What you can say when marketing organic 2020 - Flipbook - Page 10
Why We Can’t Always Say What We’d Like
Wondering why some claims are phrased in a certain way or
not quite as strong as you might expect?
Research gaps
In order to make a substantiated claim on the
benefits of a farming system, a huge number of
studies from different places and for different
products are needed. This is especially the case for
most things that you want to put a number on, such
as percentage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Organic standards are evidence-based and regulated
by law, so their rationale has had a lot of scientific
scrutiny. But research gaps do remain, especially
when it comes to quantifying the impacts of organic
systems. Sadly, less than 1% of all annual research
funding for farming goes towards looking at organic
systems so the claims listed here reflect this.
Research bias
The metrics chosen by scientists also have
implications for how the results are interpreted.
For example, commonly used methods like Life
Cycle Analyses, tend to favour intensive farming
methods over organic. This is because such methods
can take a narrow perspective on the function of
farming systems – such as focussing on yield,
without considering non-economic impacts like
biodiversity. The starting point for organic is to try
and avoid a narrow focus, by taking a holistic, “whole
system” approach. A “whole system” approach
means attempting to strike a more optimum balance
between avoiding or mitigating a wide range of
the common negative consequences associated
with food production whilst still producing enough
10
food. Methods that fail to account for the full range
of factors that the organic approach considers, or
which inconsistently model them, can misrepresent
the benefits of organic and result in evidence that is
not as strong as might be expected.
Ongoing disputes
An example of this is the ongoing debate about
the implications of organic farming for yields,
with organic farms sometimes being found to
produce lower yields. Lower yields often mean that
measured impacts (such as GHG emissions) come
out lower per area of farmland, but higher per unit
of product. Whilst some argue this counts against
organic, others (including the Soil Association)
argue this sets up a false dichotomy because it fails
to consider the other costs that high yields come
with. Not only because it ignores the potential to
close the yield gap, but by focusing on a narrow set
of metrics (yields and efficiency of input per unit of
product) at the expense of other metrics it is shortsighted and fails to evaluate overall sustainability.
This yield driven approach has directly and
indirectly contributed to waste, overconsumption
of unhealthy foods, and has provided economic
incentives to convert natural habitat to agriculture.
Nonetheless, the ASA emphasise the importance of
being sensitive to ongoing scientific disputes. For
this reason, when organic farming performs better
only in terms of land area comparisons, the claim
specifies this.