As someone who has given more than passing thought to agricultural practices, I am disturbed by a recent (January 2004) government initiative – the Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) award presented by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

The award’s underlying philosophy as to what constitutes "good agriculture" seems totally at odds with everything that I have read and learnt.

Organic and natural

According to my research and understanding, good agriculture is that which is totally natural, avoiding the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, and so on.

Commonly called organic agriculture, it is good because it produces the strongest and healthiest plants. And common sense, backed by scientific evidence, tells us that when we eat strong and healthy plants, we, too will become strong and healthy.

The earliest scientific experiments on organic agriculture were conducted by Sir Albert Howard (1873 -1947), a brilliant scholar who, after topping his Cambridge Agriculture Diploma examinations in 1897, spent 25 years in India learning from traditional farmers with no scientific knowledge.

In one experiment, Howard raised cattle on organic grass and then released them to mix with sick cattle. He reported: "I myself have seen my cattle rubbing noses with foot and mouth cases. Nothing happened. No infections occurred."

As for humans, there are thousands of people worldwide, particularly followers of macrobiotics and Gerson Therapy, who recovered from life-threatening diseases like cancer by eating organic vegetables and fruits.

An even more superior from of agriculture that I came across in my studies is biodynamics, developed by the Austrian scientist, philosopher and spiritualist, Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).

This system is so powerful that one handful of a specially produced, natural fertiliser, can transform barren land into fertile land within six months.

The first time I ate biodynamic brown rice, it tasted so much more delicious than regular, even organic, brown rice. When my friends and I ran an organic foods store, we had many customers who bought wheat berries for sprouting. They all bought biodynamic wheat because it yielded the most, and the healthiest, sprouts.

Many countries and farmers’ associations recognise the value of organic, biodynamic and other similar forms of agriculture and they have certification bodies to ensure that such labelling is not abused.

Exact opposite

In Singapore, not only do we lack any organic or biodynamic certification by the government, but we have the exact opposite!

The AVA’s GAP award is given to farmers engaged in all manner of unnatural agriculture - farming using chemical fertilisers, as well as hydroponic / aeroponic farming whereby vegetables are grown water / air and fed with chemical nutrients. The few organic and biodynamic farms in Singapore were noticeably absent from the GAP list.

Singapore is the only country I know that actively promotes unnatural agriculture as being "good".

While there is plenty of evidence that organic foods are health-enhancing, I am not aware of any scientific studies that say the same about fake foods.

Most studies about hydroponic / aeroponic agriculture focus on how fast the vegetables grow and how economically viable the system is.

Local researchers have also done a number of blind tasting tests, where they found that young people preferred the taste of hydroponic vegetables over regular vegetables.

So? If anything, this suggest that hydroponic vegetables are less healthy, since most young people prefer the taste of junk foods anyway.

The one feeble attempt at studying health was when local researchers compared the levels of about a dozen nutrients – vitamins A, C, sodium, potassium, etc – and concluded that hydroponic vegetables were the same as regular vegetables.

This is as good – or as bad – as a blind man studying the side of an elephant and then concluding that an elephant is the same as a wall.

How can they be the same when they look, taste and feel differently? Vegetables contain scores of vitamins and minerals. They also contain thousands of chemical substances called phytochemicals, which play important roles in helping us fight disease.

They are highly complex. It is therefore highly unscientific to make conclusions about them based on simple comparisons of a few nutrients.

To truly know the difference between natural and artificial vegetables, we need to analyse a broad spectrum of nutrients. We need to conduct experiments similar to those done by Albert Howard – feed laboratory animals with hydroponic / aeroponic vegetables and then test their immune response to disease.

We need to also study the long-term, multi-generational effects. Raise five or seven generations of guinea pigs on hydroponic / aeroponic vegetables and see if the successive generations become stronger or weaker.

Any scientists care to do such studies? Will the government sponsor such research?