An influential government scientist has criticised organic farming, claiming the approach does not provide enough environmental benefits to compensate for the reduce yields it produces. Comments by Professor Tim Benton, the UK's Global Food Security Champion, have sparked a furious backlash from organic groups.

Professor Benton, who advises government on issues of food security, last week presented delegates at the NFU conference with a love letter to industrial farming. As well as claiming that the environmental benefits seen on organic farms can never compensate for the fact that they produce less food, the Leeds University scientist said vegetarianism and local production webs carry no environmental benefit and sang the praises of industrial farming and GM technology.

image expired

The professor said that, instead of switching to lower impact methods, conventional farmers should concentrate on the most productive parts of their land and farm them intensively, leaving less productive land for wildlife and conservation, to maximise benefit for producers and the environment.

He told BBC Radio, “I don’t think it is at all contentious to say when you look at the literature that organic farms yield less. We did a study at the University of Leeds and found that, for winter cereals, the yield was 46 per cent for an organic farm. Whether it’s 50 per cent or 70 per cent or 80 per cent, you need more land area, and that area comes at an environmental cost.”

The professor continued, “Organic farming is good for wildlife, but it’s not that good that it outweighs having areas that are cropped and those that are non-cropped for wildlife; the optimal mix is to have fields that are managed intensively, with ‘nature reservey’ areas which are managed specifically for wildlife.”  

However, the respected food security expert’s remarks have been subject to scathing criticism from environmentalists and organic farmers.

The organic certification body the Soil Association last week launched an appeal for more funding in which it criticised the amount of research funding and energy spent on simply comparing and contrasting organic and conventional systems, instead of looking into aspects of either system which could benefit the other, or investigating innovative new approaches.     

Professor Benton’s comments have been condemned as short sighted, as his assertions come at a time when farmers and agriculturalists acknowledge that research and development must focus on maintaining production whilst impacting less on the environment and reducing dependency on finite petrochemicals. In order to face up to climate change, biodiversity loss and peak oil influential scientists, including Defra chief scientist Bob Watson maintain that there is a pressing need for a paradigm shift in agriculture.

A longitudinal study, completed in 2002 by a Swiss research team, showed that, although yield was lower overall on organic systems, organic farms proved to be healthier and more resilient. The team looked at a range of crops and found that yields were up to 20 per cent lower on organic systems “although input of fertiliser and energy was reduced by 34 to 53 per cent and pesticide by 97 per cent.” The researchers therefore concluded that such an approach has benefits in terms of resilience in the absence of chemical inputs, stating organic is “a real alternative to conventional farming systems.”   

Emma Hockridge, the Soil Association’s head of policy, said that Professor Benton’s suggestions, which may at first seem appealing, amount to compulsory set aside, which has caused problems in the past. She said that Benton’s study was also too narrow in focus, in that it only looked at one crop on a farm and not other benefits which organic farming could bring, including a focus on nutrient cycling to create a more durable system.

She said that the over-reliance on finite chemicals of Professor Benton’s suggested approach means it is not likely to provide long term food security at all.   

Tweet