www > Publications > Environment

Farm and Environment

Copyright 1989-2004 by Nigel Bradley

Cite as: Bradley N (1989) Farm and Environment MRS Survey. 6(1) Spring pp2-4

Available at    http://www.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/Marketing/farming.htm

The 'Green revolution' of the 1960s transformed agriculture in developing countries around the world.  Increased mechanisation, new techniques, new plant hybrids and new agrochemicals increased both the quality and the quantity of produce.    During this same period a more silent revolution was taking place in Britain, although the title 'Green revolution' was not used to describe it. But twenty years later, the 1980s have seen the arrival in Britain of the 'Green movement', which has led to accusations that the farming community is damaging the environment and adversely affecting our food.

Under pressure to produce homogeneous products of consistent quality and consumer appeal, farmers have nevertheless been under consistent attack from a growing proportion of the consumer base.  Accusations have ranged from the nitrate pollution of water systems, through the burning of straw and the destruction of wildlife, bees and ladybirds, to a lack of concern about the effects of food production practices on the ultimate consumer. 1989 may be Food & Farming Year, but it is also the Year of the Rain Forest.  Environmental and consumer concerns are no longer expressed as a gentle murmur. Organically-produced fruit and vegetables are widely tipped to move from the minority kitchen to the mass-market.   ADAS – the Agricultural Development & Advisory Service – has acknowledged this trend and has responded by setting up a regional network of organic farming advisors.   Plans have already been announced for the development of a specialist organic-produce supermarket chain.   At the same time, some supermarket groups have argued that organic produce has only minority appeal, and other advisors suggest that a reversal of current farming practice will lead to a resurgence of the diseases and problems that were rife before present-day chemicals and drugs were available. Neither the situation nor the prognosis seems at all clear and the farmer seems well-placed to become the victim of either circumstance or fashion. Against this backcloth, BJM's Agricultural Research Unit decided to initiate a small-scale research investigation to explore what the farmer currently feels about these and related issues. During January 1989 BJM interviewed 75 farmers, covering both livestock and arable enterprises, to explore their attitudes and their beliefs in respect of these current issues. This article provides some preliminary results from the survey.

Organic farming

Despite the views of some supermarket chains, as reflected earlier, more than 75% of the farmers we interviewed expressed the belief that organic farming will increase in the future and that food will become relatively more expensive. And three-quarters of our sample felt that Edwina Currie was wrong to say that most egg production was affected by salmonella – with 67% believing that her statement has had a damaging effect on farming in general, not just on poultry farming. 

European agriculture

61% of farmers interviewed believed that the Single European Act will have a direct effect on their own farming practices in the post-1992 years – interesting when set against the fact that only 18% of them felt that the European Agriculture Programme is helping UK farmers. It has been argued recently that British pig production will be one of the sectors under greatest pressure in the post-1992 European Community.   Indeed, there have been suggestions that between them The Netherlands and Denmark will be responsible for all European production in this market. It was therefore interesting to note that 42% of our sample agreed that, after 1992, UK pig production will be in crisis (33% did not know). 

The consumer movement

Two-thirds of the farmers interviewed agreed that it is right and proper that the consumer should influence farming practices, but at the same time 53% of them believed that consumers are having a negative effect on farming productivity. 82% of our farmers felt that the benefits to consumers of modern farm technology and practice far outweighed the risks involved, with most farmers (95%) expressing genuine concern about any possible adverse effect caused by their produce. Most farmers in our sample (90%) stressed that they would happily switch to environmentally safe products if they were available.

Areas of concern and their relative importance

With the salmonella scare, animal food products have been in the headlines, but they are not the only area of concern for the environmentalists.    Animal growth promoters, parasite control agents, vaccines, fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides have all come under the same microscope to a greater or lesser extent in a concern for their effects on food produce.

Farmers in our survey were asked about eight different categories of modern 'farming aids'.   They were questioned as to which of these categories they believed to be of concern to the environmental/consumer lobby, and which were of concern to themselves.   Table 1 lists these concerns in order of importance.

TABLE 1 Concerns of farmers and perceived concerns of consumers and environmentalists in order of greatest concern

1. Growth promoters for animals

2. Insecticides

3. Fertilisers

4. Antibiotics, inoculations, etc.

5. Herbicides/fungicides

6. Animal feed products

7. Internal parasite control products

8. External parasite control products

The extent of concern for some of these categories is highlighted in Table 2 which shows the differences in the degree to which farmers feel a particular product category is of concern top themselves on the one hand, and to the consumer/environmentalist on the other.

             TABLE 2       Level of expressed concern for three categories       

Overall, we can see from Table 1 that our sample of farmers believe that consumers/environmentalists are more concerned about the effect of these 'aids' than is the farming community. The extent of the difference between the degree of consumer/farmer concern may well be a measure of the extent to which farmers feel the consumer lobby is being 'alarmist'.  Fertilisers, growth promoters and animal feed products show the widest 'concern-divergence'.

The differences between the two sets of figures, however, should not be seen to detract from the very real concern that our sample of farmers demonstrated.   In response to a different question in the survey, 72% of our farmers said that growth promoters for use in animal production should be withdrawn.   Indeed, within our survey, growth promoters were generally judged to be of greatest overall concern for both farmers and environmentalists.

Products of the future

BJM also asked respondents in this survey to think about the future, and to suggest what manufacturers could do to help to solve problems with products in these different categories.    Their responses gave a useful spectrum of courses of action, and at the same time give some indication of how farmers view their colleagues within the agriculture industry.

·          Research & development

·          Public relations campaigns

·          Better instructions for safer use/guidelines

·          Better quality assurance testing

·          Encourage to use less

·          Change legislation

·          Withdrawn from use

·          Truthfulness from researchers

·          Return to natural/organic farming

·          New products

·          Be more selective about marketable products

·          Solve problems genetically rather than chemically

·          More marketing/selling responsibility

Cost

At a time when government expenditure on research and development is being cut and farmers are increasingly having to shoulder the burden, there are real pressures on the agricultural community. Nevertheless between 60 % and 70% of our respondents said that they would be prepared to pay up to 15% extra for environmentally-safe products in areas where they currently entertain some personal concern.

The future

The next ten years will be a period of change for agriculture in the UK.  Discerning consumers and environmentalists are likely to have a real impact on farming practices and help create higher food prices. While our farmers will find themselves increasingly on equal terms with their European counterparts, they will also find their prices less competitive. Consumers, environmentalists, the agricultural supply industry, the government and even the media will experience difficulties alongside those experienced by British farmers. Co-operation rather than conflict will be required to ease British agriculture successfully into he 1990s and through to the end of the century.

First published in  Survey, Volume 6, No 1 Spring 1989 pp.2-4 ( Market Research Society)

Links

Centre for Alternative Technology (Wales)