Agriculture: Chemicals GMO Failing - Try Organic, Sustainable
A recent discovery presages production of hydrogen - not by electrolysis but by the effects of catalytic action and sunlight on water. In the ensuing discussion on this post, the question turns to what would be needed to afford economically decent conditions to the billions of people in developing countries. It appears that both water and energy will be important, but even more decisive than these factors will be low-input (not-wasteful) sustainable traditional and organic agriculture. The point is argued well in an article published by the Institute for Science in Society, adapted from a Third World Network briefing paper:
The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability
Why sustainable agriculture
The debate over sustainable agriculture has gone beyond the health and environmental benefits that it could bring in place of conventional industrial agriculture. For one thing, conventional industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on oil, which is running out; it is getting increasingly unproductive as the soil is eroded and depleted. Climate change will force us to adopt sustainable, low input agriculture to ameliorate its worst consequences, and to genuinely feed the world. But in order to get there, important changes have to be made in international agencies and institutions, which have hitherto supported the dominant model of industrial agriculture and policies that work against poor countries, where farmers are also desperately in need of secure land tenure. This mini-series is a continuation of many articles that have appeared in our magazine, Science in Society since 2002.
Sustainable Agriculture: Critical Ecological, Social & Economic Issues
Various ecological, social and economic challenges must be addressed if agriculture is to be truly sustainable. Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network, discusses the choices facing developing countries and policy makers, and suggests some ways forward.
Urgent action needed on agriculture
Agriculture is perhaps the most outstanding issue and challenge for sustainability. To attain the 'sustainable development' goal requires urgent actions on three fronts -the ecological, the social and the economic. There is a looming crisis and possible calamity developing in this all-important sector that must be urgently addressed, as it impacts on the livelihoods of most of the world's people and everyone else's food needs.Agriculture is facing three major problems and choices:
(a) Ecology/Technology: Which technology to base the future of world agriculture on? As the chemical-based model is faltering, the private sector and global establishment are looking to genetic engineering as the way ahead. But all the signs are that ecological farming is superior, not only for the environment, but also for gains in productivity and farmers' incomes. It has not been given the chance to prove itself. It should be.
(b) The global economic framework: The economic environment has turned extremely bad for developing countries' small farmers. International Monetary Fund (IMF)-World Bank structural adjustment has put pressure on poor countries to liberalise food imports and abandon subsidies and government marketing boards. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) enables rich countries to raise their subsidies and set up astonishingly high tariffs, while punishing developing countries (which cannot increase their subsidies, and which have to liberalise their imports further). Commodity prices have slumped. These three factors are threatening the survival of developing countries' farms and farmers. The entire framework of global and national economic policies for agriculture has to be thoroughly revamped.
(c) Land for the farmers: Many small farmers are poor and some are becoming poorer. A main reason is unequal land distribution, where small farmers have little land security or access and lose a large part of their income to landowners. Land reform is urgently required and landless farmers are fighting for their rights. But the landowners in most countries have political clout and are resisting change.
All three issues have to be resolved, and in an integrated way, if sustainable agriculture is to be realised. Otherwise there will be an absolute catastrophe, especially if the wrong choices are made.
Ecology & choice of technology
A review of aid practice is needed to correct past mistakes to lead up to 'sustainable agriculture and rural development'. Important choices have to be made in technology. Aid and technical agencies, including the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) have supported the transfer of environmentally harmful technology models, which have contributed to tropical deforestation, depletion of fishery resources through trawl fishing and to the inappropriate chemical-based 'Green Revolution'. Besides ecological damage, these models have also caused great social hardship to forest dwellers, to rural communities whose lands and water supplies are affected by pollution and soil erosion, and to the millions of small fisherfolk whose livelihoods are threatened by trawl over-fishing.
Aid flows for destructive forestry and fishery projects should cease. So too should aid and loans for destructive commercial aquaculture projects which are ecologically harmful and economically unsustainable, and which harm farmers and fisherfolk whose lands and waters are affected. Instead, there should be support for small-scale community-managed and environmentally-sound forms of aquaculture, aimed at augmenting local food supply, and as have been traditionally practised in many countries.
