Maria Grazia Mammuccini of Federbio responds to the criticism of organic farming made by Senator Elena Cattaneo. Explaining how organic farming represents the true strategic innovation for the future.
The presentation at the Chamber of Deputies of the Cambia la Terra report provided an opportunity to present the most recent data on Italy's agricultural production model and to put forward concrete proposals to institutional representatives for a transition towards organic farming. The current production and distribution model, as confirmed by the most recent studies from international organisations, has failed to resolve the problems of food access while exacerbating emergencies related to pollution, climate, public health and the preservation of biodiversity.
The presentation of the report took place against the backdrop of a controversy that has recently received considerable coverage in the national media. On one side, life senator Elena Cattaneo, who strongly criticised the "Cambia la Terra" campaign and organic farming; on the other, the organisations promoting the report: Federbio, Isde – Medici per l'ambiente, Legambiente, Lipu and Wwf. We interviewed Maria Grazia Mammuccini, spokesperson for the campaign, to explore the coalition's proposals in greater depth and to better understand the contours of the controversy fuelled by the authoritative Senator Cattaneo.
The report's data has been in the public domain for a few weeks now. What level of sensitivity and openness have you found among politicians, and in the Agriculture Committee in particular?
The scientific data tells us that the industrial agriculture model is completely outdated, and offers very clear indications on how to tackle climate change, how to protect biodiversity and public health through the agroecology and organic farming model. Given this clarity, we are calling for political choices that are equally clear and bold. Among those present at the Chamber were the president of the Agriculture Committee, Filippo Gallinella, and vice-president Susanna Cenni. We found attentiveness and openness that must be followed up with concrete commitments and initiatives. Everything tells us we must press ahead, because the conditions to do so exist on the political side as well. We are optimistic and confident.
You put forward some very concrete proposals.
The proposals arise from the conclusions of the report. We are calling for 40 per cent of agricultural land to be under organic cultivation by 2027, at the expiry of the next Pac programming period. At the end of 2017 we stand at 15.4 per cent, so in 10 years we can realistically achieve this target, which would bring advantages and benefits for everyone. The other proposal concerns glyphosate, with the aim of doing everything that can be done at this stage — namely, excluding from Psr, Rural Development Plan, contributions those agronomic practices that use it. We cannot ban its use, given that the EU renewed authorisation for a further five years until 2022, but we can stop providing subsidies to those who use it and ban its use in protected natural areas. This would lead to a drastic reduction in the substance in the near term.
We also propose reversing the burden of proof to guarantee safety distances. It is absurd that today it is organic farmers who must defend themselves against those who use chemical products. The organic farmer must have a safety buffer to avoid the risk of contamination that would cause them to lose their certification. The buffer zone is a crucially important safeguard that must be the responsibility of those who use chemical products. The safety distance must ultimately be guaranteed not only from organic crops but also from inhabited centres and places frequented by the public. The protection of organic produce and citizens' health must be guaranteed. These concrete proposals can be implemented through the Pac, through the new law on organic farming currently under discussion in Parliament, and through the amendment to the Pan pesticidi, which must be approved by January 2019.
The Cambia la Terra report highlights a stark imbalance: almost all public subsidies go to conventional agriculture.
The target of 40 per cent of cultivated agricultural land under organic farming must be supported by a shift in policies and funding to support conversion to organic. For farmers, the most difficult moment is precisely the conversion itself. During the three years of conversion to organic there are many difficulties in restoring the balance of one's land and crops. It is precisely during the transition phases that production can be lower. It is the riskiest and most costly period. At that point the farmer needs to be supported with funding that is already provided for but is absolutely insufficient given the high demand for conversion to organic. Beyond this, investments are needed in farmer training and in research to find new solutions in agroecology, in organic and in biodynamic farming. To achieve this target, the PAC must redirect a considerable amount of resources towards organic farming.
Senator Elena Cattaneo, commenting on the Cambia la Terra campaign, argued that these demands are not well-founded but are instrumental in asking the state for additional resources for organic farming.
It is a singular claim, not least because it is the market that is driving organic growth — public funds certainly are not. Organic is growing exponentially because citizens are sustaining ever-growing demand for organic food, both to protect their own health and in the awareness of choosing a form of farming that is respectful of the environment. The so-called "organic lobby" is simply asking for the right balance to be struck so as to use this strategic phase to strengthen organic farming in our country. It is a quality form of agriculture tied to the land that strengthens Italian agriculture and certainly does not weaken it, as the senator claims. Intensive agriculture in a landscape like ours is also damaging to the agricultural economy, which in our territory is integrated. Agricultural production, hospitality, the enhancement of the landscape and the environment are all important drivers of development.
So we are not talking about a return to the past, as Cattaneo claims?
If we look at the evolutionary process of agricultural strategies, the exact opposite is true. Organic is the most advanced innovation at this moment, because even from a scientific standpoint it has been demonstrated that the best innovation for the future is not to work against nature but to use an ecological approach. It is the strategic innovation of the future. Many things are also changing on the scientific front. And to face the challenges ahead, what is needed is precisely an openness on the part of the scientific world to explore new methodologies — certainly not dogmatic closure.
The senator claims that organic farming pollutes more than conventional farming, citing the use of copper as an example. What is your response?
To assert that organic farming pollutes more than chemical agriculture, and that copper is more dangerous than glyphosate, means contradicting the scientific data, which tells us something entirely different. The copper example is absolutely instrumental. There are hundreds of chemical substances used in conventional farming, many of which have been classified as toxic to the environment and to human health. When the senator talks about organic farming, the only reference she uses is copper, which, incidentally, is also used in conventional agriculture on top of all the other chemical substances. The only ones subject to strict per-hectare limits on copper use are precisely organic producers, while conventional ones can use as much as they like.
"Organic farming yields less." Can we afford that?
It seems that Senator Cattaneo is not only taking a stand against organic farming but also against the strategies set out by international bodies such as the EU and the FAO. Following the most recent international studies, it is now common knowledge that we produce more food than we consume — roughly a third of it is wasted — and that the real problems concern distribution and access. These are not new findings but well-founded analyses that have already been translated into calls, by these organisations, to governments and businesses to change the production model. Industrial agriculture may have delivered greater output in the short term, but at a global level soil productivity is already declining due to a lack of organic matter in the soil. Cattaneo's assertions are open to criticism on this front as well, given that, in strategic terms, the foundation of stable productivity is maintaining the organic matter in the soil. It is the soil — living earth — that sustains a stable output useful for human nutrition. The agro-ecological approach of organic and biodynamic farming is founded precisely on the principle of maintaining soil organic matter.
How do you view this controversy over organic farming?
I think it is important to keep up to date on agricultural matters. Senator Cattaneo is an extraordinary scientist, but in other fields, and it is not clear why she continues to involve herself in a subject she knows little about. It is concerning that the media give her so much space to express opinions that have no foundation. I understand that, for the average reader, a life senator and scientist instinctively represents an authoritative source, but when one goes on to look more closely it becomes clear that she says things that are also contrary to what the international agencies themselves are asking governments around the world to do — namely, to focus on prevention by properly applying the precautionary principle. I am, finally, bewildered by these continual attacks, because they give the impression of a crusade against a production method that seeks to work in harmony with nature. I would instead like to make an appeal to scientists to support, with their knowledge, this delicate but necessary phase of transition.
