The poor cannot afford organics, say the sceptics. In a world of 1.2 billion poor, how can more expensive food be a better thing? Scientific' farming has brought huge gains in productivity but at the cost to the environment, worker health and safety, and consumer confidence. Organic food, too, has contradictions. For instance, when faced with choosing between an organic long-distance piece of fruit and one which was conventionally (ie pesticide) grown but more local, I will choose the latter. I have competing loyalties and criteria for what I would call food sanity. I will buy from my local fruit and veg stall at our excellent street market in preference to a superstore. I want diversity throughout the food supply, not just in the fields! In this time of questions about UK food and farming plc, organics has much to offer but I am nervous about it being seen as an end in itself. I am a supporter, not a believer. The great thing is that organics shows one can farm differently. But over the coming decades, the entire food system must change considerably. Niches aren't the answer. Most academics agree that future food systems must meet health goals for nutrition and food safety; be more energy efficient; merge production with conservation; give more durable employment; conserve biodiversity in the field not just at its edges; feed an increasingly urbanised world; reduce pollution; and internalise costs more fully. Organics, like conventional farming, must rise to these challenges. But will consumers pay for them? The nub is culture, not agriculture. {{NEWS }}