In the past, most agricultural aid has promoted the Green Revolution model, which uses seeds that respond well to large doses of inorganic fertiliser and chemical pesticides. These few seed varieties have displaced a wide range of traditional seeds, thus eroding crop biodiversity. There is also mounting evidence of, and growing concern with, other ecological problems, such as increasing soil infertility, chemical pollution of land and water resources, pesticide poisoning, and pest infestation due to growing pest resistance to pesticides. These are not ad hoc problems, but symptoms of a technological system in decline. The ecological and health hazards should no longer be considered as the necessary costs to an economically and technically superior system, because the system's most important claimed benefit, high productivity, is itself now in question.
In areas where the model has operated for a longer period, there is evidence of declining yields and rising costs. In 1993, the FAO chief for Asia Pacific declared the Green Revolution era over. There is increasing deficiency of trace elements in the soil because of intensive use of mineral fertilisers, while continued high dependence on pesticides is not technologically sustainable. He revealed a yield decline of 1 to 3% per year in some fields using the Green Revolution technique, a situation described as "a recipe for disaster within one generation" by the FAO regional officer for integrated pest control, Peter Kenmore. Developments in some of the best-managed experimental farms have added to the pessimism. In International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) test plots, varieties that yielded 10 tonnes per hectare in 1966 were yielding less each year and produced less than 7 tonnes per hectare by the mid-1990s. IRRI scientists attributed the declines to environmental degradation, with irrigated land unable to cope. The detrimental changes included a reduction in the period when the soil was dry, the substitution of inorganic for organic fertilisers and a greater uniformity in the varieties grown. These factors are all intrinsic components of the system.
With disillusionment setting in on the Green Revolution, there is a danger that agriculture aid will turn to genetic engineering. Companies, universities and foundations have already pumped enormous funds into biotech research. But the claimed benefits of genetic engineering are far from proven, while there is increasing evidence of real and potential risks (see the Independent Science Panel (ISP) report, www.indsp.org). Scientists now point to scientific flaws of the genetic engineering paradigm, showing why it is impossible to predict the consequences of transferring a gene from one organism to another in a significant number of cases. This calls into question the value or usefulness of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Moreover, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may migrate, further mutate and multiply, and in some cases the stability of affected organisms and ecosystems could be disrupted and threatened. The more specific risks in agriculture are that some transgenic crops could become noxious weeds, and others could transfer new genes to wild plants, which themselves could then become weeds. The new weeds could adversely affect farm crops and wild ecosystems. Similarly, GE fish, shellfish and insects could become pests under certain conditions. There is also a possibility of new viral strains giving rise to new plant diseases. Of particular concern is the risk that transgenic crops may pose a threat to wild plants and traditional crop varieties and thus accelerate the rapid loss of agricultural biodiversity, especially in developing countries, many of which are world centres of crop origin and diversity.
Finally, there is growing evidence of the hazards to human health of consuming foods containing GMOs. Consumers around the world are now voting against GE foods and opting for organic food.
The transfer to developing countries of projects or experiments involving genetic engineering could be hazardous - at least until adequate safety regulations are put in place in these countries. So far these regulations have not yet been adopted widely. There should thus be a moratorium on the introduction of GE products in agriculture until adequate capacity is established. A mechanism should also be set up to ensure that there will not be the transfer of hazardous genetic engineering experiments, research and products to developing countries. The Biosafety Protocol should be greatly strengthened.
Meanwhile, ecological agriculture should be given the chance it deserves. Priority support should be made to research and projects on ecological and community-based farming practices and systems; so far, relatively few resources have been made available.
The value and productivity of Third World traditional agriculture has been underestimated because of the wrong estimation methodology used in comparing it with the Green Revolution model. Studies should be sponsored to understand the many types of low-input ecological farming methods, traditional as well as modern. Such studies should include analyses of their workings; energy efficiency; use of inputs; outputs of all the different crops, products and activities and the relationships between them; and the nature and use of agricultural diversity. The studies should also incorporate the various problems encountered in practice (such as shortage of manure, pest control, water management), and the methods for solving them.
