Sir, Those who believe organic food is good for the countryside and the environment should think a little harder.

Organic yields are significantly lower than intensive yields. To grow the same amount of food, organic farming therefore requires land than could otherwise be used for nature reserves, forests or wetlands — or golf courses and low-cost housing, if we so choose. To irrigate the additional land more water is required, reducing rivers and aquifers. Moreover, since organic farms still use tractors, water pumps, harvesters and other fossil-fuel powered implements, and these have to travel over a greater area to produce a given quantity of food, they produce higher CO2 emissions.

As for farmers’ markets, consider what would happen if the eight million people in London were forced to drive out to rural areas to source their food — not only would there be chaos, but also the resultant emissions from cars would dwarf the emissions of the relatively few large lorries that currently bring food to supermarkets in town and the short car journeys we make to the supermarket.

Since energy and land are both costs, the market will ensure structures that make the most efficient use of both. Organic farming does the reverse, to the detriment of all.

TIM HAMMOND
London SW6

Sir, Robert Lyons’s comment that “Most ‘conventional’ food does not contain pesticide residues, and where residues are found they are absolutely tiny”, is a very blinkered statement as it is solely related to the possible impact of pesticides in the end product (letter, Jan 9).

What he fails to recognise is that the production of non-organic food introduces a vast number of pesticides and other chemicals into the environment.

Rural communities and schools can be exposed to high levels of pesticides sprayed on nearby fields.

The European Commission has published recently a number of statements regarding the recognised and fully acknowledged impacts of pesticides for those exposed over the long term, including those living in the locality of sprayed fields.

For example, the impact assessment for the EU’s thematic strategy states: “There are various sources for continuous exposure, like the consumption of polluted water, pesticide residues in food, regular application of PPP (plant protection products) over many years, or residential proximity to it and consequently direct exposure via air. People regularly or repeatedly exposed to or working with pesticides, may have a higher risk of incidence of cancer or other chronic diseases, birth defects, cancer in offspring, stillbirths and reproductive problems, skin rashes and disorders, disturbed enzyme and nervous system.” Therefore, on this score, aside from any other part of the argument, producing food without reliance on toxic chemicals would clearly reduce the level of exposure for rural residents and is the only way to protect public health and the environment from the long-term impacts of pesticide use.

GEORGINA DOWNS
UK Pesticides Campaign Chichester