying the price of lower-yield organic farming, which displaces food production to other parts of world with even more damaging consequences. And when research also indicates that the food safety risks of eating organic food are higher than those of eating non-organic food, exemplified by Europe’s most deadly food poisoning outbreak which killed 53 people in 2011, PUBLIC HEALTH is also paying the price. Who pays for organic? It’s a fair question, argue SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall and science communicator Dr Julian Little.  

​

In a recent article in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability, a group of leading European researchers argue that to deliver the EU’s Green Deal goal of 25% organic agriculture by 2030, new genomic techniques (NGTs) such as gene editing should be permitted in organic as well as conventional food production.

 

They note that the significant yield gap of organic compared to conventional agriculture increases the environmental footprint per unit of food produced, and that as a result “the target of 25% organic land is unlikely to ensure sustainable food production in the EU if modern biotechnology, such as new genomic techniques (NGTs), is excluded from organic farming.”

 

The authors describe how NGTs could make organic agriculture more economically viable in its own right, by accelerating the development of crops that are more climate-resilient, and that produce higher yields with less pesticide and fertiliser inputs. They point to inconsistencies in the organic industry’s rejection of NGTs, when other plant breeding techniques used to introduce within-species genetic changes, such as radiation- and chemically-induced mutagenesis, are accepted under organic farming standards.

 

Importantly, the researchers also note that liberalising NGT use in organic production could reduce costs and facilitate their integration into conventional agriculture, as supply chain requirements for segregation, traceability and coexistence would be reduced.  

 

As a first step towards incorporating NGTs into organic production, the authors propose a twin-track approach by establishing two regulated labelling schemes on an EU-wide basis: one for “organic with NGT” and the other for “organic without NGT”.  

 

It is an interesting concept, and one which could help address diverging viewpoints within the EU organic sector on the potential benefits of embracing NGTs.

 

So, for example, while the official IFOAM Organics Europe position is that the EU organic production process should remain free from NGTs, other leading organic figures disagree.

 

Swiss researcher Professor Urs Niggli, a former director of FiBL, Europe’s leading organic research institute, has urged the EU organic industry to change its position on gene editing to avoid being left behind. In an interview with the German publication Spektrum, Professor Niggli warned that by rejecting gene editing, the organic sector could lose its pioneering edge in sustainable agriculture, consigned to producing 20-50% lower yields than conventional farming, and missing out on potential solutions to current problems facing organic producers, such as reliance on environmentally harmful copper fungicides for disease control.     

 

Similarly, Danish organic body Økologisk Landsforening (Organic Denmark), has publicly questioned the EU ban on NGTs in organic farming, suggesting that this position should be reviewed if and when gene editing techniques become widespread in conventional plant breeding.

 

The opportunity to reduce costs in the supply chain by including an option for organic producers to use NGTs also carries important policy implications. In the Cell Reports Sustainability article, the authors note that, because NGTs produce the same outcomes as conventional breeding, there are no validated testing methods to detect the presence of material developed using NGTs. They continue:

 

“Without reliable identification methods that meet legal requirements, organic production incorporating NGTs emerges as the only effective option to be regulated at the EU level. In the absence of analytical identification methods, the organic [without] NGT scheme may depend entirely on enhanced traceability methods in tightly controlled supply chains facing similar trust and reliability issues as current organic production regarding GMOs. Only the costs and validation, auditing, and oversight of such methods will determine whether the exclusion of NGTs from organic production is achievable.”

 

When the decision to ban NGTs in organic production is essentially a marketing position, not backed by any scientific evidence of increased risk, and when the development and adoption of NGTs has been prioritised by the EU to help safeguard the bloc’s food security, this in turn raises questions about who currently pays for the extra costs of producing organic food. And perhaps more importantly, who should pay?

 

This question is equally valid in the UK, where Ministers have also stated clearly that the development of policies and regulations to support NGTs (precision breeding) will “boost Britain’s food security, support nature’s recovery and protect farmers from climate shocks.”   

 

So, who is paying for organic food?

 

Consumers

Organic shoppers, of course, pay higher prices for organic food. AI overview suggests that the premium for organic ranges from 10% to 100%, averaging out at 75%.