There is a prevailing premise that while 'sustainable agriculture' may be good in preserving the environment, it is inferior and inadequate in terms of productivity and thus cannot be relied on to feed increasing populations. This premise is a prejudice, for there is evidence that ecological farming can be even higher yielding than the Green Revolution method.
Vandana Shiva cites the studies of eminent Indian rice scientist, Dr Racharia, who showed that indigenous varieties can be high yielding, given the required inputs, and that the yields of many traditional farmers "fall in or above the minimum limits set for high yields". She concludes: "India is a Vavilov centre of genetic diversity of rice. Out of this amazing diversity, Indian peasants and tribals have selected and improved many indigenous high yielding varieties. In South India, in semi-arid tracts of the Deccan, yields went up to 5,000 kilogram/hectare under tank and well irrigation. Under intensive manuring, they could go even higher."
At an FAO Asian regional seminar on sustainable agriculture in 1993, a Filipino agricultural scientist, Nicanor Perlas, presented case studies of successful vegetable and rice farms using ecological methods in the Philippines. In the largest set of adjacent farms totaling 1 000 hectares using the bio-dynamic farming method, there was a yield increase of 50-100 per cent and an increase in net income by farmers of 200-270 per cent, compared to the conventional (Green Revolution) method. According to Perlas, the lessons from the case studies are that sustainable agriculture can be practised in large scale; yields do not necessarily drop without chemical fertilisers and pesticides; and a rapid (even immediate) transition from chemical farming to sustainable agriculture is possible if correct technical principles are followed.
Also in the Philippines, MASIPAG (an alliance of farmers and university scientists) has pioneered an alternative rice farming method, which is non-chemical and uses seeds that are suited to particular regional weather conditions. By 1993, the method was used in 4 200 hectares spread over 23 provinces. MASIPAG's average yield per hectare was 4-5 tons of rice (ranging from the lowest 3.5 tons to the highest 8 tons), compared with the overall national average of 2.7 tons and the national average of 3.5 tons for irrigated rice fields with fertiliser applied.
There are many other examples of successful and high-yielding ecological farming in various parts of the world (see the ISP report, www.indsp.org, also "Rice wars" series, Science in Society 23). Yet only a minute fraction of agricultural aid (in either research or projects) has been spent studying or promoting them.Aid should now flow towards:
(a) reassessing the concept and measurement of agricultural productivity, duly recognising the value of traditional and ecological farming and enabling a scientific comparison with conventional Green Revolution methods;
(b) studying sustainable agriculture systems, their operations and dynamic inter-relationships, their problems and solutions to these problems;
(c) sustainable agriculture experiments, test farms and demonstration farms;
(d) training programmes for farmers, policy and extension officials, and NGOs on sustainable agriculture;
(e) supporting farmers' programmes and government programmes in implementing sustainable agriculture, which could eventually take place on a large scale;
(f) supporting farmers, community groups and governments in establishing community-based seed banks to revive and promote the use of traditional varieties, and supporting the subsequent exchange of seeds amongst farmers and the improvement of seed varieties, using appropriate traditional breeding methods.
Since the United Nations Conference On Environment And Development (UNCED) in 1992, there has been agreement in principle of the need to move away from environmentally harmful to sustainable agriculture. However, while there has been increased interest and awareness of ecological farming, aid agencies and the international agricultural technical agencies have not taken any effective action to phase out chemical-based agriculture nor to promote sustainable agriculture. Moreover, consumers worldwide are now opting for organically grown food. There is a cultural and safety basis now to provide the demand for ecologically produced food.
A large dose of commitment is needed by the aid and loan agencies. They need to put their resources where their lip-service is, and to take the above measures, at the least, so that greater scientific understanding of sustainable agriculture can be achieved, and a paradigm shift in policy can take place. Such a policy shift is important, for sustainable agriculture today remains largely at the level of anecdotes and case studies. The biases against it are deep-seated, so policy-makers are still chasing after new technological miracles to feed the world, whereas the essential elements for both sustainability and productivity already exist and need to be rediscovered: the indigenous knowledge of farming communities and the diversity of Nature's resources.
