John Humphrys, author of a provocative new book on the crisis caused by intensive farming, talks to Catherine Bassindale about food, foot-and-mouth and the power of women consumers

In our quest for cheap food, we’re not only destroying the environment, we’re also gambling with our lives. That’s according to John Humphrys, the presenter of Radio 4’s Today programme, and author of a new book called The Great Food Gamble (Hodder & Stoughton, £12.99). Humphrys – who ran a small organic farm for 10 years – is highly critical of the agricultural revolution which has been taking place since the 1950s, as traditional methods are cast aside in favour of factory farming and the widespread use of pesticides and antibiotics. Humphrys acknowledges that new technology enables suppliers to produce predictably large volumes of food at a low price, but argues that the hidden costs are alarmingly high. Wildlife, the water supply and soil can be decimated by a build-up of toxic chemicals. And no one knows for sure what this is doing to our health. The reduction in fertility, the rise in certain cancers and an increase in childhood asthma and allergies have all been blamed on pesticides. For now, that’s pure speculation. But there’s no doubt that BSE and foot-and-mouth have caused untold devastation – and the spread of these diseases are indisputably linked to modern farming practices.

Quality, not quantity
Humphrys urges consumers, supermarkets and the government to adopt a back-to-basics approach, and go for ‘quality, not quantity’ by supporting small-scale suppliers, in particular Britain’s organic farmers, who currently provide only a quarter of the organic produce sold in this country. It’s for our own good, he insists. ‘I believe passionately that organic food is better than chemically grown food, and it also tastes better,’ he says. ‘A couple of weeks ago, the results of a study in the States [published in Nature], proved conclusively that apples grown from old-fashioned organic orchards were not only more nutritious but tasted better than apples that were grown chemically.’

He hints that had we supported our own farmers, rather than importing from abroad, then the foot-and-mouth crisis could have been averted. ‘There’s no doubt that we should be much more cautious about the food we import,’ he says. ‘We do import meat from places where foot-and-mouth is endemic, like Latin America. It’s ludicrous, for example, that the army should be buying in meat, when there are clear benefits from home produce. It may satisfy the demands of the accountants, looking at the bottom line, but there are added costs – and, in particular, if you’re looking at foot-and-mouth, that could be billions of pounds.’

He is dubious about the policy of slaughtering, which has led to over 2.3 million animals being culled so far. ‘Had we gone for protective ring vaccination [where animals are vaccinated within a radius of 3km from the site of a confirmed outbreak] in the first instance, it could have helped, but I’m conscious of being wise after the event. It looks as though we’re through the worst, but it’s still not over. It’s hard to see how slaughtering millions of animals is the solution when you know the alternatives [particularly as one leading expert suggests that vaccinated animals are perfectly safe to eat]. We know a lot of the animals killed did not have the disease, so a very large number did not need to be slaughtered.’

Baron farmers have CAP in hand
He is strongly against the Common Agricultural Policy, which was established in 1962 to boost productivity and provide European farmers with security. It now pays farmers £27 billion a year – half of the EU’s entire budget – to mass produce, regardless of demand. Tony Blair recently denounced the CAP as ‘bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment and ultimately bad for farmers.’ Says Humphrys: ‘The first thing the government have to do is stop paying subsidies to the barley barons, who get billions of pounds to pollute the environment and destroy land, to give us food that we don’t need. Then they should use the money saved to encourage sustainable farming again, almost certainly producing food for the local market, and using local abattoirs.’

Currently, only 2.3 per cent of Britain’s farmland is farmed organically. But as consumers, he says we should use our purse power to insist on more home-grown and ethically produced goods. Humphrys, for example, won’t allow GM produce in his house, and will only feed his ten-month-old son, Owen, organic baby food. ‘If you look at very powerful pressure points, it’s always going to be our children.’ There are signs that we are heading in the right direction. Once, you could only find a couple of misshapen carrots in the ‘organics’ section of supermarkets. Now, there are aisles to choose from, including supermarket own-brands and products from mainstream manufacturers including Heinz and Mars UK. The Soil Association reports that sales in the organic food market have soared by 55 per cent in the past year and the annual market is now worth £605m. Women buying for their families have helped bring about these changes. ‘It’s mostly women buying in the food, and they have an enormous influence here,’ he says. ‘But I don’t differentiate between men and women,’ he adds, ‘and deplore the notion that there are differences. I lived by myself for ten years and did all the shopping, and apart from the fact that I’d buy rather more beer, there was no difference.’

But in male-dominated big business, does he think women could do a better job of supplying ethically produced food for the consumer? ‘I think it’s possible. Women do more of the shopping and more of the feeding of children. Fifty per cent of the population do probably about 90 per cent of the shopping and they’re scarcely represented at senior levels of people responsible for business.’

Consuming passion
But it’s not enough just to change what we put in our basket. ‘We must be more demanding,’ says Humphrys. ‘We should want to know where x, y, z came from. I know it’s a pain looking at labels and some are confusing – some deliberately so – but you should look at the country of origin and the way it’s been farmed.’ He advises looking out for the Soil Association logo – a guarantee of organic quality – and not being taken in by some of the more ‘misleading’ labels. ‘At the bottom end of the scale is the ludicrous ‘welfare friendly farm fresh’, which is utter nonsense! What does it mean?’

In general, if you don’t like what you see – or you find the labelling confusing – he says you should write to the supermarket. Get your friends to do the same. Then, if you’re not happy with the response, contact your local MP and newspaper.

‘When the customers made it clear that they didn’t want genetically modified food, they stopped supplying it. (This has been a disaster economically for Iceland, who have since reversed their policy to stem collapsing profits.) When they made it clear they wanted organic food, they started supplying it. They took no notice of the ethical arguments, only that there was a developing market. We shouldn’t expect too much of them – they’re in business and their first priority is to their shareholders, by law, not the customers.’

‘But the consumer has power – that’s one thing we learnt very starkly with the GM debacle – and although the supermarkets have massive power, they will listen to the consumer. The politicians will listen, too. Because the supermarkets want your money, and the politicians want your vote.’

If you have any views, comments or questions on using consumer power to bring change the food industry, visit our going organic message board.