But people do not value organic food, organic farming

Organic farming requires more land - and, often enough, more labour - than standard industrialised farming. This is simply true, the pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and so on are substitutes as inputs for that land and labour. The fertilizers, inputs, are also cheaper than the land and labour as inputs relative to the outputs. Therefore industrial food production is cheaper, in cash terms, than organic.

Of course, there are those who insist there are non-cash benefits to organic farming. Some will even insist that they can taste the difference in the delicacy of flavour of an organic turnip. To them we say good luck. Also, we say that you who enjoy those other benefits have to pay for those benefits you consider you receive. No, no, you go for it, but just as with everything else you’ve got to pay for your choices.

The latest government plan being a proof that people are unwilling to so pay for their benefits:

The environment secretary, Angela Eagle, said the plan was about “opening up opportunities across the sector, from backing farmers already producing organic food to helping others decide whether it could work for their businesses”.

She added: “Organic farming should not be treated as a niche. More people are looking closely at where their food comes from, how it is produced and whether it meets standards they value.”

If people were willing to pay for the standards they value - that is, if they did value in cold hard cash what they claim they value - then they would be, happily, paying those extra costs to gain those things they state they value. That the sector requires government support is proof perfect that we’ve a case of long pockets, short arms here. Folk claim they value but are unwilling to pay for - thus, they don’t, in fact, value.

There really are collective action problems that require government. People being unwilling to pay for their supposedly preferred fruit and veg is not one of them. That people won’t pay the necessary prices to encourage organic production is that pr4oof that folk don’t value organic produce enough to cover those extra costs. QED.

This is perhaps a harsh statement but it’s a true one all the same. Where people demand government subsidy for those private choices is all the proof we require that there should be no such subsidy. For the demand for the subsidy is that proof that the people doing the demanding do not value their choice sufficiently to pay for it themselves. The whole idea therefore makes society as a whole poorer. It’s the socialisation of costs and the privatisation of profits, d’ye see?

Tim Worstall