In their latest marketing campaign against supermarket rivals, organic veg box suppliers Riverford Organics target ‘farmwashing’, and call for greater transparency from retailers. But when Riverford’s current offerings include courgettes, cucumber, cherry tomatoes and sweet potatoes imported from Spain, and when their suppliers include large-scale operators with production sites in multiple countries, is there really such a difference? And perhaps the same principles of transparency should apply to the widespread use of non-organic seed by certified organic growers under an ‘emergency’ loophole in the organic rules? Shoppers paying a hefty premium for organic products would not expect them to have been grown from non-organic seed, and certainly not without labelling to that effect. When recent FSA research reveals that one in four people in the UK are still ‘food insecure’, there is something rather grotesque about a ‘farmwashing’ campaign clearly intended to encourage people to pay much, much more for their food. The fact that modern agriculture has been able to keep pace with the food demands of a global population of more than 8.2 billion people is nothing short of a miracle, which has been achieved through the application of the most amazing science, technology and innovation. A number of years ago, as science minister, Lord Willetts was right to challenge to the food industry to do more to celebrate and communicate the fact that agriculture is a high-tech, scientific endeavour. In the face of a changing climate, war and geopolitical instability, securing a reliable and affordable supply of safe, healthy food does not lie in turning back the clock to some imagined bucolic idyll. It lies in embracing the potential of new technologies and scientific innovation in agriculture, and ensuring we take consumers with us on that journey, argue science communicator Dr Julian Little and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.

 

The founder of organic veg box company Riverford Organic Farmers Ltd, Guy Singh-Watson, has launched another stinging attack on the supermarkets, this time accusing them of 'farmwashing' by using invented farm names on own-label products to conjure up associations of local, small-scale family farms, rather than the large-scale, intensive systems which successfully produce most of our food today. 

 

It may not be too surprising that Mr Singh-Watson, running a business which sells direct to the consumer, is having another pop at the supermarkets, since they represent Riverford's main source of competition.

 

But when Riverford's current 'Familiar Favourites' organic veg box for 2-3 people includes courgettes, sweet potatoes, cucumber and cherry tomatoes all shipped in from Spain, is there really such a big difference?

 

Dutch breeder Rijk Zwaan recently confirmed that the growing need for year-round volume of organic produce at scale has led to a consolidation in Europe’s organic fruit and vegetable businesses, and an increase in the number of larger-scale grower suppliers.

 

At least one of those businesses, with production sites in multiple countries, also supplies Riverford.

 

Mr Singh-Watson accuses the supermarkets of misleading consumers. But is Riverford entirely transparent with customers about, for example, the increasing ‘intensification’ of organic production?

 

And what about the widespread use of non-organic seed by certified organic growers?

 

Seed trade estimates put the use of non-organic seed, which is permitted under an ‘emergency’ loophole in the organic rules, at up to 90% for some crops, particularly in the veg sector:   

 

“Soundings from within the industry suggests that while there is a strong and consistent demand for organically grown seeds as ‘small-packet’ sales to garden centres and market gardeners, non-organic seed makes up the majority of sales to registered organic producers, in some crop species accounting for as much as 90% of seed sales.” 

 

The simple fact is that a significant proportion of certified organic products are currently grown from non-organic seed, which has been produced using the same artificial fertilisers and synthetic chemicals that the organic lobby prohibits and vigorously campaigns against. And they do so using legislation that is supposedly for emergencies, year after year after year.

 

Shoppers paying a premium for organic products would not expect them to have been grown from non-organic seed, and certainly not without labelling to that effect.

 

But this widespread practice is not something the organic sector is particularly keen to advertise, for obvious reasons. A 2020 report produced by the organic sector for the UK Government on the use of non-organic seed by certified organic growers recognised that: 

 

“Increased levels of non-organic seed use are undesirable within the organic sector as it....risks creating two-tiers of seed costs for farmers risking undermining public trust.”   

 

So, in the same spirit of transparency Mr Singh-Watson is calling for from the supermarkets, perhaps he might also commit to providing clearer information, not only about the provenance of Riverford’s products, but also whether they have been grown from non-organic seed stocks?

 

There is, however, one very significant point of difference between Riverford and the major supermarkets: the prices they charge.

 

Riverford’s ‘Familiar Favourites’ organic veg box referred to above is priced at £19.55.

 

A quick online search reveals that the equivalent basket of conventionally grown produce from a major supermarket would cost just £7.76.

 

When a recent FSA consumer survey, conducted by Ipsos, revealed that one in four people in the UK are still ‘food insecure’, which means they have limited or uncertain access to adequate food, there is something rather grotesque about a ‘farmwashing’ campaign clearly intended to encourage people to pay much, much more (in excess of 2.5 times more!) for their food.

 

Mr Singh-Watson is, however, right to call out the supermarkets for using invented farm names and traditional images to convey old-fashioned perceptions of farming and food production.

 

Most people nowadays have little direct contact with or understanding of how our food is produced.  

 

The fact that modern agriculture has been able to keep pace with the food demands of a global population of more than 8.2 billion people is nothing short of a miracle, which has been achieved through the application of the most amazing science, technology and innovation.    

 

Supermarkets should not be hiding or disguising that fact from customers, they should be shouting it from the rooftops!

 

More than a decade ago, as science minister, David (now Lord) Willetts addressed a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture. He was previewing the Government’s plans to launch an Agri-Tech Strategy as part of a commitment to drive long-term growth in the UK economy.

 

At the meeting he issued a challenge to the industry to do more to celebrate and communicate the fact that agriculture is a high-tech, scientific endeavour. He compared Apple computer products with the tomato, insisting that the modern tomato is as much an achievement of scientific research and innovation over decades as Apple products, yet agriculture and food production are still too often presented in old-fashioned and traditional terms.

 

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new revolution in food and farming, with precision breeding technologies such as gene editing opening up the prospect of a more secure, sustainable and climate resilient food supply.

 

To realise those opportunities, it seems we need to urge the supermarkets and the food industry more widely to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Lord Willetts all those years ago.

 

In the context of a changing climate, war and geopolitical instability, and when already a quarter of the UK population do not have enough to eat, securing a reliable and affordable supply of safe, healthy food does not lie in turning back the clock to some imagined bucolic idyll.

 

It lies in embracing the potential of new technologies and scientific innovation in agriculture, and ensuring we take consumers with us on that journey.

 

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.

 

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.