 

A quick cost comparison for a typical 30-item weekly shopping basket via the UK’s biggest supermarket’s online shopping portal confirms that 75% more for organic is about right. It’s certainly not an over-estimate. And as we have previously pointed out, organic box schemes can be significantly (~150%) more expensive. 

 

Whether organic consumers get what they think they are paying for is another matter. We have previously pointed to a loophole in the UK organic rules permitting the widespread and routine use of non-organic seed. In some vegetable species, seed trade estimates suggest that as much as 90% of the certified organic crop is produced from non-organic seed, grown using the same synthetic pesticides and artificial fertilisers banned and demonised by the organic lobby. You could hardly make it up.

 

Perhaps there is a case for twin-track labelling on this issue too, with use of non-organic seed clearly identified (ie “produced from non-organic seed”) to ensure transparency for consumers paying a hefty premium.

 

Taxpayers

As taxpayers we are all paying for the production of organic food through farm support payments, many of which are specifically designed to encourage more organic farming.

 

Indeed, despite the higher market prices already paid for organic food, organic farmers also receive much higher payment rates from the taxpayer than non-organic farmers.

 

It may seem counter-intuitive that a Labour-controlled government is using the public purse to subsidise the production of more expensive organic food, which many taxpayers simply cannot afford, but that’s the reality. For the few, not the many.

 

A parallel might also be drawn here with other tax regimes which seek to deter inefficient or unproductive use of space. The so-called ‘bedroom tax’ was introduced to penalise under-occupancy of public housing. Similarly, unoccupied or infrequently used second homes attract higher rates of council tax. By contrast, in agriculture, current farm support policies positively encourage the wasteful use of space (in this case, farmland) by using taxpayers’ money to promote lower-yielding, less efficient organic farming. Does that make sense?

 

Biodiversity and Climate

Also paying the price for more land hungry organic farming is the impact on global biodiversity and climate change. 

 

The scientific evidence is compelling that any marginal biodiversity benefit associated with organic farming at the local scale is dwarfed by the corresponding displacement of food production and the need for more land elsewhere to make up the shortfall.

 

In a recent review article in the journal Science, bringing together more than 20 years’ research comparing land sharing and land sparing policy options alongside demand-side interventions such as dietary shifts and waste reduction, a team of UK scientists concluded that off-shoring our food production by encouraging lower-yield farming practices such as organic could lead to biodiversity impacts up to five times more damaging in other parts of the world.

 

Meanwhile independent research published in Nature Communications has suggested that if England and Wales switched 100% to organic it would increase the greenhouse gas emissions associated with our food supply by more than 20% because of the greater need for food imports.

 

Public health

The scientific evidence also indicates that the public health and food safety risks of eating organic food are considerably greater than those of eating non-organic food.

 

As science writer Matt Ridley explains in this article for The Spectator:

 

“This is primarily because organic crop production relies on animal faeces as a fertiliser, an obvious vector for potentially lethal pathogens such as E.coli, but also because organic crops can be prone to harmful mycotoxins as a result of inadequate control of pests and diseases.

 

“In his 2019 book The Myths About Nutrition Science, food and nutrition adviser David Lightsey cites an analysis of US Food and Drug Administration food safety recall data by Academics Review — a group of scientists dedicated to challenging anti-science claims — which showed that ‘organic foods are four to eight times more likely to be recalled than conventional foods for safety issues like bacterial contamination’.

 

And as Lord Rooker, former food safety minister and Food Standards Agency chair, points out in this article for SSA, some people sadly paid the ultimate price for organic food in Europe’s worst ever food poisoning incident:

 

“I was Chair of the Food Standards Agency in 2011 at the time of a lethal food poisoning incident in Germany in which 53 people died and around 4,000 fell ill after consuming organic beansprouts contaminated with an extremely virulent, antibiotic-resistant strain of E-coli. 

 

“This prompted serious questions and discussion about the potential food safety risks associated with organic production. Paul Hunter, a professor of public health at the University of East Anglia told Reuters: “Bean sprouts are …… very difficult to grow hygienically and you have to be careful not to contaminate them. And organic farms, with all that they entail in terms of not using ordinary chemicals and non-organic fertilisers, carry an extra risk.””  

 

Who pays for organic?

 

It's a fair question.

​

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.