organic country profile: austria (from 2006)

If anywhere in Europe could be considered a model for organic farming, then its Austria. There are lessons to be learned for all stakeholders in the Irish situation.

Austria has Europe�s largest percentage of land farmed organically, at 14.1%, and the largest proportion of its farms certified organic, at 15%%. That works out at about 20,310 farmers.

Along with this, a very large number of Austrian farmers are signed up to a 32 part REPS-like scheme, called OPUL, though it is far stricter and much closer to organic than the standard (as opposed to supplemental measure 6) REPS.

The world�s first �card carrying� organic (indeed biodynamic) farm was established there in 1927. More recently, the anti-freeze wine scandal of the 1980s, and the more general Europe-wide food scares (in particular BSE) were rightly seen as hugely damaging to conventional agriculture.

Many stakeholders in Austrian agriculture support organics, including their current agriculture minister Josef Pr�ll, who recently stated that by supporting organic farming they �have chosen the right way�.

As a corollary, Austria is seen as being amongst the most anti GM of EU countries. It has, for example, banned GM crops from Monsanto and Bayer for a variety of reasons, including what they claimed was improper planning, the effects on non-target plants, insects and regions, and the risk of transfer of anti-biotic resistance to humans and animals. It currently holds the EU presidency, and consistently votes against GM at EU level.

In the late 1980s and early1990s farmers in regions where it was considered easy or beneficial to convert to organic were encouraged to convert. For example, Austria essentially recognised that further intensification in its grassland Alpine regions was difficult, so they actively encouraged the organic option.

State support has been early, strong and steady. The first socio-environmental scheme was introduced in1987; this scheme encouraged farm pluriactivity (ie having a number of enterprises on the one premises, including non-farming e.g. organic guesthouses). Six more similar schemes have followed; one, in 1995, caused 5,200 conversions in a single year. They have also introduced three organic action plans, and a label to denote produce that is both organic and at least 70% of domestic origin. The current subsidies, introduced in 2000, are far higher than those in Ireland. Per hectare, the figures are: for arable land, � 327, grassland: �250, market gardens: �508 and finally vineyards, fruit, vegetables, tree nurseries and hops: �800.

Various other tipping points towards organic include the arrival of a well organised diary co-op into the sector and an intensive advertising campaign run by large retailers and processors in the mid 1990s.

Recently numerous cereal and vegetable producers have also converted, as the economic climate suits them to.

Another key factor is that they have a non-state generic agriculture lobby group, who do not support one type of farming over another, but who represent all aspects. Likewise, there is an umbrella group, called Bio Austria, who represent the common interests of organic agriculture. This umbrella group has, amongst others, advisory, quality management, product management, research and innovation, consumer information and marketing dimensions. Crucially, they do not have to spend any time carrying out inspections or certifications, which are done by standalone certification organisations. This allows them to fully concentrate on these other functions.

A promising new development for the sector today seems to be the development of eco-regions, whereby various businesses operate in an integrated fashion, to develop whole areas as both attractive to visitors and to create a green image for the region, so organic products from the eco-region are seen as superior to even standalone organic produce.

Despite all of this, the situation is not all rosy for organics in Austria. Recent advertising campaigns stating organic was GM free were pulled because of complaints from the conventional farming lobby, and indeed opposition by key organic lobbyists afraid of rocking the boat. Danish-style fertilizer and pesticide taxes haven�t been introduced. Some are cynical of the unity Bio-Austria represents, and feel that the organic farmers� associations need to reassert themselves. Also, many organic farmers feel that the entire agriculture sector is, because of the amount of organic land and the comprehensiveness of OPUL, creating the impression that all of Austrian agriculture is almost organic anyway.

But compared to elsewhere, really, they have little to be complaining about.

Nutrition today and in days of yore..

Here's another way to understand how nutritious our food is...compare it to the past

While there is much debate about whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food, there is little debate needed about the fact that the nutritional content of food has been in decline over the last 60 years.

Modern agriculture has enrolled ever more industrial inputs and processes. In tandem, an ever-longer and more complex food system has moved foods further and faster around the globe.

According to some recent research, this has had a detrimental effect on the nutritional content of the food we eat. The data available on food nutritional decline since the middle of the last century is staggering. Simply put, it suggests that we have sacrificed quality over quantity.

One the one hand, due to advances in medical science and a variety of lifestyle changes, we in the west can live for longer than we could previously. On the other hand, living a long life does not necessarily mean living a healthy or a particularly happy life.

