GARDENING: THE SOILS OF WAR

"RELIGION," WROTE Karl Marx, "is the opium of the people," and there is no doubt that faith helps to soothe away anxiety. But to receive the full benefit, you must never question the dogma. In horticulture, the organic movement now resembles a religion: its adherents are full of fervour and follow strict rules, based largely on the historic utterances of its founders. Like other religions, you either belong or you don't - there are no half-measures.

No one would dispute the fact that excessive use of pesticides and fertilisers is undesirable, that ways must be found of improving our stewardship of the soil. But the system known as organic growing, as laid down by the Soil Association, with all its attendant rites and rubrics, is not the only way forward.

Organic growers regard all technological development with suspicion, yet many organic methods are less friendly to the environment than techniques that have emerged from scientific research. The herbicide glyphosate (found in Roundup or Tumbleweed), forbidden by organic gardeners, has low toxicity, leaves no residue and is much less damaging to the environment than the approved solution of burning off weeds with a paraffin- fired flame gun.

Like a religion, the movement has its share of fanatics. An acquaintance of mine refuses food that is not certified organic, claiming that conventional produce is so contaminated with pesticide residues that it is unwise to eat it. Moreover, we are repeatedly told, intensively grown food is lower in essential nutrients than organic produce. But has this actually been measured in a laboratory?

Some foods may contain residues. Pesticides used on them may be poisonous and many are grown using manufactured, not biological, fertilisers. But to suggest that most of what is legally on sale in shops is toxic and lacks all goodness is nonsense. Yet sales of organic foods are growing, despite hefty premiums.

Interest in "organic gardening" is also increasing, perhaps due to a growing mistrust of technology, but more likely because of concern for the environment. But this is also self-deluding. You can do plenty for the environment without going organic. Get rid of your car, for instance, or at least use public transport more. Prince Charles insists that chemicals and genetic engineering, like modern buildings, are undesirable, whereas organic farming is good. But what exactly do people mean by "organic"?

In science, the term refers specifically to molecular structures containing carbon and hydrogen, often with oxygen and such elements as sulphur, phosphorus and nitrogen. This is the basis for life. The simplest organic chemical is methane, but an almost unlimited number of compounds can develop and, in terms of life, these may be carbohydrates, proteins, enzymes, wood, wool, vitamins, plant cells and so on. The great majority of modern drugs and pesticides are also organic chemicals, and yet they are forbidden by the organic movement.

There are strict rules to "organic" growing: why are some of them so illogical? Bordeaux mixture, for example, a toxic cocktail (largely of inorganic copper salts), is permitted, as is the plant-derived insecticide derris. But such other natural substances as guano (bird droppings) and nicotine are not.

When I sprinkle compound fertiliser on to my pile of autumn leaves to hasten rotting, the elements are retained in the leaf-mould which I use later to topdress my borders - a wise use of resources, but in "organic" terms it is forbidden. But comfrey, a weed even harder to eradicate than dock, wins Brownie points. Its deep roots bring up minerals, but trees are deep-rooted too; I prefer to salt my trace-element-rich autumn pile and leave the comfrey in the wild.

The most irritating misconception, especially for those who practise conservation with diligence, is that non-organic gardening is bad for the environment. I refuse to accept that even modest use of fungicides and herbicides is harmful, or that such "organic" practices as deploying black polythene, spraying with soft soap, or killing slugs with bacteria- laden nematodes are any more ecologically friendly.

To many consumers, "organic" has become associated with "natural" and "wholesome". One wonders how well-policed organic production can be, especially of such imports as flower bulbs and chocolate. Knowing what a horrendous pest-profile both those crops carry, and what an intense barrage of pesticides is used by the large agribusinesses producing most of them, I should like to see for myself just how organic the products so labelled really are.

"Science," said my fanatical friend, "has failed us. We must hope the world will come to its senses and go totally organic." But has science failed us? World food production has had to increase to meet the demands of a vastly bigger population. In the past half-century, thanks to plant breeding, increased fertiliser use and improved growing techniques, yields have more than doubled. There may be cereal surpluses in the developed world, but while there remains undernourishment anywhere, we have a long way to go.

With current technology, increases in production depend on non-organic methods. I don't believe that we have the technology, yet, to feed the entire world using purely organic methods. It is specious to argue that such enclosed communities as the Amish in Pennsylvania get bigger vegetable yields with their organic systems than US commercial agriculture does. Such methods demand a peasant-like existence, and only a tiny minority would be prepared to sacrifice their lives to such unrelenting toil.

During the last 23 years, my garden has become a rich haven for wildlife, with new species recorded every year. For fertiliser, I use both manufactured and natural products and, if troubled by pests or diseases, I select the most effective remedy available. Because I have a tolerant attitude to minor infestations, and well-balanced flora and fauna, pesticides are seldom needed. But will I convert to organic methods? Not on your life. I'm far too irreligious.