If we were to redesign the farm financial support system so that, instead of encouraging agro-industrial approaches, it required recipients to practise the sort of agro-ecological methods advocated by Felicity Lawrence (Hyperintensive farming will never feed the world, 3 October), we would be able to re-conceptualise it as not a “subsidy” or “welfare payment” (Letters, same day) but a management fee for essential ecological services. After Brexit, we will in principle have the opportunity to do this. But will Mrs May and Mrs Leadsom see things this way?
Richard Middleton
Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway
• In the early postwar years, Monsanto’s William Rand claimed that the chemical industry was a form of alchemy, unmatched in its dynamic power and therefore entitled to protection from criticism of its products’ potential dangers. Willard Dow, of Dow Chemicals, regarded the industry’s critics as “traitors to civilisation” and “economic parasites destined to destroy themselves”.
The agri-chemicals industry has tended to see nature as an enemy to be tamed or, in some of its aspects, obliterated. This has resulted in the loss of diversity and the lower yields to which Felicity Lawrence refers. Overuse of chemical farming techniques is more likely to be self-destructive than the ecological approach of Flamingo Homegrown. As EF Schumacher, the advocate of organic methods, expressed it: “If we win the battle with nature, we shall be on the losing side.”
Philip Conford
Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire
• Intensity and diversity are not opposites. Monoculture and diversity are, intensive and extensive are. Many peasant farming systems are intensive and diverse for example, some industrial monocultures are extensive.
However, the report Felicity Lawrence refers to also explains that the less industrial agriculture preferred by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (Ipes) requires a greater input of human labour in order to avoid one of the traps that the industrial system catches us in – cheap food. Non-industrial agriculture will require more labouring away in the fields in order to provide us with more expensive food. It’s difficult to see this as an advance in the human condition.
Tim Worstall
Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Messines, Portugal
• As producers of the raw ingredients to a food and drink industry worth £108bn to the UK economy, farming is far more forward-thinking than the picture painted. Farming is stepping up to the challenge of producing food for a growing population with the UK predicted to be the most populous country in what is now the EU by mid-2040s. To increase production of home-grown food while delivering for the environment means big strides are needed to increase resilience and efficiency. This is a journey that the industry is already on. Innovation and technology already feature heavily in today’s food production.
The people on the frontline of producing the nation’s food have positively embraced the conservation agenda. With 30,000km of hedgerows and 10,000 football pitches worth of flower habitat being planted or cared for by farmers, there’s a lot to be said for the wildlife habitat thriving on our diverse and dynamic farmed environment.
Guy Smith
Vice-president, National Farmers Union
Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