Medical interventions have become, in many ways, a substitute for healthy lifestyles.

According to the UK�s Food Commission �the recent changes in dietary habits towards highly-processed foods means we are likely to be overfed yet malnourished in terms of�micronutrients�.

These micronutrients are increasingly being seen as vital for the healthy functioning of the brain, nervous system and the wellbeing of the body in general.

The Food Commission studied fruits and vegetables last year. They compared data from the 1930s to the 1980s for the fruits and vegetables. Typically, they found a 20% decline in minerals. Increased water content was partly to blame, but �intensive farming on exhausted land was likely to be the major cause of the decline in nutritional value of food, along with selection of varieties for characteristics other than nutrition�.

Similar research in the US (Davis et al 2004), covering the period from 1950-1999, tested 43 garden crops, and found that there was a statistically significant decline in 6 of 13 nutrients tested for. The researchers concluded that change in the varieties chosen by growers �in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content� explains their findings.

The Food Commission have just released their follow up comparative study to last year�s fruits and vegetables study. This time, they compare meat and dairy from the 1930s to the year 2002.

In milk, calcium was only marginally down, but magnesium and iron were down significantly; 21% and 62% respectively. In fact, across the 15 different food categories compared, iron decline was pronounced; it was down 47% on average, and by as much as 80% in some cases.

It is noteworthy that while calcium levels were almost unchanged for milk in the two periods, calcium content of cheese had declined significantly. This suggests that processing and scale changes have had an effect on the quality of the product.

In the case of Parmesan cheese, calcium has fallen by 70%, a fact that suggests �considerable dilution of the original highly concentrated recipe, or some other significant shift in ingredients� according to the Food Commission.

In fact, the more processed meats such as corned beef showed a far greater decline in nutritional content than the less processed meats such as beef, over the two periods. In the UK, cattle are still to a significant extent grass fed and outdoors. That said, the decrease of 55% in iron content in beef is obviously a cause for concern.

Copper, essential for enzyme functioning, was significantly down across dairy and meat categories. On average, it was down 60% in meat and an extraordinary 90% in dairy.

These findings suggest that, along with other problems, nutritional deficiencies occur with the rise in the industrialisation and globalisation of agriculture.

The anthitesis of this agri-industrial model could improve nutritional levels. Smaller scale, more locally-orientated, more seasonal, fresher and less processed foods have lots of socio-environmental benefits. Based on these findings, it is now possible to make the case for the nutritional benefits of foods produced in this less intensive way too.

Imports or local organic fresh fruit and vegetables?

Here is an article on the various issues around imported or local organic fresh fruits and vegetables, taken from an organic diary of mine in the examiner farming supplement. One issue amongst many, not addressed, that I've thought of since, is embedded food miles.

Local food is often posited as the alternative to organic food. People now love to say that local is better, and better for the environment. There is some truth in this, but it's a skewered picture. That's because local food has _embedded_ food miles in it. I.E. local food, unles sit's produced in an organic manner, is produced using a range of agri-chemical inputs .The construction of these inputs uses up massive ammounts of fuel. Synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides etc, all need copious ammounts of fuel in their construction phases. So even if the food is local, the baggage it carries is enough to give it jetlag.

This is obviously seperate to issues around the pollution and reduction in biodiversity levels caused by these products. Then of course there's the whole issue of pesticide pioisonings in 3rd world farm labourers. Simply put, that doesn't happen on organic farms, it happens on conventional ones.

For more on the latter, see http://www.panna.org/
and specifically, if you have the stomach for it............

http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/whats_your_poison.pdf

None of this is to take away from the fact that local, seasonal, organic fresh fruits and vegetables is the preferred option. It's just to challange the naievity of positing local chemically drenched and imported organic as equal, or the local as somehow always better..........

article begins------
According to Bord Bia, the fruit and vegetable sector is increasing it�s market share all the time. Sales are now approaching �1 billion, with fruit sales alone increasing by 8% last year. Along with this, recent research from the UK has shown that many consumers use fresh fruit and vegetables as an entry point into organics in general.

In the above context, one of the most controversial issues for the organic sector is the importation of vegetables from far-flung places. There are many arguments for and against the practice.

�If I didn�t have the imports, customers just wouldn�t come into me� Jonathan Haslan tells me up straight. He runs the Organic Store in Birr, Co.Offaly. His family also farm organically, and produce the award-winning Mossfield organic cheeses. While he�d prefer to sell as much Irish produce as possible, he feels that most of his vegetable customers in the shop think organic first, Irish second.