Structural adjustment & the WTO
Globalisation is now the main determining economic factor in Third World agriculture, the main channels being the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank and IMF) and the WTO. The agriculture component of structural adjustment programmes usually included cutbacks in government expenditure on the agricultural and rural sector; privatisation of state marketing institutions; liberalisation towards private land ownership; liberalisation of agriculture imports; removal or reduction of agricultural subsidies; and the 'freeing' of food and other agricultural prices.
The liberalisation of agricultural imports has had an especially damaging effect on the Third World farm sector, and pressures increased after the establishment of the WTO and especially its AoA. Under the AoA, developing countries must remove non-tariff controls on agricultural products and convert these to tariffs, then reduce the tariffs by 24 per cent over 10 years. Cheaper imports are threatening the viability of small farms in many developing countries. Millions of small Third World farmers could be affected. There is also increased fear of greater food insecurity, as developing countries become less self-sufficient in food production. For many, food imports may not be an option due to shortage of foreign exchange. They have to depend on food aid.
A 2000-2001 FAO report on 14 developing countries' experiences in implementing the AoA showed that import liberalization had a significant effect. The average annual value of food imports in 1995-98 exceeded the 1990-94 level in all 14 countries, ranging from 30 per cent in Senegal to 168 per cent in India. The food import cost more than doubled for two countries (India and Brazil) and increased by 50-100 per cent for another five (Bangladesh, Morocco Pakistan, Peru and Thailand). In all but two countries, food import growth exceeded export growth. Some countries were obliged to set applied rates well below their WTO bound rates due to loan conditionality. Several countries reported import surges in particular products, notably dairy products (mainly milk powder) and meat. In some regions, especially the Caribbean, import-competing industries faced considerable difficulties.
In Guyana, there were import surges for many main foodstuffs that had been produced domestically in the 1980s under a protective regime. In several instances the surge in imports has undermined domestic production. For example, fruit juices imported as far away as France and Thailand have now displaced much of domestic production. Producers and traders of beans indicated that increasing imports have led to a decline in the production of minca peas, developed and spread throughout Guyana in the 1980s. The same applied to local cabbage and carrot. The fear was expressed that without adequate market protection, accompanied by development programmes, many more domestic products would be displaced or undermined sharply, leading to a transformation of domestic diets and to increased dependence on imported foods.
In Sri Lanka, policy reforms and associated increases in food imports have put pressure on some domestic sectors, affecting rural employment. There is clear evidence of an unfavourable impact of imports on domestic output of vegetables, notably onions and potatoes. The resulting decline in the cultivated area of these crops has affected approximately 300 000 persons involved in their production and marketing.
The rich countries have been notorious for their high protection and subsidy for their own farm sector. The AoA has allowed them to continue high protection through tariffs (some are 100 to 300 per cent) as well as continued export and domestic subsidy. Indeed, the OECD countries' total domestic farm subsidies rose from US$275 billion (annual average for 1986-88) to US$326 billion as an increase in 'non trade distorting subsidy' (allowed under WTO) more than offset 'trade distorting subsidy' (which has to be reduced under WTO rules). Thus, highly subsidised and artificially cheap food from rich countries are entering the poorer countries that have no funds for subsidies and are being pressured to further cut their tariffs.
Meanwhile, the WTO's Trade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement also poses a threat to farmers (not only in the South) as governments are required to patent some lifeforms, giving intellectual rights protection to plant varieties. This facilitates 'biopiracy' (appropriation of farmers' knowledge by companies) and is leading to a situation where farmers have to prove they did not 'steal' the seeds of protected plant varieties owned by companies.
What should be done?
(a) Structural adjustment conditions must be changed, so that countries can adopt pro-poor and pro-local farmers' policies. The IMF, World Bank and donor countries should stop putting pressure on developing countries to liberalise their agricultural imports, or to give up subsidies or marketing assistance to farmers.
(b) The AoA must be radically changed. Developing countries should, under special and differential treatment, be allowed to take tariff and non-tariff measures to protect the viability and livelihoods of their small farms. They should be exempt from the disciplines of import liberalisation and subsidy for food products for domestic consumption. Developed countries should not continue to artificially cheapen their products by subsidy for export.
