Is it Time for Flower Judging to Change?

Having had the honour of taking my cosmos to the RHS flower shows, there is nothing quite as nerve-wracking as waiting for your feedback from the judges. Sometimes you will agree with their comments, and other times you will have different opinions. But that is fine as it’s to be expected that in something that even with set criteria, there will always be an element of subjectivity. I will always remember it being suggested that one of my cultivars of cosmos had “a lot of stem”. And that it may be better to have a more rounded shaped one. Unfortunately, that cultivar would always have a lot of stem and it would be like saying a redwood tree had a lot of trunk - it's what it does. Exhibiting a National Plant Collection for me was all about showing those differences to the public with cultivars they usually won’t see sold in garden centres.

Are we rewarding the right things?

There is a bigger question in terms of judging as to whether in today’s world, we are rewarding the right thing, and should there at least be a discussion about what and how we reward. Over a year ago, as a grower I proposed that there should be a “Green Medal” for growers. We have seen some movement with awards for show gardens, but nothing as yet for growers. There is much talk about sustainability, and growing in the right way, but the reality is the judging system doesn’t reward this.

What do I mean by this? Well the reality is you can purchase your flowers. By that I mean having nothing to do with the growing of them whatsoever, have them flown in, have them grown using pesticides and preservatives, arriving in a plethora of single-use plastic, and because you arrange them nicely, walk away with a gold medal. That is within the rules. So as it currently stands, some may say we are rewarding the behaviour that we are actively saying is bad. Surely something is wrong if this is the case? Would the Women’s Institute allow you to buy a cake and enter it into a baking competition as your own? I think not. So why is this allowed with flowers? The RHS have their own photography competition where you can win a medal. It wouldn't be allowed to enter a photo taken by someone other than the entrant, so some may suggest that it seems a tad strange that a display by growers, as distinct from floristry can be made up of plants they haven’t grown.

What is more pertinent is why is the idea of a perfect flower seemingly more important than considering how it’s grown? I would far rather see plants not using pesticides and insecticides, being rewarded rather than plants being passed off as pollinator-friendly at shows, which are anything but because of how they have been grown.

Progress being made

I remember as a child while living for three years in the United States, winning tickets to the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey three-ring circus. As a child an experience you wouldn't forget with everything from clowns to elephants and lions. Today such a thing would be frowned upon. Circuses with animals in are a thing of the past. We know better.

I think when we look back at flower shows we will eventually come to the conclusion that the end result, a perfect flower that has been produced in an unsustainable way, using chemicals and the like, is also a thing of the past. We will start to realise that how things are grown and what impact they have is as, if not more important.

2025 will be the last year that peat will be allowed at RHS shows. But as with all these things, there is always more to be done. If we are seriously going to talk about how gardening and gardens have a role to play in a world facing changes to our climate, something I am aware of only too well having had a plot flooded out by storm Babet, then we must move away from rewarding what are in essence, unsustainable growing methods. The time has come to say the ends don’t justify the means.

In sports, Ben Johnson could run quickest in the Olympics, but he used steroids. In cycling Lance Armstrong could win Tour De France after Tour De France, but he doped. What they did was against the rules. Using bee killing pesticides, flying bought-in flowers in as part of a flower display that the public surely must assume has been grown by an exhibitor isn’t against the rules. Maybe we should ask the question, should it be?

The world is changing. Gardening is changing. The time has come to equip judges with the right criteria for this changing world. Surely this is a debate worth having.