I asked him if he saw any gaps in the market, where Irish produce could supplant imports: �Native Irish apples, new potatoes and salad leaves, they are the three areas I think could provide opportunities for Irish growers. I know that when I get in salad leaves, they sell out in a day, but if they don�t sell quickly they�re gone off. So you really need that product fresh and local�

Elmer Koomans O� Reilly runs Golden Goose, the certified organic greengrocer in the Milkmarket, Limerick. He has also been a biodynamic grower in Ireland for years, and currently operates as an organic fruit and vegetable wholesaler. So he�s well positioned to understand the dynamics of the emerging market for organics.

�I general, I try to source as much Irish organic stuff as possible. And a lot of my customers are very interested in getting Irish organic. But I have to say, it is not all bad news with imports. For example, when myself and others were selling imported organic cauliflower, we helped to create the market for an Irish organic cauliflower. Irish producers could see that it was selling, that there was a market for it. The customers, once they tasted it, didn�t want to go back to the conventional. So now I can source an Irish organic cauliflower for a good part of the year. I couldn�t a couple of years back.�

Not everyone is as sanguine about imports however.

Jason Horner grows organic vegetables in Clare, selling through shops and at Ennis farmers� market on a Friday morning.

�Speaking for myself I don�t sell any imported organic stuff at my stall, even in Winter. I just don�t agree with it. I think it�s the death of the whole thing, really�.

Jason sees the large-scale imports as coming from a system very close to the conventional system, with liquid feeds, organic fertilizers and a different approach to producing.

�The whole mentality is changing. I get calls from guys trying to sell me organic fertilizers with a string of numbers, but that�s not my mentality.�

�I pity anyone joining in now� he tells me. �You have the price of land in particular as a problem. Even specialising in something like salad leaves, you are putting all your eggs in the one basket so to speak. If you get hit with Aphids or something like that, you�ve got no chance�

Then there�s peak oil and food miles: �I mean if we don�t have a local organic vegetable infrastructure built up, when it becomes too costly to ship and fly them around, what will we do? And of course it flies in the face of what organic means to me, to be polluting to eat imported organic veg�.

While the state, through Bord Bia and the Department, pushes for bigger horticulturalists to changeover to organic and to supply the multiples, many feel that this is unlikely to happen. The conventional sector is too specialised, and perceived risks too high.

Jason sees the small guy in the vegetable sector as important for a variety of reasons. �You are more connected to the community, to your customers. It�s also more challenging to grow a wide variety of produce, and the taste quality is far superior, my customers tell me anyway�

How exactly the organic fresh fruit and vegetable sector will balance integrity and variety remains to be seen.

ends------------

Cuba: organic island

Occasionally in the Examiner (every thursday, farming supplement) I write about different countries to Ireland, where organics are at a more advanced stage. So far, that's been Austria, Denmark and Cuba. The cuba article is below:

In the world of political philosophy, there are different types of freedom. You can have freedom to do stuff, or freedom from various types of wants. Cuba is, by Central American and Caribbean standards, a good example of the latter and a bad example of the former. So, for example, they have good health and education standards, but no open press or proper elections.

They have another thing too: Cuba feeds its population on locally produced organic food. You may of course not see this reality if you go to a five star compound on a two week holiday in Cuba. When Dr. Dr. Micheline Sheehy-Skeffington, an NUI Galway Botanist, spoke of her experiences in Cuba at a conference last year, the odd attendee who had donethe compound holiday seemed incredulous.

But the story of organic agriculture in Cuba is fascinating. Cuban agriculture was intensive, monocultural and export-orientated up until 1989. They exported commodities like tobacco and sugar to the Soviet bloc. They also relied on the Soviet bloc for subsidized inputs, including both fertilizers and fuel. They had, for example, been using c.200 kg of imported subsidized nitrates per hectare in farming in this period.

Needless to say, Cuba found itself in a tricky situation when the Soviet Bloc collapsed. What it did then was to essentially reorganise the production, distribution, consumption and to some extent control of agriculture. And they chose the organic route.

Of course �chose� is perhaps too strong a word; there was also an embargo/blockade, which prevented these inputs from getting to the island. However, facing a serious decline in nutritional levels throughout the 1990s, the transformation of Cuban agriculture has been impressive. There have been changes in state policy, in research and education, in control of production and distribution and of course in practices

Here is a summary of the changes:

� Integrated Pest Management
� Organic fertilizers and biofertilizers
� Soil conservation and recuperation
� Animal traction and alternative energy
� Inter cropping and crop rotation
� Mixing crops and animal production
� Alternative mechanization
� Community participation
� Alternative Veterinary Medicine
Adjusting to local conditions
� Reversing rural migration to cities
� Increasing cooperative use of land
� Improving agrarian research
� Changing agrarian education

� Biopesticides

� worker-managed collectives

� quotas for farmers to insure adequate supply for the whole country;

� farmers' markets where excess food crops can be sold by farmers for profit.

During the 1990s the embargo/blockage was tightened, in 1992 and 1996. However, the nutritional levels of Cubans were, from the mid 1990s on, rising, not falling, a trend which continues to this day.

Urban agriculture has been central to this, especially in a context whereby little if any fuel was available to transport food around.

According to Dr. Nelso Campanioni Concepci�n, deputy director of the National Institute for Fundamental Research on Tropical Agriculture (INIFAT), "The goal of urban agriculture is to gain the most food from every square meter of available space. The secret to the success of urban agriculture in Cuba has been the introduction of new technologies and varieties and an increase in areas farmed."

In 2002, Cuba produced 3.2 million tons of fruit, vegetables and spices in urban farms and gardens on over 35,000 hectares of urban land. Another 2,800 vegetable gardens are expected to be established by the end on 2006.

This is a classic example of necessity breeding ingenuity, and adversity producing abundance. Cubans get fresh organic produce to eat each day, no worries about pesticide drift in built up areas, and no Co2 emissions created.

Dr. Lisa Reynolds has visited Cuba on fact finding missions many times. In her most recent report, she pointed to a number of positive changes. Despite insufficient rainfall and recurring drought in eastern areas, the �agroecological techniques� introduced have stabilised the countryside. Likewise, the introduction of privately-owned farms, co-operatives and a diversified market-based system has increased productivity.

If you want to see this Cuba:

The Cuban Organic Support Group (established in 1997 by members of the Henry Doubbelday Research Association - HDRA) arrange trips. (00 44 24 7667 3491 and http://www.cosg.org.uk/ )

Likewise, WowCuba also arrange agri-trips. See http://www.wowcuba.com/discovery/ag-intro.html

Bird Flu: another perspective

Ok, here is an article I'd published in the Examiner farming pages on Bird Flu.

At present, there is only one dominant perspective on preventing the spread of bird flu. This perspective presents the problem as wild birds and outdoor birds, and the solution as indoor, regulated birds. In the interest of balance I think it is worth keeping an open mind to other perspectives.

While it is important to avoid overstating the risk, there are serious consequences at stake.

These include global human health, international trade, the survival of the small poultry farmer and indeed rural communities in the majority world, the survival of organic poultry production in the 1^st world, genetic diversity, co-existence between different ideologies of farming and animal welfare.

While I don�t necessarily fully endorse the position, it is noteworthy that another perspective is emerging on how to treat the most virulent strain of bird flu, the H5N1 strain.

The alternative scenario has been most strongly put recently by the biodiversity-supporting international NGO, Grain.

Firstly, they make the point that bird flu has been around for years, but that the current virulent strain is new, and it is as new as the transnational chicken industry. The countries in south east Asia where the disease has been most prominent, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, along with China, are the countries with the most intensive production and the widest geographical reach of produce.

The argument is that densely populated chicken houses, with a genetic uniformity, are the perfect breeding ground for ever more rapid strains of diseases in general, including H5N1. This, coupled with the speed of and range at which poultry and poultry by-products are transported is spreading the disease.

When wild birds do come into contact with the stronger strain, they cannot cope and they die. Wild birds have �co-existed� with a weaker stain for years, but cannot cope with this �industrially-led and spread� version.

"Everyone is focused on migratory birds and backyard chickens as the problem," says Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN. "But they are not effective vectors of highly pathogenic bird flu. The virus kills them, but is unlikely to be spread by them."

So it is the occasional geographical proximity between the two systems, �open� and �closed� that is the problem, not the existence of an open system.

Indeed, the genetic diversity of the open system acts as a buffer against disease spread. According to Grain, �there are reports from the World Organisation of Animal Health of local chickens surviving the H5N1 virus�.

The Laos anomaly is used to back up this thesis. Laos does not have anything like the intensive production system of its neighbours, and importantly, there is very little contact between the two systems, intensive and backyard. (In neighbouring countries, day-old chicks and feed are sold from the intensive to the backyard systems) Laos has not had anything like the bird flu problems of its neighbours � the ones mentioned earlier. It�s only problems have been in and around the few intensive poultry farms it has. According to Grain, �Laos effectively stamped out the disease by closing the border to poultry from Thailand and culling chickens at the commercial operations�.

Grain claim that outbreaks in south east Asia have been specifically liked to large scale trade in poultry and feed from a particular Thai company. Likewise, trade between the Netherlands and Nigeria has been cited as a cause for an outbreak in the latter. Indeed, acting on the basis of trade as a cause and not migration prevented further outbreaks in Nigeria, it is claimed.

In lay terms, the argument is that backyard flocks can accommodate a mild but fairly widespread version of the problem, but intensive systems amplify and develop the problem for all concerned - including, potentially, humans.

In this context, ironically, the solution of global restructuring towards more regulated, closed and intensive system is also the cause.

Along with this, doubt is being cast on the migratory bird thesis itself. According to Birdlife, �When plotted, the pattern of outbreaks follows major road and rail routes, not (bird) flyways� according to Birdlife�s Dr. Richard Thomas. He cites various countries that should have gotten the H5N1 strain last autumn, but didn�t, �if wild birds are the primary carriers�.

This thesis is both challenging and troubling, on many levels. But is deserves to be heard.

You can access the full report from Grain at: http://www.grain.org/go/birdflu

Ok, this is the last of the pesticide articles. It is the global one, and it completes the series. It was written on the anniversary of Bhopal, december 3rd 1984.

The gas leak in the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, happened 21 years ago this month. This was the worst industrial accident in world history. Estimates vary, but anything up to 15,000 people died then, and up to 5,000 have died subsequently from the effects of the leak.

Half a million have been dehabilitated by illness caused by the leak; tests of the water supply found levels of contamination 500 times higher than the level recommended by the WHO.

Compensation has been minimal; Union Carbide gave the Indian government a lump-sum of $470 million and built a hospital. 99% of the victims got the equivalent of 400euro in compensation; many claim medical bills have eaten this up.

Union Carbide left India in 1989, and is now part of Dow Chemicals. They claim the case is done and dusted. They make profits of $32.6 billion a year, while babies with extreme deformities are still being born in Bhopal.

The problems with pesticides outlined over the last 2 weeks pale into insignificance when compared to the problem of pesticide poisoning in the third world. Whatever about residues in consumers and drift affecting rural communities and the environment, farm labourers in the third world who use pesticides are in an altogether different category of risk.

Looking at the figures gives us a clue both to the extent of the problem and to the difficulties in coming to grips with the problem. There is no agreement on the figures for how many people die from pesticide poisonings each year. Even the World Health Organization uses both the 20,000 and 200,000 deaths per year figures in separate reports.

Sometimes they cover themselves by giving wide, general figures; for example, they claim that there are between 1 and 5 million acute poisonings and 25 million non-acute poisonings each year.

The wide differences in the above figures are partly explained by the fact that mild poisonings can often go unreported, partly because symptoms can be similar to other health problems.

Also, pesticides can accumulate in land and water and cause negative effects in people (and in the food supply, the environment etc) over a period of years, without the connection being made to pesticides. There is also sometimes a long lag between the cause (exposure) and effect (disease), which can make it impossible to make a definite connection.

This is compounded by the fact that many poor farm labourers in the third world have no medical care, no desire to annoy their employers and some are undocumented, so reporting illness is pointless, job-threatening or dangerous. Then add lack of medical training, lack of state resources, the extra vulnerability of the already sick, the malnourished and the young.

Taking all of the above into account, it is reasonable to agree with the experts when they say that the true figures, for both chronic and acute poisonings, and indeed for deaths are far higher than any of the estimates.

Spraying pesticides in the third world can be a dirty and dangerous job. Problems in this area are made worse by illiteracy, poor labeling which is sometimes in a language the user doesn�t understand, and weak sales regulations.

The range of effects of acute pesticide poisonings read like an a-z of what could go wrong with your body. They can be broken into categories; neurobehaviourial, intestinal, respiratory, and finally skin and mucus complications.

Long term effects can include developmental and reproductive problems (e.g. increased still births, birth deformities etc), endocrine disruption (hormones behaving badly, lower sperm count etc) cancer (in adults and children) and, as already highlighted under acute poisonings, neurological (behavioural problems, lower intelligence) and immunological (a weak immune system in humans, especially children, obviously makes it harder for them to fight diseases).

It can sometimes seem daunting, looking at global issues and trying to find solutions to them.

However it is clear that if you are going to eat food imported from the poorer countries of the world, you should really make an effort to eat organic food. Only 1% of the pesticides allowed under the conventional regulations are allowed under organic regulations.

Don't worry, they won't all be about pesticides. In fact, I have been criticised for being too positive by other organic journalists! However, I've decided to 'finish it off' as it were. So I'm posting part 2 of the pesticide story here, and part 3 next. Then, let the positivity flow!

In many cases (and here with these pesticide articles) the originals were published in the Irish Examiner - various slight modifications may have been made before publication in the farming supplement.

Also, if your an academic-type, you may be interested in this:
That's a link to the new edition of the International Journal of Consumer Studies, and I've an article in it.

Finally, to to update the article below, I'll let you know that according to the editor of the Farming supplement I write for, the pesticide story isn't that bad in Ireland at present. He suggests that eutrophication of Irish water, caused more by rapid development than farming (but partly caused by farming) is more of a concern. See here

pesticides part 2:

The second of my three part series on pesticides, examines the effects of pesticides on rural areas. In particular, how pesticides damage the environment and harm people close to sprayed fields will be highlighted.

First, the good news. In Ireland, we have amongst the lowest usage of pesticides in Europe. However there is, according to the Heritage Council, �a strong spatial variation in the levels of pesticide usage in Ireland reflecting the uneven distribution of land use types�. So some areas are obviously more affected than others.

From 1965 to the present, the amount of pesticides used in Ireland has increased from 500 tonnes to well over 2000. This has led to the extinction of some plants and the corollary reduction in numbers of many different types of butterflies and moths, which are dependent on certain types of plant.

In the US, University of Pittsburgh assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea has stepped beyond the usual lab tests of one pesticide on one species. He has tested for direct and indirect effects of various pesticides in �realistic concentrations� on a number of plants and animals.

According to Relyea, "the most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup, something designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians.�

Organic agriculture, on the other hand has been shown in numerous studies, to increase plant and bird biodiversity. Recently, I outlined UK research which found that birds, bats, spiders and wild plants were found in greater numbers on organic farms. This follows on from a whole range of research which makes similar claims; some endangered plants were only found on German organic farms in 1996, for example.

Some research has shown that maintaining, and not spraying hedgerows is particularly important for biodiversity. This would suggest that REPS farms are havens of biodiversity. However, according to recent research by Dr. Jane Feehan, the no-spray margins on REPS farms are too narrow. She suggested that it be increased from 1.5 metres to at least 3 metres. Research from Holland also backs up the idea of a 3 metre no-spray zone.

This �proves to be a very effective way of reducing pesticide drift to the ditch (by about 95%) and risks to aquatic organisms. �according to the Dutch research. Plant, insect and bird numbers were higher in the 3 metre unsprayed hedge zone.

It is noteworthy that a cost-benefit analysis based on the yield losses found the only crop type where the costs were too high was�sugar beet. If there�s one crop that won�t be grown in Ireland in the future, it�s sugar beet.

In the UK, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) has suggested increasing the no-spray margin on all fields to 5 metres, but for different reasons.

The RCEP are concerned about walkers and people living, working or attending schools near sprayed fields. Current research needs to be improved upon, to assess whether the genuine illnesses people who live near sprayed fields are experiencing are in fact caused by pesticides and herbicides.

From further afield, there are some very clear examples of pesticide drift causing serious damage to people. In California many thousands of people who happened to be close to sprayed fields have been poisoned, and many more cases are pending. In many cases, poor migrant farm labourers are the victims, as they live next to the sprayed fields.

In October, 2003, 130 people in Lamont, California were poisoned when a toxic pesticide drifted into a housing area. They were hit for two consecutive days; on the second day, roads were closed and people evacuated. Four months later, some victims said they still had headaches and breathing problems from the drift, while others claimed their children have since been diagnosed with asthma.

Following this and many other cases, the law was changed in California last year to implicate the sprayers directly in payments of damages to victims.

This helped pave the way for 84 residents of Avin county California, to be awarded $775,000 dollars in damages because of pesticide drift recently.