(c) The TRIPS Agreement should be amended to prohibit the patenting of lifeforms and to enable developing countries to set up their own version of a sui generis system to protect the rights of farmers and indigenous communities as the innovators of plant varieties, without being challenged.
(d) Developing countries should be allowed the flexibility to establish their own agriculture policies, with the priority of being able to have farmers produce food without being hampered by inappropriate and damaging rules of the IMF, World Bank or WTO.
Access to land & other social issues
Farmers and the rural population in developing countries also face serious social problems. First among these is insecurity of land tenure, and lack of access to land. Many farmers are tenants, beholden to landlords, to whom they pay rent that can significantly reduce the family income. In many countries, unequal land distribution, and the exploitation of landless peasants, is the major cause of rural poverty and insecurity. Sustainable agriculture and rural development requires a new commitment by governments and international agencies to improve the land access and land rights situation of farmers and indigenous communities. These communities are also affected by development projects, such as dam, forestry and mining projects, which displace them.
Thus the issue of the human rights of these disadvantaged groups is crucial in the striving for sustainable agriculture.
The agricultural sector has multiple roles in developing countries: to help ensure food security, anchor rural development, provide resources for the livelihood and adequate incomes of a majority of people, all without destroying the environmental base. There are thus two inextricably linked components, the social and environmental, to agricultural sustainability.
The erosion of the spirit and practice of international cooperation, especially on a North-South basis, is having serious repercussions on agriculture and on rural development in developing countries. This erosion is most noticeable in the decline in aid. However, the globalisation process facilitated by structural adjustment, the Uruguay Round and the WTO, has even more serious implications.
It is thus imperative that a change of mindset takes place, to review the present damaging framework and build a new paradigm of policies that can promote sustainable agriculture.
Whether such a paradigm shift takes place in agriculture is the acid test of the success or failure of sustainable development in the years ahead.
This article is an edited version of Third World Network
Briefing Paper No. 5, June 2003.
This article can be found on the I-SIS website here
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London
telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20
General Enquiries firstname.lastname@example.org Website/Mailing List
email@example.com ISIS Director firstname.lastname@example.org
MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT
PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY
AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
See also related:
CANADA: Monsanto Victory Plants Seed of Privatisation - By Stephen Leahy
Canadian farmers' traditional right to save seeds is being threatened by proposals to collect royalties on virtually all such seeds following agribusiness giant Monsanto's victory over grower Percy Schmeiser.
REFORMING GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES TO BENEFIT SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE JULY: OCA has begun mobilizing its forces to reform the forthcoming 2007-2012 Farm Bill. Currently, 80% of the U.S. Taxpayers' $20 billion annual agriculture subsidies go to large corporate and factory farms. OCA is gathering support from citizens and policymakers on federal, state, and local levels to change the subsidy system to support family farms and transition to organic agriculture. As an example of how to do this, in
July, Woodbury County, Iowa, became the first county in the nation to offer tax incentives to organic farmers. County Supervisors approved up to $50,000 in tax credits for each farmer converting from conventional to organic agriculture.
One of the major problems with chemical agriculture seems to be that the supply of phosphate based minerals depletes all but a few minerals in the soil, and plants to thrive as well as foods to be healthy, need all of the minerals in a well balanced way. Ground up rock has been found to be a much cheaper and more complete fertilizer than the expensive chemical variety. Here is discussion from Australia:
Mineral Degradation of the Soils
This is the Australian 1998 version of the US senate document 1936 , makes for good reading!
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS: Soil Degradation
Date 26 March, 1998
Database House Hansard Speaker Cameron, Eoin, MP (Stirling, LP, Government) Page 1762
Mr EOIN CAMERON (Stirling)(9.50 a.m.)
-A serious situation has been brought to my attention that should be of concern to all of us: a situation that affects every man, woman and child in this country, irrespective of age. I refer to the mineral degradation of the soils from which our food is derived. A United States Senate report in 1936 said that the alarming fact is that the foods (fruits, vegetables and grains) now being raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contain enough of certain minerals are starving us, no matter how much of them we eat.' From preliminary investigations, it has become evident that our soils are equally as deficient in trace minerals as the soils in the United States are-if not more so-not only from the plants' point of view, but also from the human body's point of view.
There is little, if any, consideration given to the mineral content of our foods. The only consideration to date has been to maximising the yields of any given crop. So, if the crop requires more trace minerals to grow well, it is given them; but, if we humans require trace minerals to be healthy but the plant does not need them, our requirements are totally ignored. What is more, it is not commonly realised that vitamins control the body's use of minerals and that, in the absence of minerals, vitamins have no function to perform at all. Lacking vitamins, the system can make some use of minerals; but, lacking minerals, vitamins are completely useless.
This is vital to the health of our nation. Without the proper mineral balance in our bodies, we cannot function properly and we start degenerating in a progressively downward spiral-slowly at first, but then faster and faster until the degeneration gets to a point where we, as individuals, can no longer ignore the devastating symptoms that, more often than not, end up killing us. That is the way it happens to most of us. And the sad part is that we think it is natural, just a part of getting old. It is not natural and it is not part of getting old. Back in 1936, the warning was loud and clear that, if we do not get all the minerals we need to stay healthy, we will get sick, suffer and have shorter lives. Dr Linus Pauling, twice a Nobel prize winner, stated that you can trace every sickness, every disease and every ailment to mineral deficiency.
What we have been doing for the past 50 years or so is taking 60 minerals out of the soil and only replacing three: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. If you ran your bank account like that, with $60 out and $3 in, what would happen? You would end up bankrupt. Although this is a very serious and complex situation, there are some simple, commonsense answers. For example, some very positive research has been conducted over several years in North Queensland and elsewhere, where the adding of mineral rock dust containing up to 70 mineral elements to various soils not only increased the tonnage of the crops there but also reduced the acidity of the soil, while replenishing the depleted minerals at the same time. According to our preliminary research, this Queensland quarry has an estimated reserve of around 20 million tonnes, while another 23 reserves have already been identified. There is simple evidence to support what I am saying, for all of those who would like to check it out.
Update January 2005:
Monsanto has been caught bribing an official in Indonesia to block environmental impact studies of the planting of their GM cotton seeds and they are continuing to sue U.S. farmers over patent violations.
Based on a book by Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, the ISIS Institute warns that water is running low and that grain production has already dropped. The solution: sustainable agriculture. See "The Food Bubble Economy".
The Independent: Rock dust grows extra-big vegetables (and might save us from global warming)
By Paul Kelbie, Scotland Correspondent - 21 March 2005
For years scientists have been warning of an apocalyptic future facing the world. With the prospect of an earth made infertile from over-production and mass reliance on chemicals, coupled with an atmosphere polluted by greenhouse gases there seems little to celebrate. But belief is growing that an answer to some of the earth's problems are not only at hand, but under our feet. Specialists have just met in Perth to discuss the secrets of rock dust, a quarrying by-product that is at the heart of government-sponsored scientific trials and which, it is claimed, could revitalise barren soil and reverse climate change. The recognition of the healing powers of rock dust comes after a 20-year campaign by two former schoolteachers, Cameron and Moira Thomson. They have been battling to prove that rock dust can replace the minerals that have been lost to the earth over the past 10,000 years and, as a result, rejuvenate the land and halt climate change. To prove their point, the couple have converted six acres of open, infertile land in the Grampian foothills near Pitlochry into a modern Eden. Using little more than rock dust mixed with compost, they have created rich, deep soils capable of producing cabbages the size of footballs, onions bigger than coconuts and gooseberries as big as plums...
Organic Farms Produce Same Yields as Conventional Farms
Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.
Studies Show How and Why Organic Farming Must Become the Norm
The July issue of the journal Bioscience reviewed a 22-year-long field study by the Rodale Institute which compared organic and conventional farming on similar plots of land with similar crops. The study found that in the initial five years of the study, the conventional crops (i.e. crops grown with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers) had slightly better yields than the organic crops. But during that same initial period, the organic farming practices were building up higher levels of soil mass and biodiversity which then allowed the organic land to generate yields equal to or greater than the conventional crops. The conventional crops collapsed during drought years, while the organic crops fluctuated only slightly, due to greater water holding potential in the organic enriched soil. The conventional crop also had pesticides leaching into the water at levels exceeding the EPA's safety limits. Over the 22 year period, the organic crops used 30% less fossil energy inputs than the conventional crops.
How to Beat Climate Change & Post Fossil Fuel Economy
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho tables a proposal around a zero-emission, zero-waste farm after a highly successful workshop with living legend George Chan, who created dozens such farms to eradicate poverty in third world countries. "Dream Farm is exactly what we need to feed the world, mitigate climate change and let everyone thrive in good health and wealth in a post-fossil fuel economy".
Food & Water Watch . Org
We are very excited to announce the release of the Meatrix 2: Revolting! This spoof of the Matrix movies details the horrors of dairy factory farms, through the adventures of Leo the pig and Moopheus the cow. Entertaining, adventurous, and informative, this short animated film by our partner organization Sustainable Table is worth watching. Check out http://www.themeatrix2.com
For those who have not seen the original cartoon - The Meatrix - it can be found here:
Study: Organic Farming Can Feed the World
Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming in developing countries, and holds its own against standard methods in rich countries, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday. They said their findings contradict arguments that organic farming -- which excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides -- is not as efficient as conventional techniques.
Organic Cuba without Fossil Fuels
According to Cuba’s Minsitry of Agriculture, some 150 000 acres of land is being cultivated in urban and suburban settings, in thousands of community farms, ranging from modest courtyards to production sites that fill entire city blocks. Organoponicos, as they are called, show how a combination of grassroots effort and official support can result in sweeping change, and how neighbours can come together and feed themselves. When the food crisis hit, the organoponicos were an ad hoc response by local communities to increase the amount of available food.
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday October 9 2004
updated on Monday November 29 2010
URL of this article:
Community Supported Agriculture
We are facing increasing toxicity in the environment and our food supply is not exempt. PCB in salmon, lead and mercury in seafood, pesticide residues in grains (don't worry), rocket fuel in salad, genetically modified growth hormone in cow's milk, chemical treatment for seeds that kills the bees and fast food masquerading as "nutritious". The problems seem to be immanent in our system, in the "chemical" way we chose to... [read more]
February 06, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Independent Science Panel on GM
Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London on 10 May 2003. The conference coincided with the publication of a... [read more]
June 08, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
London Slow Food Festival
The slow food is intimately related to the organic food movement - Thought I should alert all London Ontario Canada readers about this upcoming festival. Any one interested in nutritional matters should take every opportunity to support these types of activities. Supporting of the local and regional producers of fruits and vegetables, meats, wines, beer and other beverages is the best way to ensure freshness and influence the movement to... [read more]
October 04, 2004 - Chris Gupta
Are superweeds going to kill Monsanto?
After the Killer Tomatoes, now come Superweeds. As a matter of fact, it appears that pollen from genetically modified plants are spreading to the "poor cousins" of the plants being modified, the lowly weeds which were at the origin of all modern agriculture and which have been transformed into productive plants by patient selection and cross-breeding over thousands of years. In a recent article in The Independent, we learn that,... [read more]
June 23, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
Free Trade Agenda hits major snag in Cancun
The devoloping countries have formed a block of opposition to the free trade agenda espoused by the major industrial nations including the US and the EU. As reported in the Manila Times, Trade Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II, in a statement today, said the failure of the ministerial meeting in Cancun is a victory for the developing nations. Roxas says "the talks actually underscored the fact that WTO meetings can... [read more]
September 15, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
Millions of bees dead - Bayer's Gaucho blamed
Synthetic honey and GMO bees - Part II A French governmental report confirms suspicions of a mass poisoning of bees involving hundreds of thousands of colonies of honey bees. According to the report of the French Scientific and Technical Committee, Bayer's seed treatment GAUCHO pesticide is to blame - at least in part. Earlier this year, I published an article by French journalist Michel Dogna, who had investigated the ecological... [read more]
November 26, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger